Reagan DIES on March 30, 1981

70 days into his presidency, Ronald Reagan was shot and almost killed when exiting the Hilton Hotel, on March 30 1981.

The bullet, which ricocheted against the bullet proof limo, entered through his left armpit, went through his left lung, and stopped an inch from his heart.

Had it gone just that bit further, President Reagan would have died. Instantly.

What would be the result of this?

Obviously, George H. W Bush would have become the 41st President that afternoon, and America would be burying another U.S president less than 20 years after JFK was assassinated.

But what would have been the longer term ramifications of a Reagan death and a Bush Presidency?

The two major changes of the 1980s were Reaganomics, and the ending of the Cold War.

Reaganomics, that is the massive tax cuts of 1981 and 1986 gave the economy the turnaround which saw the end of Carter's recession and the beginning of the biggest economic boom in America's history.
Inflation and interest rates cut in half. 19 million new jobs. Real family income up. The Poverty Rate down. And more revenue for government.

But Bush had labelled it "voodoo economics" during the campaign, and he warned that it would make inflation worse; he was no fan of Reagan's ideas.

It seems that if Reagan had died that day, so too would have his tax cuts. Meaning that the recession which continued to worsen into 1982, may not have turned around in 1983.

Could that have meant that Walter Mondale would have been elected President in 1984?

Also, Reagan's Soviet policy would have died that day also.

The defense buildup was important, and that may have continued under Bush, but what would not have occurred was Reagan's 1983 STAR WARS, Strategic Defense Initiative program, which ultimately was the most important policy of the Reagan years, as it drove the Soviets back to the negotiating table, resulting in the INF and START Treaties, which effectively ended the Cold War.

Would a Bush presidency, without SDI, been able to achieve those diplomatic breakthroughs? And if not, would the USSR still be standing to this day?
 
A) Reaganomics wasn't so good. It had it cons and pros.
B) Bush was staunch Anti-USSR and was supporting Reagan in this question.
 
Bush becomes to the 1980s as Eisenhower was to the 1950s. A fairly inoffensive Republican who served eight years in the White House. The Cold War probably ends in a somewhat less colorful fashion (no "Tear Down This Wall!" speech for example). Bush probably nominates a Reaganite as VP, perhaps Paul Laxalt.
 
A) Reaganomics wasn't so good. It had it cons and pros.
B) Bush was staunch Anti-USSR and was supporting Reagan in this question.

Bush was anti-USSR, but he wasn't pro-missile defense technology, which was the game changer. Furthermore, he would never have advocated total nuclear abolition like Reagan did. I also don't think he would have supported the ZERO OPTION which was considered infeasible in 1981. So a lot of huge differences there.

As for the downsides of Reaganomics, I can't think of any. Please enlighten me.
 
Reaganomics, that is the massive tax cuts of 1981 and 1986 gave the economy the turnaround which saw the end of Carter's recession and the beginning of the biggest economic boom in America's history.
Inflation and interest rates cut in half. 19 million new jobs. Real family income up. The Poverty Rate down. And more revenue for government.

This is a very serious misunderstanding of economics and US history. The tax cuts did not cause the economic turn around, and in fact the 1981 tax cut made the economy worse by helping to cause a recession from 1981-1982. At the time, it was the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Many were put out of work, and Reagan's approval rating dropped to 35%. Reagan was forced to sign a 1982 tax hike that reversed most of the tax cut. By 1983, most expected Reagan to be a one term President. It wasn't until the Federal Reserve - lead by a Democratic Chairman - succeeded in reversing the effects of stagflation that the economy turned around by 1984.

1982-1990 was not the biggest economic boom in US history. That would be 1991-2001, which was caused in part by Bush's decision to raise taxes to get the country out of the recession, which had in turn been caused in part by Reagan's budget deficits.

It seems that if Reagan had died that day, so too would have his tax cuts. Meaning that the recession which continued to worsen into 1982, may not have turned around in 1983.

Could that have meant that Walter Mondale would have been elected President in 1984?

If the relative success of Bush's OTL presidency shows anything, he would've handled the economy much better than Reagan. The economy would've turned around much earlier and Bush certainly would've beaten Mondale or any other Democrat in 1984.

The defense buildup was important, and that may have continued under Bush, but what would not have occurred was Reagan's 1983 STAR WARS, Strategic Defense Initiative program, which ultimately was the most important policy of the Reagan years, as it drove the Soviets back to the negotiating table, resulting in the INF and START Treaties, which effectively ended the Cold War.

Would a Bush presidency, without SDI, been able to achieve those diplomatic breakthroughs? And if not, would the USSR still be standing to this day?

Reagan's SDI was an absurd boondoggle that even the President's closest advisors thought would never work - and they were right. SDI wasn't what brought the Soviets to the bargaining table. It was Gorbachev's outreach to Reagan in 1985 and their ability to find common ground on Cold War issues. And INF was delayed signficantly until six years after it was first proposed because the Soviets did not trust Reagan, who they considered a war monger, until 1985 when Gorbachev came to power. A Bush presidency from 1981-1985 would've been much more productive given 41's skill and experience in foreign policy. Possiblly resulting in an earlier INF. And Start I was a Bush initiative, signed in 1991.

And no, the USSR wouldn't be standing till this day. It would've collapsed in the early 1990s just as it did in OTL for the same reasons it did in OTL. The Soviet Communist system was untenable in the long term and was bound to fail once their economy began to stagnate in the 1970s. Further, Gorbachev's expansion of political freedoms plus his "New Union" treaty were additional nails in the coffin. None of that is going to be changed by whoever is the US President in 1981.

Anyway, had Reagan died his legacy would've been extremely tragic and sad. The fact that he narrowly escaped death gives greater meaning to the nickname, "Teflon Reagan."
 
As for the downsides of Reaganomics, I can't think of any. Please enlighten me.
??????????????????
Reaganomics had an upside? It's a failed economic mess.


The downsides are numerous and well documented. As a summary.

1. It didn't work.
Reagan naively assumed that those benefiting from the huge tax cuts would invest in the future of the USA. They didn't. Most of the benefits were banked, effectively taking it out of the economy.
The average working household saw little, if any benefits.

2. Huuuuge deficit spending.
The spending deficits incurred under Reaganomics were massive, and and it threatened to put the USA back into recession; it requires tax increases to salvage the US economy so a recovery could happen.
Reaganomics wound up raising taxes nearly a dozen times on many of those who were counting on the benefits of a tax break, but never received one.

3. Huuuge debt.
Under the 8 years of Ronald Reagan, the U.S. went from being the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the world.
Spending levels decreased as tax incomes plummeted, but the cuts weren’t enough. The national debt went up higher during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan as a percentage more than any other serving President at that time.

4. The strengthening of the MIC that Eisenhower warned about.
Over the 8 years that Reagan occupied the White House, the US defence budget was increased six times. This created an unsustainable sector that provided temporary jobs and benefits, but no long term gain.

5. Destruction of the US education system.
One of the ways that Reagan tried to pay for his economic policies was through cuts to education. He personally saw the Department of Education as an extraneous component of government.
In total, more than $1 billion was removed from the department.

6. Wealth inequality increased.
The OECD found that wealth inequality in the USA is steadily rising.
That inequality, which was promoted by Reaganomics, has created lower levels of economic growth instead of higher levels of growth. In the United States, the impact on growth has created a GDP which is estimated to be almost 10% lower than it would have been without this policy.

6a. It severely damaged the US economy.
Notice that 10% lower US economy that Reagan and his cronies created?

7. USAians are poorer.
Reaganomics reduced income levels for a majority of Americans.
The total of income shares in the United States from 1979-2007 dropped nearly 10% for the lowest 80% of earners. At the same time, the top 1% of earners in the U.S. saw an almost equal rise in their income share. The households that fell into the top 20% were only able to break even with their income. Allowing for the value of a household income today for the Middle Class is lower than it was before the disaster that was Reaganomics.
Corporate profits in the U.S. have increased significantly, but real median incomes have seen no benefit from this increase at all.
 

Anchises

Banned
Bush becomes to the 1980s as Eisenhower was to the 1950s. A fairly inoffensive Republican who served eight years in the White House. The Cold War probably ends in a somewhat less colorful fashion (no "Tear Down This Wall!" speech for example). Bush probably nominates a Reaganite as VP, perhaps Paul Laxalt.

Actually all kinds of debt. Still a problem.

Assuming that Bush is the Republican nominee or Reagan is actually killed early in his first term:

How would the economy and financial states of the United States develop?
 
Tip O'Niell was right to call Reagan "Herbert Hoover with a smile."
There is truth to that. But, while Hoover lacked Regan's superficial charm, he was a far more intelligent and dedicated person.

Assuming that Bush is the Republican nominee or Reagan is actually killed early in his first term:

How would the economy and financial states of the United States develop?
Almost certainly better without the disastrous mismanagement of Reaganomics. Also better in the longer term without the silly spending, with better diplomatic skills and without the economic damage.
 
There is truth to that. But, while Hoover lacked Regan's superficial charm, he was a far more intelligent and dedicated person.

He also had serious lifetime accomplishments. He was a self-made millionare, a member of Stanford's first graduating class, a globally beloved humanitarian who saved many lives in WWI, an acclaimed Secretary of Commerce, and as President laid the groundwork for FDR's New Deal. That doesn't excuse his many mistakes both in and out of office, but it's a stark contrast to Reagan who as an actor only pretended to be a war hero, only pretended to be a champion for the common man, and those mythical legacy was largely manufactured by right wing think tanks in the 1990s.
 

Anchises

Banned
Almost certainly better without the disastrous mismanagement of Reaganomics. Also better in the longer term without the silly spending, with better diplomatic skills and without the economic damage.

I don't see Bush spending much less on the military though. Some stuff is probably curbed (SDI) and the introduction of new weapons is slowed a bit, sure. Given the political situation in the early 80s the USA is still bound to enter a new arms race.

Without the extreme 1981 tax cut and without the excessive deregulation in the financial sector it wouldn't have been as damaging though.
 
Instead of debating whether Reaganomics was a good or bad thing, I would like to suggest that Bush during his first term would not have strayed far from it. He would worry about primary opposition in 1984 from Kemp or others who would say he was betraying Reagan's legacy. (During his second term he would probably feel more free to be his own man--as he was in 1989-93.) In fact, ironically this might lead him to be more "Reaganite" at first than Reagan himself--who could make compromises without enraging the Right, and who offset some of the 1981 tax cuts with TEFRA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982 Precisely because Bush had once spoken of Reagan's "voodoo economics" he might now find it necessary to show himself a faithful Reaganite.

(I've discussed this before: see https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ruck-down-in-1981.450388/page-2#post-17499053)
 
(During his second term he would probably feel more free to be his own man--as he was in 1989-93.)
In fact, ironically this might lead him to be more "Reaganite" at first than Reagan himself--who could make compromises without enraging the Right, and who offset some of the 1981 tax cuts with TEFRA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982 Precisely because Bush had once spoken of Reagan's "voodoo economics" he might now find it necessary to show himself a faithful Reaganite.

If Bush did swing that far to the right, and if he can't get away with offsetting voodoo economics with a tax hike, then he might not even be able to win a second term with which he could exercise more freedom. Bush would be under conservative pressure to cut taxes, but those pushing for hardcore supply-side economics were a minority in Congress. It would be completely contrary to Bush's nature as a politician to implement steep tax cuts, and without Reagan personally pushing for Reaganomics those policies would not be implemented.

It's also worth noting that such a scenario has precedent. When TR became President after McKinley's assassination, he promised to totally follow his predecessor's policies. Yet almost immediately he took actions that appeared contrary to everything that the conservative McKinley had stood for - trust busting, mediating an end to the coal strike, and firing the Secretary of the Treasury. As you've pointed out in previous posts, it's entirely plausible that McKinley would've taken similar actions to Roosevelt in these areas. Yet in politics the important thing is public perception. Roosevelt was perceived as having broken from McKinley's policies and the Republican Old Guard was furious, but since they were a Congressional minority and Roosevelt was widely popular they couldn't stop him. I imagine that a similar situation would've developed under Bush.
 
Reagan's SDI was an absurd boondoggle that even the President's closest advisors thought would never work - and they were right. SDI wasn't what brought the Soviets to the bargaining table. It was Gorbachev's outreach to Reagan in 1985 and their ability to find common ground on Cold War issues. And INF was delayed signficantly until six years after it was first proposed because the Soviets did not trust Reagan, who they considered a war monger, until 1985 when Gorbachev came to power. A Bush presidency from 1981-1985 would've been much more productive given 41's skill and experience in foreign policy. Possiblly resulting in an earlier INF. And Start I was a Bush initiative, signed in 1991.
You're right it would never work. But the top of the USSR didn't know that. They were stuck with an expensive renewed arms-race, an expensive escalating war in Afghanistan and on top of that an in their eyes maybe potential enemy weapon that would make all their militairy efforts worthless. It was this conviction that made it possible that a reformer like Gorbachev came on top. And during the negotiations, the ending of SDI was constantly the first demand the soviets made. Reagan played poker with a lousy hand, which he and his opponent thought both strong.
Reagan's hard stance didn't cause the fall of the USSR but it did work as an catalyst.
 
Top