President Reagan's Legacy if Struck Down in 1981?
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Reagan's approval ratings was terrible in 1982 because of the bad economy, resulting in part from his steep tax cuts. As I've maintained before Bush would pass some version of a tax cut, but it would be a more moderate demand side cut like the one LBJ passed in 1964 to stimulate the economy. So the economy would be doing better in '82 meaning the Democrats don't do as well. Republicans maintain control of the Senate while Dems make a few gains in the House. Democrats might gain one or two Senate seats in 1984, at best this leaves the GOP with slim majority similar to what we see today.
Well, the GOP might have a harder time winning presidential elections, because instead of praising Reagan, they would likely praise Nixon and Ford, which are far more unpopular than Reagan
The loss of some OTL D gains in '82 and the retaining of some OTL R gains in '84 balance out a bit in favor of the Ds but not enough to flip the Senate, eh?
Your logic is misguided. Republicans praised Reagan not for the sake of worshipping a former President but to prove their conservative credentials to a die hard right wing base. It's a case of using a man's name and legacy as a political tool. Since the 1990s Reagan has been portrayed as a demigod by right wing think tanks in order to propogandize conservative policies and obscure the man's actual record, that wouldn't be the case either for him or Nixon, Ford, or Bush in this TL.
Also, Republicans would actually do better nationally if they were more moderate. They would have won the popular vote in 2000 and 2016 for example.
Actually based on your own analysis, if the Dems don't do as well in '82 and if you keep in OTL Republican gains in 1984 then the Democrats would do worse that year not better. IMO, the Dems don't do as well in 1982 but the GOP doesn't make narrow gains in 1984. So perhaps these two would cancel each other out and the Senatorial balance of power would be around the same as in OTL.
no I mean Ds retain seats that the GOP gained in OTL 1984. That seat was worded to be from the perspective of Democrats.
Oh I see. So basically yes. But by 1986 they take back the Senate as in OTL. Which brings up another question. By 1988, Bush 41 will have served two successful terms and his VP will be up for election that year. I think Bush is best off picking Kemp for VP in 1981, so it would be Kemp and Dole slugging it out in 1988. Dukakis may or may not still be the Democratic nominee. If he is then the GOP will win again in 1988.
An used, cheap($48), West German made 'Saturday Night Special' .22 revolver with gimmick 'explosive' bullets was used. They basically had a few grains of lead azide (used in primers) under an alloy cap, and would go bang on hitting a hard surface.
That style revolver made of zamak (aka pot metal) already couldn't be imported from the 1968 Gun Control Act, only US manufacturers could make cheap guns like that, but few manufacturers did outside of California
John Hinckley being a total nutcase overshadowed most all of that, but there still was the waiting period and background check legislation went thru, and the 'Devastator' bullets were pulled off the market.
RR being killed means you would get something close to OTLs Brady Bill, but no more far reaching
On the 1982 and 1984 Senate elections, OTL the Democrats made no net gains at all in 1982 (they retook one seat where the Democratic Senator had resigned and the appointed temporary replacement had been a Republican), and did make net gains in 1984. It was widely noted at the time in 1984 that Reagan had no coat tails, the presidential vote really seems to have been due to personality. Someone made a good catch with Kentucky, Mitch McConnell unseated a Democratic incumbent and with Bush instead of Reagan that race might well have gone differently and produced butterflies. I can't think of any other races that would have changed. Incidentally, Al Gore entered the Senate in 1984, unseating a Republican incumbent in a state neighboring Kentucky.
I'm pretty sure that the gap between the party vote for president and the party vote for federal legislature in individual races set some sort of a record in 1984.
OTL the Democrats gained 26 seats in the House in 1982 and lost (I'm not looking this up) something like 14 in 1984, and ITTL you reduced both numbers are are left with about the same net gain over the two elections, with no individual races that might change having later repercussions.
Also, OTL under Bush, the Democrats gained seats in both federal legislative chambers in 1988, 1990, and 1992, so the elder Bush didn't have any coat-tails either. Really, since Reagan took office, only the younger Bush has had any success among prezzes in transferring whatever personal popularity he had to legislative candidates. Otherwise, holding the White House has pretty consistently turned out to be a disaster for the party in down-ballot races and this was true for Reagan too.
I'm pretty sure that the gap between the party vote for president and the party vote for federal legislature in individual races set some sort of a record in 1984.
OTL the Democrats gained 26 seats in the House in 1982 and lost (I'm not looking this up) something like 14 in 1984, and ITTL you reduced both numbers are are left with about the same net gain over the two elections, with no individual races that might change having later repercussions.
Also, OTL under Bush, the Democrats gained seats in both federal legislative chambers in 1988, 1990, and 1992, so the elder Bush didn't have any coat-tails either. Really, since Reagan took office, only the younger Bush has had any success among prezzes in transferring whatever personal popularity he had to legislative candidates. Otherwise, holding the White House has pretty consistently turned out to be a disaster for the party in down-ballot races and this was true for Reagan too.
Thanks for the clarification. It looks like Carter's reputation may be better, too.
Cook
Banned
No, we can be pretty certain that there wasn’t a written record for two reasons. Firstly, because it is that it has now been nearly forty years, and no such document has come to light, despite multiple changes in government in Iran, with several of them having very good reasons to embarrass the US by releasing it. And secondly, because when people are involved in a criminal enterprise they tend not to want to keep written records of it; that’s why your drug dealer won’t give you a receipt no matter how nicely you ask.
We do know a deal of some kind was made because in the first months of the Reagan administration, Secretary of State Alexander Haig authorised the sale by Israel to Iran of US arms and spare parts. The US has a veto on the sale of US arms to third parties, hence the requirement for Haig’s approval; so a deal of some kind was made, we just don’t know what the Reagan administration got out of that deal, but the arms transfers continued until mid-1982, when Haig ceased authorising them. These arms shipments took place despite a US Congress imposed sanctions on Iran that prohibited the supply of arms to the Islamic Republic.
This was not part of the later Iran-Contra deal; that didn’t start until 1984 when the US Congress passed a law prohibiting the Reagan administration from providing aid to the Nicaraguan Contras.
Nor is it related to the exchanged of US arms to Iran in exchange for hostages taken by Hezbollah in Lebanon because they weren’t kidnapped until substantially later; Benjamin Weir in 1984, Lawrence Jenco in ’85.
So the question isn’t whether a deal took place because we know that it did, the question is just would Bush have honoured the agreement if he became president?
It would depend on whether or not Bush knew before March 30, 1981 and if he is briefed on the deal as President. In OTL Reagan's cronies didn't fully inform the President of the details concerning Iran-Contra, so they may just go around Bush to complete the deal even if the new President would give his approval if asked. Remember that Al Haig proclaimed upstaged and subverted VP Bush's authority during the OTL assassination attempt by proclaiming, "I'm in control here."
If the arms aren't shipped to Iran that could potentially have serious consequences. I remember reading in the NYT that this particular arms shipment was been credited with helping to stop Iraq's momentum during the Iran-Iraq War. After this Reagan continued giving arms to both sides which again helped Iran to limp along and survive Hussein's assault. If the arms shipments don't go through, or if just the initial arms shipment is completed but Bush doesn't provide further aid, this would help Iraq and put Hussein in a better position to negotiate a ceasefire in 1982.
Cook
Banned
This would certainly have put Saddam in a much better position militarily, but I don't think a ceasefire would have been possible under any circumstances while Khomeini was still alive.
Generally I agree. However, it's worth noting that the OTL ceasefire was imposed by the UN the year before Khomeini died. So Bush, given his interest in foreign policy, might see the chance for a ceasefire 6 years early and get the UN involved. But whether or not he'd actually get a result is up in the air IMO.
Cook
Banned
Of course you are right; silly of me to have forgotten that.
An end to the Iran-Iraq war would have had serious implications for the price of crude oil in the 1980s; OPEC quotas might have been maintained, and with them the price of oil may have been kept up; that could have had implications for the collapse of the Eastern bloc.
Of course this brings us to whether or not the Cold War would have ended in 1989 had a diplomat like Bush, who met with Soviets in Russia as VP long before Reagan set foot there, come to power in 1981. I argue that he would have made more headway with the Soviets and developed more concrete results that could have sped up the process of ending the Cold War. However as in OTL it's going to be internal dissent, not American policies, that overthrow Communism and bring down the Berlin Wall.