PC: Reagan Assassinated Means Longer Cold War?

On March 30th, 1981, John Hinckley, Jr., fired a revolver six times at President Reagan as he was exiting the Hilton Hotel. President Reagan survived the attempt, and went on to forge one of the most enduring Presidential legacies in American history.

But what if the shooter had been successful? I see this as the opportunity for history to make note of a longer Cold War.

Acting-President is never able to push through tax cuts, and if he is, they are severely moderated. His support of the Equal Rights Amendment and milquetoast stance on abortion offends the religious right of the Republican Party, now certainly looking to deal some damage as they became a political entity only to have their hero gunned down in front of a hotel by a madman, only to have a center-right President almost as bad as President Ford in the White House.

Furthermore, there is no Strategic Defense Initiative, or if there is, it is a smaller one, used as a bargaining chip to trade for promised detente.

With this, the Republicans embattle President H.W. Bush from the right in 1984 and the Democrats from the left, meaning a much smaller victory than in 1980, but a victory nonetheless.

The Cold War carries on the same, however, with a much more amenable President in the Oval Office, the Soviet Union is not bankrupting itself on catching up with the Strategic Defense Initiative, or a U.S. military buildup as would have been the case under Reagan.

In 1988, a Democrat defeats the Republican nominee, and so on.

Considering this scenario, how likely would it be for a continued Cold War, perhaps into the 21st century, to occur?
 
On March 30th, 1981, John Hinckley, Jr., fired a revolver six times at President Reagan as he was exiting the Hilton Hotel. President Reagan survived the attempt, and went on to forge one of the most enduring Presidential legacies in American history.

But what if the shooter had been successful? I see this as the opportunity for history to make note of a longer Cold War.

Acting-President is never able to push through tax cuts, and if he is, they are severely moderated. His support of the Equal Rights Amendment and milquetoast stance on abortion offends the religious right of the Republican Party, now certainly looking to deal some damage as they became a political entity only to have their hero gunned down in front of a hotel by a madman, only to have a center-right President almost as bad as President Ford in the White House.

Furthermore, there is no Strategic Defense Initiative, or if there is, it is a smaller one, used as a bargaining chip to trade for promised detente.

With this, the Republicans embattle President H.W. Bush from the right in 1984 and the Democrats from the left, meaning a much smaller victory than in 1980, but a victory nonetheless.

The Cold War carries on the same, however, with a much more amenable President in the Oval Office, the Soviet Union is not bankrupting itself on catching up with the Strategic Defense Initiative, or a U.S. military buildup as would have been the case under Reagan.

In 1988, a Democrat defeats the Republican nominee, and so on.

Considering this scenario, how likely would it be for a continued Cold War, perhaps into the 21st century, to occur?

There is so much wrong here. Bush would have become President, not Acting President, upon Reagan's death. Further, Bush had already shifted away from his earlier stances on social issues in order to become Reagan's VP in 1980. So I doubt that he would govern as a social liberal.

Most importantly, the USSR did not bankrupt itself catching up to Reagan's programs. The Soviet economy was already stagnating prior to Reagan's buildup, and it never recovered because the Communist system could not adapt. In addition the growing international resistance to Communism, both in and out of the USSR, as well as Gorbachev's reforms were what lead to the downfall of Communism. Not Reagan's policies.

Reagan did some good things that impacted the outcome of the Cold War - INF comes to mind - but the POD wouldn't really change when or how the USSR falls. What it would impact is domestic issues and party politics in the USA.
 
There is so much wrong here. Bush would have become President, not Acting President, upon Reagan's death. Further, Bush had already shifted away from his earlier stances on social issues in order to become Reagan's VP in 1980. So I doubt that he would govern as a social liberal.

Most importantly, the USSR did not bankrupt itself catching up to Reagan's programs. The Soviet economy was already stagnating prior to Reagan's buildup, and it never recovered because the Communist system could not adapt. In addition the growing international resistance to Communism, both in and out of the USSR, as well as Gorbachev's reforms were what lead to the downfall of Communism. Not Reagan's policies.

Reagan did some good things that impacted the outcome of the Cold War - INF comes to mind - but the POD wouldn't really change when or how the USSR falls. What it would impact is domestic issues and party politics in the USA.

The "Acting-President" I thought was applied to a President following the incapacitation of a President prior to the determination of whether he is still able to fulfill the duties of the President of the United States, but it is mere semantics.

As for H.W. Bush, the "voodoo economics" comment seems to contradict the claim that he moved further right to be the Vice President of President Reagan, and if the situation meant President Reagan passed, would he still remain with that shift more concretely, as he did after eight years with the Reagan Administration?

I also wholeheartedly disagree with your point on Reagan's policies regarding the Soviet Union: surely the "growing international resistance to Communism" was a result of American involvement in counter-revolutionary operations globally, not to mention a large military build-up that was the result of none other than President Reagan? While economic upheaval as a result of General-Secretary Gorbachev's reforms certainly contributed, it is extremely hard to deny that without the Soviet Union attempting to play catch-up to the U.S. in terms of military parity, they would have bankrupted just as quickly as they did.

Point being, a President H.W. Bush for 1980 to 1988 likely would have seen an earlier detente at the cost of a slowed collapse of the Soviet Union, in my opinion, due to his moderate stances in general.
 
The Soviet military industrial complex was already struggling to keep up with what they could see the West was building by the early 1980s:
Conway's all the World's Fighting Ships 1947-1995 said:
Industrial productivity has never been altogether satisfactory, particularly in such new fields as electronics. By the early 1980s many new warships were going to sea without key electronic systems, and sometimes even without portions of their armament. The Soviets did continue to develop innovative prototypes, and sometimes they were able to acquire electronic components from the West. Overall, however, it seems unlikely that the system could compete with the Western powers in the ongoing electronic revolution. Unfortunately, the Soviets had no Khrushchev who could envisage some radical military reaction comparable to the 'revolution in military affairs'. The post-Khrushchev settlement, in which all segments of the Soviet system were allowed to develop much as they liked, precluded that. In effect, the costs of maintaining standing forces and building the sort of forces already in production, could not be sustained.

So even without a SDI as a boogeyman the soviets will be crying uncle within the decade. Cold war is unlikely to go much longer than that regardless of how many people on both sides wanted.
 
I agree with Amadeus@.
Bush was not a firebrand conservative, but he was a conservative: Religious Right could be disappointed because Reagan was the God's Chosen One or something similar, but actually it could not do nothing. Probably Bush would have chosen a more conservative, domestic issues-centric VP to balance his imagine: Phil Crane seems a good choice.
Bush was a responsible man and he disliked debt increasing: famous his tax increase that cost him the Presidency. Of course he was not against deregulation and free market but he thought that Reaganomics were a sort of (fake) magic trick (Voo-Doo economics) where the Goverment could increase public spending (in arms) and could low taxes and at same time reduce federal debt. Then say that the Left has irresponsible economic ideas. However Bush was right, as Reaganomics didn't reach their fantasious target and caused federal debt booming (Reagan is actually the third President with major debt increase, 1873 billions of dollars, following Bush Jr, due his tax cuts, and Obama, due 2008 Recession). So probably Bush would be more prudent, cutting social security to stop debt increasing but not cutting so much taxes for individuals (companies get however their tax cuts, I guess. After all Bush led a oil company). A slow recovery from 1979 Crisis is expected.
The Right wing Myth of Reagan the Destructor of Reds is a good dream for the right but actually it don't match really with Reality:
- Afghanistan Invasion started in 1979. The "Soviet Viet Nam" caused severe damages to USSR.
- Technology Gap was clear when Neil Armstrong landed to the Moon. Because they were not able to solve it, Soviets tried to compensate Quality with Quantity and built thousands of nuclear missiles but in early 1980s was clear that it couldn't work at long.
- Economic recession of USSR started during infamous Brezhnev Stagnation.
- ChaoticBrilliant@ is right when he say that growing international resistance to Communism was a result of American involvement in counter-revolutionary operations globally but this involvement was an American policy since Harry Truman, whoever was the President. So Reagan didn't invent anything and to be honest his interventions in Latin America caused more damage to US reputation then advantages.
- SDI was a hole for money, Reagan didn't invent anything in military technology and his aggressive military expansion program was useless and almost caused a nuclear war in 1983.

So without Reagan:
-economic recovery is slower but there is less public debt
- debt doesn't increase so terribly
- Religious Right don't get the same power then OTL
- Supreme Court is less ultraconservative and more moderate
- no Granada Invasion
- probably Iran-Contras Scandal, Faklands War and Lybia Bombing happen as OTL
- maybe more support to Saddam Hussein against Iran due Bush's links with Iraq
- no Able Archer Crisis, Euromissiles Crisis is solved with a Disarmament Treaty in 1984
- no War to Drugs
- probably a more ordinated USSR dissolution, as Bush was contrary to nationalists uprising in USSR (for example Ukraine) because he thought that this would have led to violent implosion of USSR and great instability.
- if Bush is reelected in 1984 (possible but not certain due economic problems, less support from conservatives and Crane scandal), Iran-Contras scandal will open the door to Democrats for 1988.

In conclusion saying that Ronald Reagan contributed with his actions to US victory in Cold War is right, but saying that Reagan, and he only, defeated Soviet Union is a mistake. Franklin Delano Roosevelt defeated Nazi Germany because he concretely planned military operation to crush Nazis on the field. Reagan continued bipartisan policies to contain Communism, gave billions to militaries, launched some imprudent military operations in Third World countries and was very good (he was an actor after all) to do some propagandistic macho-man poses (and, of course, cutting taxes to corporations, increase federal debt, open Supreme Court's door to preachers, funding Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, support war crimes in Nicaragua and many others things) while his adversary collapsed due long internal problems.A good job but actually not a defeat.
If you want a man who give him lone a big blow to Soviets, who with his words inspired people to crumble and give them visibility, forcing Soviets to give up Eastern Europe, you can think to Pope John Paul II.
 
If Daddy Bush tried to balance the budget the economy would look a lot worse

I think President Mondale is possible.

A weaker US might help the USSR a bit. Still I suspect that Gorby still wins power and cannot reform stuff
 
Top