Republican Party Without the Reagan Revolution

You could also re-elect Gerald Ford. If that happens, he gets the rough term that was 1976-1980, and a Democrat other than Carter probably wins easily (Clinton vs. Dole easy, not Reagan vs. Mondale easy). Maybe the Democrat who runs is Mondale, maybe its even Ted Kennedy. Either way, if that Democratic president then manages to win again in 1984 against a conservative Republican (why not George H.W. Bush?), then you start to reach a point where conservative Republicans begin to be seen as unelectable in the eyes of the party. Barring a disaster for the Democrats in 1988 (losing big to a conservative), that should pretty much butterfly away the Reagan Revolution.
 
There's something key you guys are forgetting here, and that is that Carter wouldn't win the nomination without Watergate. His whole appeal was based on honesty and " never lying to" the voters. Without Watergate that wouldn't have the same resonance.
 

Xen

Banned
There's something key you guys are forgetting here, and that is that Carter wouldn't win the nomination without Watergate. His whole appeal was based on honesty and " never lying to" the voters. Without Watergate that wouldn't have the same resonance.

You're very correct, without Watergate, regardless of who Nixon tries to draft to run in '76 there is now guarantee that person will win. We could infact see Nelson Rockefeller end up with the Republican nomination and Henry "Scoop" Jackson with the Democratic nomination. A social conservative Democrat vs a Social moderate Republican.

If Jackson wins in 1976, might we see a moderate Republican such as George H.W. Bush with the nomination in 1980?
 
...


I've heard similar trains of thought before; that being that without the hostage crisis or with a successful rescue attempt, Carter would have enough brownie points to win reelection in 1980. However, because of the economy, I'm not so sure. Maybe he could be more competitive and the election closer, but I'm not sure how close you could make it.

Hmm, upon review the election was not as close as I remember. So mayber we do need more of a POD.


There's a good few myths here about Carter. Those being that he was responsible for the crappy economy (which was due to Johnson breaking the camel's back with spending on Vietnam and the Great Society, sucked throughout the 1970's overall, and would have been the same in 1976 to 1980 regardless of who was elected), that he was a tax hiking lefty, and that he enforced regulations that harmed economic recovery (you only discuss taxation, which I understand and am not calling you out on any of the other things besides tax cuts as I go on about this whole thing, but I'd like to get these out of the way).

Oh, you definetly can't blame so one for something that began before they were there.
Carter gave the rich a capital gains tax cut, and total fed taxation elsewhere did not rise by any significant percentage. Similarly, the economic boom was Volckers doing, and Volcker had already begun his policies under the Carter presidency, so you'd have seen the same economic boom regardless of whether it was Carter or Reagan (similarly, Reagan's tax cuts didn't do all too much. The recession of the 1980's which they were supposed to avoid or eleviate still came and went on. For Jaded's sake, I'm going to be politically correct here by explaining I don't mean this as a derision of tax cuts, but to put emphasis on Volcker holding the economic strings). Similarly, Carter himself began the process of deregulation.


IMO, the low taxs and the stimulus effect of heavy military spending greatly increased teh economic recovery.

I'm not sure whether he'd do that or not. If I recall, it was Carter himself who saw Afghanistan as a place to give the Soviets a defeat.

Reagan was adamant about giving the mujaheen top of the line anti-aircraft, overruling more moderate voices even within his own administration, or so I've heard.


I'm not so sure Conservatives will be fired up. If all goes the same with Volcker, the economy will begin to recover by 1982 as it did, so 1984 will be an ok enough year at least. Similarly, if you don't call attention to international issues, the American public won't generally give a damn about them, so even if Carter doesn't aid this or that government or rebel movement, those could very well and in many cases probably would fall under the radar I think.

Perhaps true about the economy, but I think your wrong about the foriegn policy stuff. Someone will draw attention to it. I recall Carter taking a beating over the Panama Canal Zone, "losing" Nicaragua and the Salt treaties.


You know, something else that occurrs to me. I've heard more socially conservative people discuss that they feel that their activism is a response to an agressive secularization of society were not only their interests, but their participation is/was under attack.

Another Carter term leading to a more liberal Court could spur this feeling on.

Or conversly, if we lost Carter and got a more socially conservative president this backlast could be avoided.




I'd say if the GOP is not led by the Conservatives by this point, the GOP would nominate a moderate -perhaps Bush-, and could win not largely on anything like what you saw as the alternate to Carter (which Reagan won on), but more out of party fatigue with the Democrats and an uneven showing under Carter economically as you'd still have that recession economy in the earlier part of Carter's administration even with economic recovery by 1982 (but, as we saw with Reagan who himself had seen the early 1980's in a recession state but went on to win in the largest landslide in US history when recovery came, presidential presents matter more than presidential pasts).


A moderate who does not give people reason to vote for him again. A ok economy, a slightly stronger but still defensive posture to the SU, acceptance of social "progress".

I could see him as a one termer.
 
IMO, the low taxs and the stimulus effect of heavy military spending greatly increased teh economic recovery.
If I comment, someone will yell at me, but it was Volcker that created the recovery. I'll budge and let you say that other stuff allowed a boom, but Volcker is the one who deserves credit for the initial thing.

Perhaps true about the economy, but I think your wrong about the foriegn policy stuff. Someone will draw attention to it. I recall Carter taking a beating over the Panama Canal Zone, "losing" Nicaragua and the Salt treaties.
I think you're misunderstanding me a bit here. Those were things Carter was actually involved in and/or had attention paid to US involvement in. I'm talking about things he'd just let slide under the table. Lack of doing is not the same as doing in a Presidency here, because the former doesn't draw criticism half the time because not a lot of people focus on something that doesn't exist in a place they could care less about. I'll give you an example; say there's a civil war in some small Asian country in 1992. If the President prioritizes that, discusses it, lends aid to the favored side, there can be all sorts of criticism and derision to come if he fails and public focus. And that civil war will become a memorable part of US history and generations will recall involvement and blah. If he ignores it and it can be ignored, the public won't focus on it, the media won't focus on it, and it'll fade away and no one will have given a damn. If he mutes discussion to boot, all the better for distracting any focus on it. Or at least that's what you could get away with before the information age.

You know, something else that occurrs to me. I've heard more socially conservative people discuss that they feel that their activism is a response to an agressive secularization of society were not only their interests, but their participation is/was under attack.

Another Carter term leading to a more liberal Court could spur this feeling on.

Or conversly, if we lost Carter and got a more socially conservative president this backlast could be avoided.
My problem here is that I think a lot of you folks see the Conservative movement taking charge of the political scene as inevitable, which I disagree it was. Elements existed that would later form a foundation for the Reagan Revolution (white anger at the Civil rights movement; middle America's wanting to end the chaos of the last few years before the 1980's; disillusion on all fronts) but the Conservative movement funneled those more so than those being principally and actively interested in the Conservative movement. Or at least that's the vibe I get from the history there.

A moderate who does not give people reason to vote for him again. A ok economy, a slightly stronger but still defensive posture to the SU, acceptance of social "progress".

I could see him as a one termer.
Simple competence is a powerful tool in retaining the Presidency. A "Caretaker President" isn't glamorous but they also don't give too much of a reason to vote against them.


***

I'm interested here on another point. Firstly, and this is a small issue, I'm interested in what Romney's positions and political opinion would be. As I said earlier, I believe a lot of those Republicans influenced by Reagan and party doctrine to be Conservatives would reflect the more varied factionalism of the GOP before Reagan were the Conservative Revolution never to have come about. Similarly, while my knowledge of Romney is limited, if I recall correctly he's at least relatively Conservative whereas his father was a Rockefeller Republican. So therefore, would his views reflect more his father's faction?
Secondly (and I know this deviates from the topic a bit, but it has my interest), as the Reagan Revolution deals not just with the rise of the Conservatives in the GOP, but Conservatism as a whole, what would become of those media and radio figures of a decidedly Conservative ideology?
 
Last edited:
I think you would have to go back to 1964 and find some way of keeping Barry Goldwater from winning the Republican nomination. It was then that the conservative revolt against the GOP establishment began, IMO.
 
Top