Reagan question.

President Reagan was, by anyone's standards, a fairly old man when he was first elected. What's the earliest he could potentially have stood for President and won? And what impact would earlier Reaganomics have had on the economy of the US and wider world? Is Soviet collapse likely to be hastened?
 
President Reagan was, by anyone's standards, a fairly old man when he was first elected. What's the earliest he could potentially have stood for President and won? And what impact would earlier Reaganomics have had on the economy of the US and wider world? Is Soviet collapse likely to be hastened?

The earliest possible would be 1968; but that is a stretch. It would involve the Goldwater wing of the Party coming back from the defeat in 1964 and still controlling the convention. Only way this can happen is if Nixon does not run for the nomination.
 
It depends on the POD to be honest. I'll run through some scenarios...

1968: Reagan v. RFK. Two most charismatic postwar presidentiables of their parties. 50-50, but Reagan is less experienced (esp in foreign affairs) and knows nothing of the negative side of politics. Reagan is the better debater though, and the chances of getting verbally "mugged" as Carter did to Reagan in '80 IOTL are very high. Helps Reagan.

1972: Reagan v. Humphrey. Reagan wipes the floor with an incumbent Humphrey and might be a monetarist instead of a supply-sider. The deficit hawks cheer.

1976: Reagan v. Carter: Reagan wins because he's not associated with Nixon or Washington, and is more experienced than Carter.
 
Reagan '68 with a post-6/6 POD: it's relatively easy to nominate Reagan. Even Strom Thurmond and John Tower had trouble keeping the South in line. Nixon only cleared a majority by 45 votes on the first ballot IOTL. If it goes to a second ballot, the RNC will come to a deadlock and Nixon might be forced to withdraw in favour of Reagan. Reagan picks up nearly all of Nixon's delegates and enough of the others rally around him to give Reagan the nomination. Reagan easily defeats Humphrey in November, being infinitely more charismatic (oratorically, equalled only by FDR) and a breath of fresh air. Read Historico's TL linked earlier to see how Reagan '68 pans out.

I'll put it this way: whoever wins RFK-Reagan '68 succeeds the other in 1976.
 
Is Soviet collapse likely to be hastened?

Well, Lorien was a bit mean here, but still...

- a '68 Reagan would have to deal with Vietnam, a 70s Regan with its aftermath. I doubt he could that directly do the arms-race vs the Sovjet Union.

- also I wonder what are the consequences if we butterfly Nixon's China politics away? I am not informed enough to judge it, but I do worry.

- even a collapse takes its time. Before the 1980s, it would be less obvious that the Warsaw Pact loses such an arms race and would completely ruin its economy in its course.

- even when you collapse, your leadership has to understand (and even accept) that. This is the thing about Gorbi. He realized he somehow had to bail out of this situation (it was not his initial idea to completely destroy the SU and its empire within half a decade). What I wanted to say is, that this realization takes time. Also, even if an earlier Reagan presidency speeds up the process a bit, one of his successors would reap the fruits (a bit like Brandt and Kohl, some would argue).

- as I understand it, it is a technology gap which allowed the West to gain and edge in the arms race of the 80s. Was that possible earlier? As long as we just talk about building more stuff (tanks, planes, nukes), that is exactly what the East was good at. But things like Stealth technology and SDI, and any progress made possible by IT...those changed things.
 
Top