I'm positive this has been asked before, but let's say Reagan was able to upset Ford in the 76 primary, and then Carter in the General Election. What would America be like after four (early) years of Reagan? Who would a likely VP choice be? Would he win reelection in 1980?
 
Reagan had chosen Robert Schweiker as his running mate before Ford took the nomination, so I assume that he would be the VP.

However, even if Reagan somehow manages to win, which I think is unlikely seeing the state of the country after years of Republicans, he'll still get hit with the things that tore down Carter. That means that he'll probably lose in '80, maybe to Carter, Ted Kennedy, or Jerry Brown.
 
. . . he'll still get hit with the things that tore down Carter. . .
Not necessarily. Ronnie Reagan really believed in tax cuts in response to a stagnant economy. And he really believed in a military build up.

And in my universe, when faced with an under-performing economy, Keynesian economics is exactly what the doctor ordered. :)
 
Not necessarily. Ronnie Reagan really believed in tax cuts in response to a stagnant economy. And he really believed in a military build up.

And in my universe, when faced with an under-performing economy, Keynesian economics is exactly what the doctor ordered. :)

None of which would have passed the Democratic Congresses elected in 1976 and 1978. It took the 1980 election and GOP control of the Senate to push through Reagan's agenda -- and the four years under Carter that were so troubled. Reagan's agenda would have been DOA in 1977.
 
Not necessarily. Ronnie Reagan really believed in tax cuts in response to a stagnant economy. And he really believed in a military build up.

And in my universe, when faced with an under-performing economy, Keynesian economics is exactly what the doctor ordered. :)

That doesn't stop gas prices from rising and Iran from taking hostages. Some things are just out of the President's control, and some terms are just poison chalices.
 
None of which would have passed the Democratic Congresses elected in 1976 and 1978. It took the 1980 election and GOP control of the Senate to push through Reagan's agenda -- and the four years under Carter that were so troubled. Reagan's agenda would have been DOA in 1977.
Maybe we're living in relatively normal partisan times now, and the 1970s were more of an unusual bipartisan period. But in any case, the '70s were more bipartisan.

It's certainly could play out just as you suggest. But tax cuts as a stimulus for a stagnant economy, I think were popular even back then. And my fondest hope is that a military build-up would focus on conventional forces in NATO to equal Warsaw Pact, which would make nuclear war less likely.
 
That doesn't stop gas prices from rising and Iran from taking hostages. Some things are just out of the President's control, and some terms are just poison chalices.
Reagan somewhat got credit as a good-hearted delegator doing his best, whereas Carter got blame as someone trying to do it himself and making mistakes.
 
Reagan somewhat got credit as a good-hearted delegator doing his best, whereas Carter got blame as someone trying to do it himself and making mistakes.

But the things that doomed the Carter administration were out of his control. Reagan wouldn't have been able to stop the bleeding fully, even if he delegated. And, let's keep it mind that he probably couldn't win unless Carter fully self implodes.
 

QueerSpear

Banned
Ronnie would have been wrecked by the issues that Carter faced and there would be very little he could do to stop the energy crisis triggered by the Iranian Revolution. His hawkishness would only worsen the problem if he tried to intervene in the Yom Kippur War.

The Reagan Revolution would have been aborted, which would be great for America in the long term.

Not necessarily. Ronnie Reagan really believed in tax cuts in response to a stagnant economy. And he really believed in a military build up.

Except that the tax cuts proved to be inefficient and he ultimately raised taxes five times during his two terms- proving Ronnie was a pinko commie marxist. Also his military build up is classic Keynesianism.
 
. . . Except that the tax cuts proved to be inefficient and he ultimately raised taxes five times during his two terms- . . .
Honest to gosh, I've read that the net effect was a large net deficit, even bigger than Reagan's military build up.

However, as a good Keynesian, I'm open to the idea that the deficits were worth it. I think a lot of that depends on specific details.
 
Last edited:
This guy recently appeared on C-SPAN:

The Presidency: Reagan & Cold War Politics
Fritz Bartel, Ph.D candidate, Cornell

He argued that foreign capital poured into the United States during the Reagan years because Paul Volcker had raised interest rates. Standard economic thinking is that a government running a deficit crowds out a measurable amount of private investment. This did not happen in the United States during the Reagan years.

Instead, this guy argues that the crowding effect happened to countries in eastern Europe and Latin America.

And thirdly, he argues that this led to pro-democracy changes in these countries. That's the part I'd really kick at! Because usually economic hard times do not lead to greater democracy. In fact, it's almost the exception when it does. (unrelated changes in eastern Europe, don't know about Latin America)
 
Last edited:

QueerSpear

Banned
This guy recently appeared on C-SPAN:

The Presidency: Reagan & Cold War Politics
Fritz Bartel, Ph.D candidate, Cornell

He argued that foreign capital poured into the United States during the Reagan years because Paul Volcker had raised interest rates. Standard economic thinking is that a government running a deficit crowds out a measurable amount of private investment. This did not happen in the United States during the Reagan years.

Instead, this guy argues that the crowding effect happened to countries in eastern Europe and Latin America.

You know that guy is full of shit because Eastern Europe went full on neoliberalism in general, though it varies from country to country.
 
I think the people in Eastern Europe objected to a top-down mess of a system, especially one imposed by people from another country!

And once the chance of change got rolling, yes, a bunch of people were willing to participate who had previously kept their heads down. It might be interesting a read parts of a couple of autobiographies from East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc, which covered the late '80s and might potentially talk about what motivated or did nit motivate the person writing.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
That doesn't stop gas prices from rising and Iran from taking hostages. Some things are just out of the President's control, and some terms are just poison chalices.
If Reagan bombed the crap out of the Iranians he would prob have own re-election even if some hostages die

Elections are about perception: the problem with Iran hostage crisis wasn't he lives of the hostages: it's the sign of American weakness
 
Top