https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=edchtf9MS7g
Reagan was a lot more passionate about cutting taxes than Bush, Sr. was. Without Reagan, I'm not sure 1980s economics goes the same.
Last edited:
The double dip recession with 1980 being bad, '81 kind of okay, and then '82 being really bad . . . probably drags on longer because the other Republican president is not as much of a Keynesian as Reagan is.How might they go, then?
You bring up highly interesting points.. . . (ex. William F. Buckley, Jr. Phyllis Schafley, Young Americans For Freedom, the rise of Non-Keynesian economics, right-wing backlash over Nixon's picks for the SCOTUS)
You bring up highly interesting points.
President Reagan certainly preached in favor of balanced budgets. But his administration pushed for budgets which increased military spending and cut taxes significantly more than they cut spending. Now, to complicate matters, I think Reagan was somewhat successfully politically in blaming Democrats for not being able to cut spending more.
I've read that in a hundred different sources, that economists were stumped on how in the world you could have rising inflation and rising unemployment, both at the same time? ? ?. . . and the slow decline of the popularity of Keynesian economics . . .
And Thatcher was elected May 3, 1979. So, a full year and a half before Reagan.Economically, isn't a right-wing figure bound to win, with the terrible economy in the US in that era? This was the end of the Golden Age of Capitalism, where American manufacturing was being exported elsewhere (especially to Japan, hence where people thought Japan would rule the world one day). A Democrat can only stem the bleeding as opposed to go along with it and adapt as Reagan did. Such trends are comparable throughout the West as notably with Margaret Thatcher in the UK. . .
Then you'd need to also avoid the mass conversion of huge sections of the country to evangelical Christianity in the 1960's. In many ways, this was a cultural revolution just as significant as the counterculture and hippie movements even if it is much less commonly spoken of and as a result, Americans in both the south and the north practice a faith much more in line with the Southern Baptists and similar sects than their previous churches.I'm thinking that the Christian right isn't as strong ITTL as it is OTL. The long term consequences in my opinion is a more progressive US over all.
The thing about great awakenings is that they occur at time of great social upheaval. For example, the First occurred during the era of the Revolution; the second during that of the Civil War. They are not necessarily reactionary movements; as you have said, at their heart they are revolutionary.Then you'd need to also avoid the mass conversion of huge sections of the country to evangelical Christianity in the 1960's. In many ways, this was a cultural revolution just as significant as the counterculture and hippie movements even if it is much less commonly spoken of and as a result, Americans in both the south and the north practice a faith much more in line with the Southern Baptists and similar sects than their previous churches.
The United States has had a number of these religious awakenings with huge sections of the country simultaneously deciding, for reasons I have never been entirely clear upon, that a return to the fundamentals of Christianity is necessary to save the nation/world.
POD 1: Starting 1982, '83, '84, more liberal and leftie parents begin homeschooling their children because they think standard school is too authoritarian, plus it's not doing a good job preparing young people for a more free-form, post-industrial economy. In addition, learning differences such as dyslexia, ADHD, and Aspergers-Autism Spectrum are recognized a decade or two earlier, and schools are seemingly unable to really roll with the fact that different children roll in different ways.. . . or do you think a libertarian/leftist revolution would rise up . . .