Reagan-Brooke 1968

Not totally implausible:

"[*National Review* publisher William] Rusher and his...comrade Clif White aimed to secure the presidency for Reagan at the GOP convention by forging a tacit alliance with Rockefeller's supporters to stop Nixon on the first and second ballots. 'At the third ballot,' according to the notes of one Ripon member at the meeting with Rusher, 'Rockefeller and Nixon forces part company. Reagan, with Clif White as broker, 'aims at Reagan-Percy ticket with Nixon as Secretary of State and Rockefeller (with a sneer from Rusher) as 'the man who put it all together.' If Percy wouldn't take the vice-presidency, they would look for another moderate. *'If I could be convinced that Ed Brooke could deliver a portion of the Negro vote, we would take him.'* [my emphasis--DT] Rusher felt that the California governor would have no chance if he were perceived as the 1968 version of Goldwater, so at Miami he would 'do everything possible to appear moderate, humane, and compassionate...He must start appearing progressive, responsible, and ecumenical in a hurry.'" Geoffrey Kabaservice, *Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party,* p. 241
https://books.google.com/books?id=GJ9baqZLVIYC&pg=PT272
 
The Reagan Revolution never happens. By the late 1970s there was a backlash against New Deal/Great Society government intervention that Reagan exploited. For example, Howard Jarvis was able to get prop 13 passed in California in 1978, which limited the amount property taxes could increase. The sentiment was there, Reagan was good at tapping into it. With foreign policy so close on the heals of the Cuban Missile Crisis, detente was having its moment. It took the perception of the Soviets taking advantage of American detente in the 1970s for the hardliners to gain clout. If Reagan wins in 68, he arrives before his moment.

No idea how he handles Vietnam, government spending, the Gold Standard and the issues of the day.
 
Not totally implausible:

"[*National Review* publisher William] Rusher and his...comrade Clif White aimed to secure the presidency for Reagan at the GOP convention by forging a tacit alliance with Rockefeller's supporters to stop Nixon on the first and second ballots. 'At the third ballot,' according to the notes of one Ripon member at the meeting with Rusher, 'Rockefeller and Nixon forces part company. Reagan, with Clif White as broker, 'aims at Reagan-Percy ticket with Nixon as Secretary of State and Rockefeller (with a sneer from Rusher) as 'the man who put it all together.' If Percy wouldn't take the vice-presidency, they would look for another moderate. *'If I could be convinced that Ed Brooke could deliver a portion of the Negro vote, we would take him.'* [my emphasis--DT] Rusher felt that the California governor would have no chance if he were perceived as the 1968 version of Goldwater, so at Miami he would 'do everything possible to appear moderate, humane, and compassionate...He must start appearing progressive, responsible, and ecumenical in a hurry.'" Geoffrey Kabaservice, *Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party,* p. 241
https://books.google.com/books?id=GJ9baqZLVIYC&pg=PT272

Interesting. Heh, wasn't it Nixon's strategy to run like a conservative, govern like a moderate? I guess it's all about perception.
 
. . . Ronald Reagan and Ed Brooke?
Just so everyone knows, Ed Brook (R-Massachusetts) was the first African-American guy to serve in the Senate since Reconstruction.

If George Wallace is in the race, Reagan likely tacks to the middle on civil rights.

In OTL in 1980, Reagan pandered to people prejudiced against black people. We can parse it a hundred ways, and maybe Ronnie thought he was helping to moderate views. But . . . he really did pander.
 
. . . No idea how he handles Vietnam, government spending, the Gold Standard and the issues of the day.
As I understand it, the actual practice of the gold standard was weakened a considerable amount (probably for the good, in my opinion) during the Great Depression, and then Nixon got rid of even the nominal gold standard on August 15, 1971.

https://books.google.com/books?id=t...EINDAH#v=onepage&q=bretton woods 1971&f=false

This source is talking about how Europe and Japan were fine with the U.S. talking the lead on currency exchange rates in the immediate aftermath of WWII, but resented this as their economies regained their equilibrium.

Also, a strong dollar sounds great but it makes our exports more expensive and eventually led to a trade deficit. Also in late '60s, U.S. followed policy of "benign neglect" in response to currency rates.

So, first lesson I learn is there's a lot going on at once and to give myself plenty of time to mull this all over :) If I was a policy maker, I'd very much follow the method of solid medium step, feedback, another solid medium step, more feedback.

* our old buddy John Connally was Treasury Secretary and was very much involved in the Aug. 15, 1971, nominal end to gold standard, as well the wage and price freeze. Several years later he formally switched to the Republican Party.
 
Last edited:
Top