Gun rights wasn't a core Republican issue at the time, in fact Nixon had supported an outright ban on all handguns not long before. Reagan did express opposition to gun control after John Lennon was killed, but that wasn't exactly a popular opinion of his and he didn't make a big issue out of it when asked at the time. Futhermore conservatives and America as a whole would be so overwhelmed by the emotional blow of Reagan's assassination that this would probably outweigh a minority of people making a bizarre argument that a dead President would have opposed legislation that could have saved his life. I imagine that Nancy Reagan would break with movement conservatives and support gun reform, just as she broke with them on stem cells out of love for her husband.
President Reagan's Legacy if Struck Down in 1981?
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Gun rights wasn't a core Republican issue at the time, in fact Nixon had supported an outright ban on all handguns not long before. Reagan did express opposition to gun control after John Lennon was killed, but that wasn't exactly a popular opinion of his and he didn't make a big issue out of it when asked at the time. Futhermore conservatives and America as a whole would be so overwhelmed by the emotional blow of Reagan's assassination that this would probably outweigh a minority of people making a bizarre argument that a dead President would have opposed legislation that could have saved his life. I imagine that Nancy Reagan would break with movement conservatives and support gun reform, just as she broke with them on stem cells out of love for her husband.
Conservatives will say that Reagan would never have raised taxes with TEFRA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982
Since Bush wouldn't have advocated for such steep supply side cuts in July 1981 (I'll reiterate that he would have passed some tax cuts but more along the lines of JFK than Reagan's extreme "voodoo" cuts), then the 1982 tax hike wouldn't have been necessary. Ironically, a moderate like Bush or Baker would have been able to more strictly adhere to the orthodoxy of not raising taxes since they wouldn't have indulged in Reagan's excesses. The real Reagan raised taxes just as often as his cut them in order to make up for the many negative effects of his fiscal policies. So much for the glory of trickle down economics...
It is my impression that Reagan had made it clear by the time of the shooting that he favored Kemp-Roth--not just a tax cut but that specific one. If so, it would be hard for Bush to come out against it at a time when he had just become president and would feel he had to convince conservatives he had truly become one of them.
That particular bill wasn't even formally introduced as legislation until July, just short of four months after the assassination attempt. Even if the bill had been in serious development that March, and even if Reagan had shown his support for what would become Kemp-Roth, four months is enough time for the bill to be moderated or significantly changed before its even reaches committee. This happens with most bills after all, and that's not even considering the month in between it's introduction and passage where the bill would be changed again before the final vote. Probably with input from the new moderate President and Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, a fellow moderate.
That's just the nature of US politics. Without a hardline President pushing for steep supply side cuts that summer, we'd probably see Bush pushing for more responsible demand side cuts in order to appease conservatives without indulging in voodoo economics. As a result the 1981 tax cut would still count as a major Republican accomplishment, but it would probably look very different. Many bills that are eventually passed start out bold but are moderated and whittled down to essentially be as centrist as possible in order to obtain the necessary votes. Kemp-Roth was a rare exception thanks to Reagan's political pressure, the newfound political support he enjoyed after the assassination attempt, Republican control of the Senate, and cross over support from right wing Blue Dog Democrats.
I know that ERTA itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Recovery_Tax_Act_of_1981 had not been formally introduced, but Reagan had long endorsed the principle of the Kemp-Roth bill, and Kemp and Roth had found even ERTA less than they wanted. I don't think Bush could have compromised on Kemp-Roth much more than Reagan did without risking a significant backlash from conservatives. The irony is that Bush might have to be more "Reaganite" than Reagan himself was in OTL, because Bush didn't have the trust from conservatives that Reagan did--and that allowed Reagan to make compromises (and not just on taxes) without being seen as a sell-out. Yes, a lot of Republican congressional leaders would welcome Bush cutting back on Kemp-Roth much more than Reagan did. But as Bush would know from the experience of 1980, it's not the congressional leaders who determine who wins GOP presidential primaries--and someone like Kemp could always challenge him in 1984. The need to prove himself to Reaganites would, I am convinced, significantly limit Bush's freedom of action in 1981-4. (He would be more free to be himself in a second term.)
Just to clear up this issue, do you have any authoritative sources about the history and passage of Kemp-Roth? Perhaps some more details about the behind the scenes policking behind its passage could help in our discussion. (Yes, I did read the Wiki article but it provided only cursory info on how the bill was developed).
That said, it's worth noting that the Kemps and Roths (i.e. conservatives who were aggressively pushing for hardcore supply side policies) of the GOP formed a minority in the House. In OTL, Bush 41 governed by working with moderate Republicans and liberal Democrats to pass fairly liberal legislation including a renewal of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and of course the 1990 compromise budget that raised taxes and cut spending. Gingrich and his followers rebelled, but this did little to impede Bush who still managed to achieve major successes such as the Congressional vote on the Gulf War even after the far right had broken with him. Coming off of all this Bush would certainly have been reelected in 1992 without the recession. Circumstances would be different in 1981 for obvious reasons, however my argument concerning Bush's ultimate domestic policy still stands and remains the same. Bush can afford to not fully satisfy the hardliners if he keeps the broad majority happy and the economy improves by 1984.
And Kemp is unlikely to mount a primary challenge given that he'd want to maintain his seat in Congress.
Last edited:
My 2 cents is Bush Sr takes over. Fires Haig shortly after, replaces with Kissinger who he knew from his time in China, if not earlier. Keeps most of Reagan's picks. Reagan tax-cuts are still on the table, but Bush sees that they'll produce and an unwieldy deficit. He has a degree in economics after all, and he did not believe in supply side economics. Still it would be in poor political taste to not continue Reagan's agenda. However keep in mind that a lot of people vote for Reagan just because he was not Carter, they might not be so hot on Reaganomics, giving Bush some cover to roll back some of Reagan's suggestions. It is likely he will focus on more on cutting regulation and red tape than taxes. Tax cuts are perhaps smaller in scope from the outset, with more tax breaks for oil and gas industry. He knew the oil industry inside out, and he probably knew the oil glut was coming. It is likely he will push for reforms which lower price of oil in early to mid 1981, much like the ones pursued by the Reagan administration in the same time frame OTL. Lower oil prices have the added benefit of sinking the Soviet economy deeper into trouble.
With Reagan dead the right wing of the republican party will have lost it's greatest champion. Bush was a moderate republican. He will pay lip service to the right-wing of the party, particularly in the aftermath of the assassination, but it is unlikely he will bend over for them. In fact i can see him successfully creating a coalition of moderates from both sides of the isle. The religious right will rail against Hollywood for it's sin and excess, once news gets out about why Reagan was assassinated, but i doubt the view points will gain mass traction in the mainstream. Let us not forget that the 1980 vote was as much against Carter as it was for Reagan, if not more. A lot of voters may not buy into the right-wing's claims about immorality in Hollywood. If any Hollywood celebrity, like Martin Scorsese, Jodie Foster, etc., are hurt, or killed, as retaliation for Reagan's killing, which isn't unlikely, then don't expect Bush Sr to back the right anymore. We tend to think of the political extremes back then to be more sane than their modern counterpart, but they weren't.
Domestically his term will be rather uneventful. He will probably not get the VP pick he wants until 1982, when congress will settle
Bush Sr will be more of a foreign policy president
With Reagan dead the right wing of the republican party will have lost it's greatest champion. Bush was a moderate republican. He will pay lip service to the right-wing of the party, particularly in the aftermath of the assassination, but it is unlikely he will bend over for them. In fact i can see him successfully creating a coalition of moderates from both sides of the isle. The religious right will rail against Hollywood for it's sin and excess, once news gets out about why Reagan was assassinated, but i doubt the view points will gain mass traction in the mainstream. Let us not forget that the 1980 vote was as much against Carter as it was for Reagan, if not more. A lot of voters may not buy into the right-wing's claims about immorality in Hollywood. If any Hollywood celebrity, like Martin Scorsese, Jodie Foster, etc., are hurt, or killed, as retaliation for Reagan's killing, which isn't unlikely, then don't expect Bush Sr to back the right anymore. We tend to think of the political extremes back then to be more sane than their modern counterpart, but they weren't.
Domestically his term will be rather uneventful. He will probably not get the VP pick he wants until 1982, when congress will settle
Bush Sr will be more of a foreign policy president
Many people would blame "Taxi Driver" for Reagan's death. This would start a very contentious public debate on whether the art or the criminal is primarily responsible in this case. Foster still goes into semi-retirement, if she even returns to acting at all. De Niro and Scorsese's reputations are seriously hurt as well.
Cook
Banned
It would be interesting to know if George Bush Snr. would have honoured the deal that Reagan's campaign manager William J. Casey had made with the Iranians regarding supplying them with spare parts and armaments; if Reagan died in March, that would have been just before the first shipments of spare parts from Israel was authorised. Bush might not have even known about the agreement; if that were the case and he only became aware of it after he'd been sworn in, then he may not have felt obliged to honour Reagan's deal, or see any advantage in doing so.
Cook
Banned
Why not? If he had not known of the agreement then the whole thing falls on Casey and Alexander - and the late president - if it ever comes out, which is unlikely. The Iranians can't prove anything; there wasn't a paper trail and no-one would ever believe that the United States was going to supply "Death to America" Iran with its most advanced weaponry. It would be a complete fizzle of a scandal.
I'm interested in knowing that you're using as a source of info here. If there was indeed a deal then the Iranians would've kept a record of it, whether it be a transcript of a meeting, financial documents, etc.
If Reagan was killed, the first thing that would come into question would be who would succeed H. W. to the Vice Presidency. I personally think Bush would have done the same thing Nixon did when Agnew resigned and pick the Republican leader of the house (In this case, Bob Michel) but the question is whether he would except, as he had only been house minority leader for 3 months before the assassination. Ford was house minority leader for 8 years before becoming vp, and had a lot of time as house minority leader. I think Reagan would be remembered as the guy who fixed the Iran Hostage Crisis, and someone who would have had a very good presidency.
I think historians would rank him alongside W.H. Harrison and James Garfield. Not the worst President we've ever had, but he'd still fall low in overall rankings considering he did absolutely nothing substantial before his untimely death. And like Garfield, he'd be remembered for the assassination that served as an impetus for major legislation: in this case that's likely to be tax cuts and an earlier Brady Bill. I think Bush would be better off picking Kemp. He was a key conservative, could help the ticket in NY in 1984, and it would relieve some Congressional pressure to pass a hardcore supply side bill that got us into a recession under Reagan.
In OTL it was Carter's deal that freed them, that remains the same here. However once Gary Sick reveals that there may have been a secret deal to postpone the release of the hostages so that Reagan could win the election, I think that's given greater historical attention since there isn't much alse for historians to look at besides Reagan's martyrdom.
Speaking of which, without Reagan I can see the GOP being more moderate in the long run and perhaps the Republicans wouldn't be taken over by the insane Gingrich revolutionaries who try to destroy the government at every turn just to obtain political power.