Liberal 1970’s v Democratic 1980’s

Which is “better”?

  • Scenario One

    Votes: 9 45.0%
  • Scenario Two

    Votes: 11 55.0%

  • Total voters
    20
When thinking about recent US history, which of these two scenarios would have laid the foundation for a “better” country (other than assuming a generally “liberal” and/or left perspective, take this however you want to define it) in the 1990’s, aughts, and present day?

One - the Democrats enact a very liberal agenda in the 1970’s (see TL by @Yes to get some idea of what I’m talking about); however, this provokes a right wing (though not necessarily Reaganite) backlash, which manages to put a Republican in the White House in the 1980’s

Two - Ford wins the 1976 election (just the EC), and a “New” Democrat is elected in 1980; said administration is notably more *centrist* than our Scenario One president, (while, of course, still being very much more liberal/left of OTL’s Reagan); a Republican President is elected 1992, but their administration is less effective qua a backlash (similar to Clinton a la Reagan OTL)

I know these two scenarios are fairly light on details, but I’d like to see what we can infer what we can from the rough edges and go on that. Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
My ideal would be Ford wins in 1976 after Carter gets blocked by the ABC at a contested convention. Come 1980 Carter comes back, wins the nomination, and is President with either Lloyd Bentsen, Bill Proxmire, or Jerry Brown as his VP. Proxmire is probably a better pick, given the regional balance.

That, or Jerry Brown wins in 1980 and opts to make Jimmy Carter, Lloyd Bentsen, or Bill Proxmire his VP.

The 1980s proceeds to involve a focus on deficits (rather than tax cuts), deregulation, tighter management of the money supply, environmentalism, modest social progressivism, and good government.
 
Have Scoop Jackson win in 1976. He doesn't screwup dealing with the Iranian situation, and gets the Embassy staff released before the Election, and wins that in a squeaker.

Under his two terms, the economy didn't get as bad in the late 70s, but also didn't improve as much as OTL under Reagan.

History of that TL points to the 'malaise' over by 1979, but isn't called that, since Jackson was more upbeat in his speeches and policy goals,overall not that more effective than Carter's term, however.

Cold War isn't much changed, except Jackson get credit for the Defense buildup that Carter started, but RR took credit for. Things are starting to crack for the USSR in 1984- the end is near, but neither side sees it coming, as OTL.
 
Have Scoop Jackson win in 1976. He doesn't screwup dealing with the Iranian situation, and gets the Embassy staff released before the Election, and wins that in a squeaker.

Under his two terms, the economy didn't get as bad in the late 70s, but also didn't improve as much as OTL under Reagan.

History of that TL points to the 'malaise' over by 1979, but isn't called that, since Jackson was more upbeat in his speeches and policy goals,overall not that more effective than Carter's term, however.

Cold War isn't much changed, except Jackson get credit for the Defense buildup that Carter started, but RR took credit for. Things are starting to crack for the USSR in 1984- the end is near, but neither side sees it coming, as OTL.

I think the big question is, what happens with regards to regulation and monetary policy?

By the 70s, even ardent liberals like Teddy Kennedy were supporting deregulation of airlines. Airlines, trucking, telecommunications, finance, etc are going to be bipartisan issues.

40 years of fairly loose monetary policy also started to add up. Would Jackson appoint Volcker?
 
I think the big question is, what happens with regards to regulation and monetary policy?

By the 70s, even ardent liberals like Teddy Kennedy were supporting deregulation of airlines. Airlines, trucking, telecommunications, finance, etc are going to be bipartisan issues.

40 years of fairly loose monetary policy also started to add up. Would Jackson appoint Volcker?

Deregulation would still be ongoing, but Jackson was a later convert to the idea than Carter.

I'm guessing not, since Jackson wouldn't have asked his entire Cabinet to resign, and wouldn't have had Blumenthal there at the Fed anyway.

Have no Idea who he would have picked, but odds are, would have been more successful
 
My thoughts - it’s fundamentally a trade off between broad economic reform directed at strengthening the middle class, and the guarding of civil liberties and the climate on the other.

@Yes gives us, I think, a very good overview of what a Liberal president (well ok, a specific president, but I think the general thrust works) could achieve in the early 1970's - things like tax code overhauling laying the groundwork for something resembling Basic Income or Citizen's Stipend (more so than OTL's EITC) and Healthcare Reform (naturally enough) being the main accomplishments; on top of other liberal legislation Nixon was able to get enacted OTL (the EPA, etc) and a general commitment to job creation, whipping inflation, etc, could pave the way for another generation with a strong middle class, possibly even avoiding things like rising working hours and collapsing union strength.

However, if the country still proves itself susceptible to a backlash from the Right, as it was OTL, then, even if these accomplishments for middle class families (or the "right sort" of ones, at the very least) managed to endure, then again as OTL, it would likely see things like - a renewed "war on crime" leading to greater incarceration (and targeting people to get treated differently by employers, welfare agencies, etc); complacency on oil reliance and dithering on the nation's reliance on fossil fuels, even as evidence of climate change being a crisis mounts; and hostility to the next generation of civil rights activists, including the gay rights movement. It's even within the realm of possibility that, in certain respects, TTL's 1980's Republicans could be further to the right of OTL - they may, for example, not be as "soft" on abortion, or embrace Immigration Reform as OTL's Reagan (eventually) did.

Now, by contrast, a TL where Conservative Republicans managed to cling to the White House in 1976, only to lose all three branches in (most of) the 1980's, would mean that all or most of these trends would be stopped, or at least curbed - a Democratic president in the 80's is unlikely to escalate police violence and imprisonment against a constituency they very much depend on; they're far more likely to take and carry through on decisive action against the nation's dependence on oil (controlling all three branches helps there); and they're not going to dither on the AIDS crisis as OTL's Reagan did, or try to posture against women's liberation.

However, TTL's Democratic Party has by now largely embraced the need for de-regulation, and is unlikely to commit to new grand social programs (like Nixon's FAP, or McGovern's proposed Demogrant). And even if they do manage to finally get some kind of Health Care Reform passed, not only will it be more "centrist" to what they'd push for in the 70's, it would be far more likely to continue with the employer based model of healthcare (as Nixon's proposal and Obamacare did OTL).

So it's a tradeoff. And all in all, I think the latter option is the better one.
 
Scenario 2, as the first one still has the high risk a Reaganite '80s and a Democrat in the 80s means you'll have a President that somewhat gives a damn about the effects neoliberalism has on working people and will thus invest in education, job training, and infrastructure unlike Reagan.
 
Scenario one, since it'd mean neoliberalism would be a nonstarter and the US political spectrum would remain shifted in a more populist direction.

Guesses as for what the two scenarios would look like:

Liberal 1970s: As far as economics goes expect some sort of expansion on healthcare, a basic income, likely partial reversal of taft-hartley. Social issues? Don't expect much more done on them than say Nixon OTL, but you'd have a mostly liberal supreme court by the time HHH's two terms and Jackson's one get done. The liberal SC gets porn recognized as free speech nationally(and not just de jure legal in CA), plus with that as precedent likely weakens FCC control of TV/radio content-- not touching fairness doctrine, just foul language/explicit content. Drug policy is likely treatment-focused, but no attempt to use stopping drugs as an end run against liberal judges' rulings against surveillance. No affirmative action without Nixon to use it as a wedge, though. Weaker regulations in general without mcgovernites or reaganites, so economy less burdened.

Democratic 1980s: It took Perot running+Bush campaigning unusually badly to get 12 instead of 16/20 years for the GOP so ignoring the 12 year thing. Still healthcare reform like in the 1970s one, but think more nixoncare/more insurer-focused models like the swiss/dutch. Likely clinton-style welfare cuts, but at least 1) it's done in an environment without free trade 2) it's done to get a UBI passed. Likely more socially liberal than the 70s scenario and more done on environment.
 
Top