Liberal Democrat Reagan in 1980

[Just a Rube]

He is really, REALLY uncharismatic. Like, the opposite of charismatic. He's got anti-charisma.

Careful, you'll get your taxes audited and your medical records mysteriously leaked.

But yeah, a liberal Reagan is just another liberal Hollywood actor, and essentially ruled out as a major candidate. Further California was still a Republican stronghold (fun fact: since WWII, Gray Davis is the only Democrat not named Brown to have been governor of California, and he was famously recalled), so Reagan likely never gets a major political office to build his resume up to be a semi-credible candidate.

 

[Bmao]

I think a Democratic Ronald Reagan's best chance for success would be in 1976, where he would be able to win the primaries for much of the same reasons that Carter won in OTL; he was considered a Washington outsider who was considered untainted by the scandals of the Nixon Presidency and seen as somebody who could restore a sense of optimism for the US.

There is also the possibility that his advancement of his political career as a democrat may be blocked because of Pat Brown, but then again, it could be fun to see a Reagan vs Nixon Governorship campaign of 1962, and an entire Reagan vs Nixon political dichotomy developing where they become dire political enemies.

 

[racefan31]

But in an unexpected, roundabout kind of way Nixon made being a nerd cool.

I agree.

 

[Expat]

I think a Democratic Ronald Reagan's best chance for success would be in 1976, where he would be able to win the primaries for much of the same reasons that Carter won in OTL; he was considered a Washington outsider who was considered untainted by the scandals of the Nixon Presidency and seen as somebody who could restore a sense of optimism for the US.

There is also the possibility that his advancement of his political career as a democrat may be blocked because of Pat Brown, but then again, it could be fun to see a Reagan vs Nixon Governorship campaign of 1962, and an entire Reagan vs Nixon political dichotomy developing where they become dire political enemies.

California politics is so crowded!

Could you make Brown the governor after Warren leaves, moving up his tenure?

 

[GeographyDude]

Ronnie had the ability to dive into a field and take you along as a co-adventurer. And that's a trait of an artist.

And he was very matter-of-fact about it. I mean, distilling down a subject is a talent and is very different from oversimplifying.

 

[Kalvan]

Ronald Reagan moves to Japan in the wake of WWII and becomes a political carpetbagger. Heck, he can do this even if he marries Nancy!

 

[Expat]

Has anyone discussed whether or not this would have an effect on healthcare in the US? I mean he was just a paid spokesman for the AMA, but does anyone think we get farther, earlier?

 

[Indigo]

I don't know how plausible 1980 is, but let's say Reagan gets elected as a Democratic Representative from California in 1952 (party endorses him for the open seat unlike in OTL). Six years later, Reagan defeats Goodwin Knight in the race for Senator (since Knight and Knowland switched places and kind of botched it, as OTL). Reagan may be a little low on accomplishments in the Senate, but he's friendly, charismatic, and keeps a reputation for somewhat mellowed liberalism.

Now comes the 1960 election. Vice President Nixon gets the Republican nomination, obviously. On the Democratic side, JFK falls just short of the necessary majority(rather than barely getting it as in OTL); his support begins to dwindle from ballot to ballot. In the end, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson has the most connections and the most wires to pull; he gets nominated after a series of ballots. And for Johnson's VP? Clearly he needs someone to pacify the Kennedy supporters. Reagan ticks all the boxes - Liberal? Yes. Youthful? Yes. Half Catholic? Especially yes. To top it off, Johnson knows Reagan from the Senate as an amiable guy who's pretty willing to follow the party line - perfect qualities for a VP.

Johnson/Reagan win by a hair; if 50'000 votes in N.Y. had gone the other way it would have been Nixon/Dirksen in the White House. But as it is, Johnson gets the opportunity to implement his social programs...

Until 1963 that is, when Byron De La Beckwith (LHO is not a fixed point, guys) assassinates him at a campaign stop in New Orleans. A shaken Vice Presidnet Reagan is quickly sworn in, and his brief speech captures the national mood of mourning in America. Reagan promises to continue LBJ's programs in the 1964 election, saying "It is a time for choosing - backwards to Senator Goldwater's faded nostrums, or forward, to man's age-old dream of the Great Society?"

Reagan wins in a landslide.

 

[clintonforever]

Bill Clinton never becomes President? If you're sticking with Democrat Reagan winning in 1980.....

So long Hillary.....

 

[stevecharb]

Wouldn't a liberal Republican Reagan make more sense? After all, the left wing of that party wasn't killed off until OTL Reagan himself did so.

POD: Nancy's mother never remarries; Loyal Davis never influences Nancy into becoming a conservative; Nancy never influences the Gipper into becoming quite so conservative. He still loves tax cuts, but retains some belief in the potential effectiveness of governmental programs, if trimmed in scale. In 1964, Reagan delivers a famous speech endorsing Rockefeller and criticizing Goldwater's extremism during the nomination fight, which launches him into politics.
POD2: Barry Goldwater runs for the nomination again in 1968, and becomes involved in a tight race with Nixon. Nixon attacks Goldwater from the center, and eventually triumphs. His arguments shatter the growth of the conservative wing of the party, and Republicans turn more towards the center.
After the nomination fight, to remain consistent in the general, Nixon doesn't adopt the Southern Strategy. Instead, he takes a racially liberal stance akin to his own in 1960. Wallace wins the Carolinas, but it still doesn't change the outcome.

 

[GeographyDude]

And afterall, California has a large, active state government. Maybe if Reagan simply learned from his mistakes and excesses as governor. That is, maybe if he was a theory-and-practice-interplay sort of guy. And when it cones down to it, maybe only about one third of people are. But if he were.

And I'd prefer Nancy to remain the same. Maybe just if Ronnie finds it endearing and interesting that they had somewhat different political views, given how close the rest of their marriage is.

 

[Napoleon IV]

Since Reagan wouldn't be Governor of California if he was a liberal Democrat I doubt he would become President. Without that he is just some B-Movie actor with at best only experience in state politics. His positions also wouldn't stand out from the crowd. Most Democrats in the 1960s and 1970s were New Deal Democrats, but few Republicans were hard-right ultra-conservatives like OTL Reagan was. That was in part what inspired people to support Regan, particularly those who were inspired by Goldwater in 1964.

 

[woweed]

Since Reagan wouldn't be Governor of California if he was a liberal Democrat I doubt he would become President. Without that he is just some B-Movie actor with at best only experience in state politics. His positions also wouldn't stand out from the crowd. Most Democrats in the 1960s and 1970s were New Deal Democrats, but few Republicans were hard-right ultra-conservatives like OTL Reagan was. That was in part what inspired people to support Regan, particularly those who were inspired by Goldwater in 1964.

Maybe he's a hard Left ultra-Liberal.

 

[Napoleon IV]

Maybe he's a hard Left ultra-Liberal.

There's no evidence that Reagan was any more than a conventional New Deal Liberal.

 

[GeographyDude]

If Left-wing Reagan is as charismatic as OTL Reagan and as far Left as OTL Reagan was Right, we basically have FDR 2.0 on our hands.

And the first lesson of 1960s, 70s, and 80s U.S. politics is, don't underestimate Ronald Reagan.

I bet he could be elected Senator from California. (and it might be more interesting if he was near left, or middle-of-the-road tacking toward the left)

 

[David T]

And the first lesson of 1960s, 70s, and 80s U.S. politics is, don't underestimate Ronald Reagan.

I bet he could be elected Senator from California. (and it might be more interesting if he was near left, or middle-of-the-road tacking toward the left)

One reason it was wrong to underestimate Ronald Reagan was precisely because his ideology had more appeal than most of his opponents were willing to concede. Yes, his personality helped to sell it--but still it had to be a product the people were willing to buy. Whether the public was willing to buy liberalism in this era is questionable. In the six presidential elections from 1968 through 1988, the Democrats won (barely) just one, and that was with a southerner who could win large numbers of voters who would not vote for a northern or western liberal. Everyone talks about Reagan's cheerfulness and optimism. Well, Hubert Humphrey was cheerful and optimistic, too--yet 57 percent of the voters in 1968 preferred a less affable candidate (Nixon or Wallace).

This is not to say that a liberal could not win in 1968-88; if Ford won in 1976 and really screwed up, the GOP brand could be so tarnished that almost any Democrat could win in 1980. But the Democrats would be more likely to go with Ted Kennedy in that event than with *Reagan. (BTW, I doubt very much that Reagan would ever run for the Senate. He is too much of a chief executive-type guy, someone who would find being a legislator--and only one out of 100 senators--too boring.)

 

[GeographyDude]

Also, Reagan was a plain spoken fellow. And this dovetails in with the idea of a clear medium step, observe feedback, another clear medium step, etc. Or in business consulting terms, hurry up and make a mistake. Or, one reason Fox News is popular despite the fact that they get some stuff wrong, they don't hem and hew. It's something clear and straightforward and then you can take the idea to the next stage.

And I agree that the conservative philosophy was popular, and often not for the best of reasons. For example, economic conservatives didn't have that much success selling their ideas or their own, and so in many cases they tried to attach their ideas to resentment about civil rights. In fact, one of the real missed opportunities of OTL Reagan is that he didn't stand up and say, The time is here to accord African-American citizens their full rights as citizens. On this one Ronnie was very cautious, maybe because he knew from all the letters he received from conservatives what a charged issue this was.

And a variety of conservative views are still popular, more so than liberal views, but not as popular as those of independents. I like to think a variety of political views get better over time, both developing on their own terms and getting more interplay going with actual practice.

There's also the case that people get frustrated and jump and yell about what they know. For example, football fans who say, *'You got to establish the run.'* Even though on the pro level this changed in 1978 when passing and blocking rules were changed in the offense's favor. So, the language about 'cutting the budget' and 'stop spending' is much more established than is the language about doing smart things to maintain employment during a downturn, or perhaps even more importantly, not letting a job recovery lag too far behind the rest of the recovery. And I'm not even sure this should be termed liberal. I guess I think of it rather like a doctor appropriately doing whatever. I definitely think this side of economics could use it's own great communicator.