Wonderful as always but I've got a "housekeeping" note:
Pretty sure you meant "blistering" as "blithering" does not convey the sense the set up is aiming for
Randy
Absolutely right. Fixing now! Thanks
Jimmy Two: America in Carter's Second Term
- Thread starter Vidal
- Start date
Absolutely right. Fixing now! Thanks
Honestly, I don’t really agree with this assessment. OTL Reagan had a lot to do with influencing the American people that “big government = bad” more than Carter. Honestly, will be interesting to see how Carter deals with the rest of the party as well as resolve the economic problems. Austerity measures won’t be making many happy or be too happy.
As for the Republicans, I can see folks like Charles Matthias, Arlen Specter and Olympus Snowe as being big names in the next oncoming decades or so for influence.
will still be interesting to see the direction of this. C:
I'm not sure how this contradicts my statement. I'm agreeing that Reagan had more to do with influencing the public than Carter did, and so my argument is really that the Democratic Party's still on course ITTL to evolve into the sort of DLC-type Party it became IOTL. It did so without Carter serving eight years, and I think that four more years of a Democratic president who comes from that wing of the Party (and leaves office with a better approval rating than he did IOTL) will do little to disrupt the Party's march to the center.
The minutiae of this will depend on which issues enter the public discourse, etc, but the birds eye view is that the Republicans are more affected by no Reagan presidency than the Democrats are by four more years of a Carter presidency.
The neoliberals took control of the party because they relied on being new and capitalizing on the distrust people had toward big government thanks to Reagan. And people were willing to believe him because they assumed his policies helped bring in the economy prosperity that it did (when that wasn’t really the case.) Cue the Dems thinking any major reform will scare the voters.
While this will give the centralists a thing on the spotlight, it all varies on how successful their attempts are, mainly in the situation right now. What is Carter’s plan to deal with the economy and would it actually work to stimulate it? Will Carter be able to work better with Congress?
A lot of these will decide more the future of the party. Since right now, it’s kinda eyes on them to try and bring the economy back to life. Even after Carter’s tenure, we’re not gonna see the large deregulations of OTL, nor the continued rise of Reaganism or anything like that, so the GOP will also move to the center and the leftist wing of the Democrats won’t be as weakened as OTL throughout the time period.
Distrust of government is deeper than Reagan's victory in 1980 and actually extends back further with liberal Democrats, likely due to Vietnam. In 1972, about 53% of Americans trusted the government to do what is right most of the time. That dropped to 36% under Ford. Since then, it only got above 50% once: in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. So Carter's 1976 message of restoring "good government" was very much a response to what was already happening on the ground and Reagan's brand of conservatism was also a response to these realities as it was a catalyst to what was to come.
I think we may view 1980 differently, which I'll touch on later.
This is all very true. But just because Carter's tight budgeting and austerity measures won't dramatically help the economy, doesn't mean voters will come to distrust them because there's not going to be any example of a liberal coming in and doing the opposite to help reboot the economy. If, by 1984, the economy is still dragging, American voters are going to blame the Democrats. If it isn't, voters are going to say Carter did something right and Mondale, who shifted to the center under Carter will only continue that slide.
Within the Party's debates in Washington, there may be some who blame Carter's ideology for the lagging economy (and let's be clear, they would be right). But they still have to sell that plan to the American people, and I think that's a hard thing to do.
Remember, even pre-Reagan, Republicans were not a Party that supported big government programs. They were always the Party that positioned themselves as responsible stewards of the budget. Pre-Reagan that meant keeping spending low to balance the budget. Post-Reagan it became less about actually trying to balance the budget and more about cutting taxes.
I don't totally agree that we won't see "the continued rise of Reaganism." The Conservatives were strengthening their grip on the Party since Taft's loss at the '52 Convention. They got their way with Goldwater, they were satisfied with Nixon, and they got their way again with Reagan. All of this is to say, just because Reagan loses in 1980 does not mean the Party can go back to being a Rockefeller party. Rockefeller could not win the GOP nomination in '60 or '64 and he was booted off the ticket in '76. It's too far gone. And yes, he had personal scandals that hurt him, but Rockefeller Republicans like Lowell Weicker are still too liberal to ever have a shot of representing the Republicans at the top of a national ticket.
Of course, the Party will not completely go in the direction of Reagan. His loss is absolutely a blow to the conservative message, but conservatives will still be the majority of the Party's electorate, and instead of looking to Reagan for how to build a winning national campaign, they will have to look for Nixon. (That should give you a hint about where I see the Party going ITTL).
But again, I think, ultimately, by 1980, it was too late for the New Deal Democrats to maintain an unambiguous hold on the Party. The Party may not resort all the way to Nineties Clintonism as it did IOTL, but it's hard to see a Party where Ted Kennedy only carried one state suddenly embracing his kind of message in future elections and being successful at the national level. As I said in the Introduction, if I wanted to build a liberal utopia, I'd have to go back further than 1979.
That's just the viewpoint I bring to this project.
Yeah, but the Dems could capitalize and increase the faith in government by doing that would help restore the faith over in the government for the American people.
I don't see it helping much the economy at all. Him getting Volcker and probably not decreasing the taxes on major companies will probably be the only things that he would do that would help. Maybe also a capital gains tax (I think that's what that is), that will get it. And yeah, I figured that. Both wanna balance the budget, but cutting stuff won't do it enough, you gotta actually increase the money government gains and that's by raising taxes on the uberrich and helping put faith back in the economy.
The Republicans could gain some points by the really pragmatic ones pushing for newer types of taxes on the new companies and dealing with the rise of the finance industry.
Yeah, they got their way with Nixon and looked how that turns out. Them relying on Nixon would be kind of a really desperate move, especially given the reputation that he would've gained and would mean relying more on the Southern strategy and boy New South governor turned president Carter could hammer them there. Reagan's loss isn't just because he's the face, but because there's no viable alternative. Bush Sr cares more about foreign policy and I don't really see anyone esle there that would have the charisma or so on to sell these ideas. That's kinda why them having Reagan win 1980 was pretty much luck on them. His age would likely make it very unlikely to win afterwards and they don't have anyone else to support it.
This pushes the ball back into the court of the Rockefellar Republicans, who would maintain some sort of influence. Hell, they'd have to look to Eisenhower for popularity and there's plenty of Rockefeller Republicans that would seem like President material, look at Arlen Specter as kind of an example. Heck, people like Weicker would likely stand a better shot and them becoming governors would let them build further clout and influence coinciding with the decline of the Nixonite/Reaganite wing.
This is your timeline ultimately and I hope you do well! I'm just giving some advice to try and help and have some things to consider. As someone raised in Georgia, I've always liked Carter, but yeah, he had his issues with dealing with Congress and kinda not the right idea with dealing with the economy.
I think it will be very interesting to see how the Republicans evolve. I would guess towards a sort of Bush Sr./Dole conservative position maintaining the balanced budgets portion of republicanism. Its too late to save the Rockefeller Republicans (as far as I'm concerned you need a POD in the '60s to save them) but they might avoid the complete marginalisation of OTL. The stance on social issues will be interesting as well.
The Democrats I would guess as being to the left of Clintonism but not by much, neoliberalism is a done deal by the end of the OTL Carter years. It depends how Carter's successor (who ITTL is a Republican IIRC) handles everything.
I've considered doing this POD myself in the past, enjoying your TL and interested to see where you take it.
The Democrats I would guess as being to the left of Clintonism but not by much, neoliberalism is a done deal by the end of the OTL Carter years. It depends how Carter's successor (who ITTL is a Republican IIRC) handles everything.
I've considered doing this POD myself in the past, enjoying your TL and interested to see where you take it.
Not going to belabor the point as I think we just have different views of how far long the Republican Party was in its march to the right by this point, but I'll just clarify that I don't mean the GOP embraces Nixon himself, just his path to winning.
So maintain the Southern Strategy then or modify it? Because oof, that's gonna lead to problems for them down the line. Especially if they won't be able to rack up any positives for them to keep going on like that.
Last edited:
The only major difference I see in this timeline than in ours is the south not going full red because I don't think the new right will takeover as much as it did in real life.
George HW Bush is probably going to be the archetype of where the republican party will go, conservative but won't rock the boat.
Without Volcker tanking the economy to stop inflation your going to see a longer recovery time. So inflation probably goes back to normal close to 88. I'm pretty sure Carter signed a full employment act, not sure if it ever got enacted but curious to see if it gets addressed. I think the 80s will be seen as a political stalemate where neither party makes a big splash or makes the American people gravitate towards them. Centrism will be the big winner, the American people will reject the unabashed conservatism displayed by Reagan but also the new deal ideology
George HW Bush is probably going to be the archetype of where the republican party will go, conservative but won't rock the boat.
Without Volcker tanking the economy to stop inflation your going to see a longer recovery time. So inflation probably goes back to normal close to 88. I'm pretty sure Carter signed a full employment act, not sure if it ever got enacted but curious to see if it gets addressed. I think the 80s will be seen as a political stalemate where neither party makes a big splash or makes the American people gravitate towards them. Centrism will be the big winner, the American people will reject the unabashed conservatism displayed by Reagan but also the new deal ideology
Last edited:
Although the timelines are very different, I'm finding the "Where do the Republicans go from here" to be a very insightful discussion, with some useful ideas for my timeline. I'll be watching the discussion as well as just enjoying the timeline.
Maybe, though Bush Sr’s thing was that he was more at home with foreign policy than domestic, which is what cost him in 1992.
And how was it Volcker’s fault exactly? From what I remember reading, Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts were what made things more troublesome and delayed the recovery until he started to raise taxes.
And I’m thinking the main thing is the American people will accept what they perceive as working. Reagan of OTL was embraced because they thought it was his peddling of supply side economics that helped with the recovery and sent the foundation for the problems of OTL.
I do expect the economy will be pretty recovered by near the end of Carter’s second term and he certainly won’t enact the sort of policies that Reagan or even Ford would do. That said, he’s gonna have to break out of his comfort zone and work with Congress to get stuff done, especially if the some factions perceive as kinda blowing opportunities that they could put on to help the American people.
While I do see the moderates dominating for a while, especially without a savings and loans crisis, there will still be the concern over what the future will have and if things like healthcare and so on go unaddressed, it will sow the seeds for populism down the line.
Last edited:
I agree with your general point here. But I would go a step further to say that the American public is more likely to react to negatively to what they perceive as not working, and rather than differentiating between Carter and a more liberal Democrat (ie, Oh, well Mondale/Hart/Glenn/Whoever is a more liberal New Deal Democrat than Jimmy so I'll give *him* the chance), I think it's more likely that they hold the Party accountable for the state of the economy in '84 if it is still dragging (ie, The Democrats haven't fixed this mess, let's give the Republican a turn)
There will, of course, be lessons learned from the first Carter term. Jack Watson, who was COS for the final few months and is likely to stay on longer in a second term, is a clear example that Jimmy was starting to adjust. That said, Jimmy's view that 1) inflation was the largest threat to the economy and 2) increased government spending will drive up inflation and therefore hurt the economy is unshakeable. It was a consistent worldview throughout his term in the White House, and even his later writings and comments about this issue seem focused on the fact that Reagan ballooned the deficit whereas he would've done everything in his power to balance the budget. That's just how Carter saw the economy. I'm not saying it's right, or that it'll produce "good" results, but I'm less interested in a Carter wank than I am in an interesting and thoughtful story about what the second term would have looked like. That means treating Carter as the complex, stubborn, and sometimes mistaken President that he was.
Well, that all depends on who the GOP have and when it comes to the economy, they don’t have many options or charismatic draws in for 1984. So there’s a chance Walter Mondale can finally have a go. Fritz for Prez!
Fair, but Carter will then be butting heads a lot over with Congress on this. That said, I do think he could work with the leftist wing with taxes aimed at capital gains and the growing financial sector since one way to balance the budget is to being in more money instead of just cutting taxes and I figure he would understand that.
I do appreciate the realism, and am wondering how Carter will be perceived afterwards and that effects this would have abroad and in pop culture.
Deleted member 145219
I'll be curious to see what role, if any that Jack Kemp plays. I think he's someone who would have had a bigger political career, if it weren't for the Reagan Presidency. I'm thinking he could articulate a kinder, gentler, version of Reaganite Conservatism that can win. With someone like Bob Dole or George Bush as his running mate. By 1968, the base of the GOP had largely moved towards a more conservative outlook on policy issues. It was institutional/ forces and politicians who kept that in check until 1974. Nixon had an adept ability to harness the energy of the New Right while keeping it in check. The stagflation of the 1970s, which was regarded as impossible at one time, brought the idea of Supply Side Economics into the mainstream of the GOP.
On the Dem side, I think the events of 1967/1968 really opened a large vacuum inside the party that the party could not effectively heal. The 1976 election and subsequent term was an opportunity for the party to articulate a new way forward. Hopefully Carter can do this and get Labor, the New Left, and the South to form a coherent coalition. The origins of the New Left have some similarities to that of the New Right. As strange as that sounds. Members of the New Left, growing up in a time of economic prosperity, only to see that come undone through Stagflation, turned against Labor and Regulation. The Vietnam War lead to a lot of skepticism towards government oriented solutions. And Watergate only confirmed what a lot of them believed about America's Institutions. Of course, after the election of the Watergate Babies of 1974, the New Left and the Old Left, especially Southern Conservative Democrats came into conflict. The results of this conflict planted the seeds for 1994, as the Watergate Babies pushed a lot of unpopular issues onto the floor and challenged the Southern Democrats to vote on these proposals.
Might ad more later.
On the Dem side, I think the events of 1967/1968 really opened a large vacuum inside the party that the party could not effectively heal. The 1976 election and subsequent term was an opportunity for the party to articulate a new way forward. Hopefully Carter can do this and get Labor, the New Left, and the South to form a coherent coalition. The origins of the New Left have some similarities to that of the New Right. As strange as that sounds. Members of the New Left, growing up in a time of economic prosperity, only to see that come undone through Stagflation, turned against Labor and Regulation. The Vietnam War lead to a lot of skepticism towards government oriented solutions. And Watergate only confirmed what a lot of them believed about America's Institutions. Of course, after the election of the Watergate Babies of 1974, the New Left and the Old Left, especially Southern Conservative Democrats came into conflict. The results of this conflict planted the seeds for 1994, as the Watergate Babies pushed a lot of unpopular issues onto the floor and challenged the Southern Democrats to vote on these proposals.
Might ad more later.
Volcker tanked the economy in 80 to curb inflation by jacking up the interest rates to a very high level which spilled into 81-82. Reagan’s tax cuts made it worse but even without them things still wouldn't be very good anyway.
without the Volcker Shock the speed at which inflation went down by 1984 won’t happen. the fed is going to raise interest rates at a modest rate which will mean that inflation will take longer to fully go away and unemployment will also steadily increase unless the full employment act that Carter signed actually works to the title of the bill.
If I had to guess by 84 inflation will be at about 7.5% and unemployment will be at 10%
I think this is where republicans lean towards, gentle conservatism is a good way to describe it. I think the party would resemble a Marco Rubio type conservatism. It will be a much more buttoned up version of conservatism that won’t exactly capture the hearts of rural america
I doubt Carter will be able to do it, I don't see the labor/new deal wing swallowing their pride nor do I see Carter being willing to make significant concessions.
Assuming there's a republican administration from 1984-92 and the mini recession that happened in real 92 happens in this timeline I could see the divides being fixed with the election of John Glenn having a Obama-esque presidency from 1992-1998. There will be a much more crowded field for president in 1992 in this timeline then there was IRL which I think butterflies away a Clinton presidency.
Last edited:
I doubt the 1992 Recession would be as bad, given we probably won't have a savings and loans crisis. Meanwhile, I'm wondering which Republican could actually try and do it. HW Bush may, but his weak spot is domestic policy. Quayle maybe could beat Fritz, but eh... pretty unsure there unless he moderates himself.
Sorry if taking up too much time here ^^;
We have been so wonderfuly blessed to have such a first-rate personality and analytical mind likes yours in this community. As I'm struggling to recover from COVID Omicron (even two vaccines and a booster make this hard to kick), I'm so glad @Unknown tagged me in the comments of this absolute tops story by @Vidal. Good things to read help the mind, and probably the soul, and I appreciate it all.
There was another book, which I'm unable to recall, that highlighted Jimmy's presidential personality. It included scenes from a campaign meeting during the primary against Teddy, and it was the WH senior staff, senior campaign aides, Jimmy and Rosalynn. When the meeting ended, one of the campaign folks said, and this is the part that stuck with me, "SHE'S the one who ought to be President. She understands the policy and she's got more charisma and people skills than he'll ever have. He's nothing without Rosalynn." It said a lot about how Jimmy was at that time.
Also, I came across this in trying to refresh my memory of the book I noted above. July 16, 1979. Ham Jordan writes a memo to Carter in which he opens by saying he was wrong for ignoring Caddell's pre-speech memo that opens your story.
It's a rather stunning admission from a guy who was in too many ways the mirror image of Jimmy in his intelligence, stubbornness, and belief in his correctness.
I eagerly look forward to more from this story.