The Band’s Tears of Rage (good song)
Very much so, I love The Band...speaking of which, I saw Dylan referenced in the last chapter. I can really see him embracing evangelical Christianity even harder, though the difused situation in the Middle East might contribute to a less apoloyptic vision in his songs and sermons from that period in 1979-1983ish.
 
I don’t have anything to add that hasn’t already been said, but I am interested to see where you take the liberal movement in this timeline. I’ve always loved Teds speech so it pains me a bit to see it butterflied, but I understand why. I do hope that a liberal does get a shining moment like that again ITTL.

Also reading about Kemp is almost painful in the most perfect way. Keep up the amazing work.
 
Fantastic chapter! Clearly the amount of effort you put in was worth it. Nice to see the hostage Crisis get resolved differently. Jack Kemp really did dig his hole didn't he? I kind of hope George Bush gets the GOP nomination personally.
Carter's speech was quite a good read I thought. The additional information you gave was also great to read.
Reading about how difficult the seventies were for the LGBT community is quite shocking but a reminder of how things were during the 70s.
Great work! Top notch writing 👍👏
 
Amazing update!
The audible “Oh no!” I, a gay man born in 1998, let out at the start of the Kemp debacle was capped off by the gasp I let out at the Seals interview.

Great writing.
Right? Like, yes it's great to see the Reagan campaign implode, but at the same time, it sucks to read about how it happens, with public opinion against queerness being what it was back then.
 
Right? Like, yes it's great to see the Reagan campaign implode, but at the same time, it sucks to read about how it happens, with public opinion against queerness being what it was back then.
Kinda similar to how the SPD in the early 1930s tried to get Rohm convicted under Paragraph 175 (even though they were normally in favor of repealing it) after they found out that he was gay (and also falsely claimed that the Nazi Party was dominated by homosexuals).
 
I'm trying to work out if there is an OTL counterpart to this....self immolation of the hopes and dreams of the Republican party.
Although there's no single iconic moment of the 1992 election, Clinton absolutely eviscerating Bush on supply side economics
is as good of a starting point as any for the GOP abandoning prosperity as a main message and switching to rage.

Also, although it doesn't count as erasing the hopes and dreams of the Republican party, John McCain going on SNL was basically him admitting that he couldn't win, which is absolutely crazy to think of today.
 
Although there's no single iconic moment of the 1992 election, Clinton absolutely eviscerating Bush on supply side economics
is as good of a starting point as any for the GOP abandoning prosperity as a main message and switching to rage.

Also, although it doesn't count as erasing the hopes and dreams of the Republican party, John McCain going on SNL was basically him admitting that he couldn't win, which is absolutely crazy to think of today.
Slick Willy on the sax with a pair of sunglasses on surely classifies as iconic?
 
Slick Willy on the sax with a pair of sunglasses on surely classifies as iconic?
You know, I suppose that you could argue it does, but IMO the 1992 election really has no extreme standout moments. In a macro view, you can tell the story of the 1992 election without Clinton playing the saxophone (as my American history textbook did when I was in high school). Can you tell the story of 1988 without "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy," or 1964 without the daisy ad?
 

Vidal

Donor
You know, I suppose that you could argue it does, but IMO the 1992 election really has no extreme standout moments. In a macro view, you can tell the story of the 1992 election without Clinton playing the saxophone (as my American history textbook did when I was in high school). Can you tell the story of 1988 without "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy," or 1964 without the daisy ad?

I don't think you can tell the story of the 92 election without Hillary's Tammy Wynette interview or Bush checking his watch/fumbling with the grocery store counter
 
Something that occurred to me- without the Reagan revolution, could we see an earlier rise of Gingrich? Part of me is sceptical, as his ascent was aided by the expansion of cable news and the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, but I am wondering what others think of his potential career trajectory in this TL?
 
Something that occurred to me- without the Reagan revolution, could we see an earlier rise of Gingrich? Part of me is sceptical, as his ascent was aided by the expansion of cable news and the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, but I am wondering what others think of his potential career trajectory in this TL?
I freely admit that I am not nearly as knowledgeable on these kinds of matters as others. However, it is an interesting question and I would like to offer my own thoughts here.

At the present time, I imagine that Gingrich's brand of conservatism is too close to the Ronald Reagan offering to be particularly appealing to House Leadership. Reagan's been implicated in a relationship with a young man, as has his vice-president, possibly at the same time. There are men on the staff of Reagan's campaign that have been aggressive and forward towards the same sex, the kind of thing that most conservatives and the Moral Majority in particular adore to pin upon the innate sin of being gay. That is powerfully damaging stuff, it would take a considerable amount of reorganization to get someone without the 'Reagan stink' in charge of that particular group and an even further amount of hard work to get anyone to accept it. The Moral Majority isn't dead and it won't be by the time of the campaign but it's not going to be a massive powerhouse as it was in OTL and scepticism is going to be aimed a lot more at these types of candidates.

In addition, something I've learned is that people focus upon Gingrich the politician more than Gingrich the person because that is how the modern conservative myth has worked hard to present it. They're wise to do so, because Gingrich the person has had a fucking messy life, to be very kind to him. He's on the downward swing of his first marriage, in a few months he'll be on his second doomed relationship which will end as a result of an affair he had while his second wife was in intense pain. And forget the divorces for a second (Even though that seems something of a no-no to the conservative brand at the present time), the stuff he is supposed to have said about his first wife is REALLY nasty! He didn't provide what their divorce settlement agreed until 1993, supposedly as a result of his financial woes, which is dubious to me! And even the woes he did have had to be handled by his second wife rather than he. He bailed on his family, even the judge said so when he ordered Gingrich to pay up! I'm no bible thumper, but if I were that does not sound to me like someone worthy of bearing my flag or spreading the message. I don't think someone that politically messy could survive the increased scrutiny, particularly in the decade to be.

Take that hypocrisy then, and put it under the magnifying glass fashioned from Reagan/Kemp '80. Take away the fawning interviews or the Conservative hype machine, and even if he manages to stick in office I very much doubt he gets to become the icon that he is. I know nothing about Jacob-Rhodes or Michel or Hastert (Except for the sex abuse stuff in that case) but I know who Gingrich is. And all of that is the result of the rise of the conservative machine, and the conservative machine reaches the beginning of it's success as a result of Reagan winning. Without that, do the televangelist scandals cause more chaos amongst the Religious Right? Carter's speech might have freaked out some of the Southerners in Congress but would they be willing to cross the line to a party that is at present rife with scandal and blatant hypocrisy? Unless of course he rebrands himself significantly, which is not out of the question but it would be a hard sell.

Tl:dr, If his is a rising star, then it's going to burn out and fast. At least, in my humble opinion. If I get proved wrong, then I'm happy to admit it, it'll be a hell of a story.
 
Top