Ronald Reagan assanation attempt successful in 1981...

So , lets say on March 30th 1981 , Ronald Reagan the president of the United States has died in the hospital from a bullet ( in this alternate history ) hitting his heart.
What do You think would happen in the aftermath of this?
What would happen in the year that follows?

Would the US and Soviets finally get down and do something very uncomfortable?

Would the Cold War drag in in the 90's and maybe even the 00's?

I had this thought while watching a documentary , it was about 5 or 6 hours long about everything You need to know about the 80's from Americas point of view and it mentioned Ronald Reagens assanation attempt in 1981.

Anyway what do You think would happen?
 

Robert

Banned
The economy was not only not improving, but inflation and unemployment were considered "The New Normal".

The Soviet Union was considered on the right side of history by many in the West. The U.S. Democrats has given up on Containment, and were actively looking toward Appeasement.

The most popular cause celeb was the "Nuclear Freeze" movement which would have made the Soviet Nuclear advantage permanent.
 
President Bush engages with the Soviets more and maybe we get an earlier IMF treaty. nNo other major changes. Bush wins in 1984. uUnless Bush's develops a major following, Bob Dole wins in 88 but loses in the bad economic times of 92.
 
The Soviet Union was considered on the right side of history by many in the West. The U.S. Democrats has given up on Containment, and were actively looking toward Appeasement. (1)

The most popular cause celeb was the "Nuclear Freeze" movement which would have made the Soviet Nuclear advantage permanent. (2)

President Bush engages with the Soviets more (3) and maybe we get an earlier IMF treaty. (4) No other major changes. Bush wins in 1984. Unless Bush's develops a major following, Bob Dole wins in 88 (5) but loses in the bad economic times of 92.

1) Uh, no. Not even remotely. Unless by "West" you mean West European left wing protestors.

2) THIS was the "Appeasement" movement at the time. But it was only in said protest movements that were being ignored by their governments (except Greece's, IIRC). Those governments (Right, Center, or Left) were being quite mature regarding the "FREEZE" movement, except the British Labor Party. Which was in a state of self-inflicted immolation at the time. The long Thatcher-Major Era wasn't because they were such suoreme political geniuses so much as their opponents were True Believers determined to wait out the electorate until they "came to their senses.".:rolleyes:

The key difference between the genuine "appeasers" of the European Nuclear Freeze Movement and their American counterparts was that in Europe it was for Unilateral Disarmament (appeasement). In America, from Ivy League Academia to Hollywood to hard left Democrats all the way over to the American Socialist Party, it was about a Bi-Lateral Mutually Verifiable Nuclear freeze. Ironically, Reagan's "Zero-Zero Option" for the elimination of the American GLCMs & Pershing IIs along with the USSR's SS-4, SS-5, and SS-20 missiles was perfectly in line with that. The American Freeze movement members were simply being the grownups. Oh, and who were the only American Unilateralists? The CPUSA.:p

3) He CAN'T. Remember what was the reason Reagan gave for not having a summit with the Soviet leadership in his first term? "They keep dying on me!":p That won't change with an earlier Bush. Even after Gorbachev took over, he needed time to secure his political base before he could worry about foreign affairs.

4) Even with a younger stronger Bush, the situation on Moscow dictated that at most an earlier IMF Treaty would be a matter of months, only.

5) I am not so sure about Dole getting the nomination, tho I agree the Dems are doomed with Dukakis. There may be butterflies causing someone else to win the GOP nomination.:confused: Who else might have been in the running when only facing a Senate Majority Leader? Any Governors out there?
 
I disagree with the Dukakis assessment - he has a chance, IMO, if Atwater's thrown out.

I'm curious how this affects the long-term Republican Party. Do conservatives still become a major base under Reagan's legacy, or does Bush's more moderate stance keep them the center party?
 
How? The economy is going to improve regardless of Reagan's lousy economic policy, and Mondale is going to be a lousy candidate regardless of Reagan being dead or alive.

Reagan switched from monetarism to Keynesianism pretty early on when he realized the results weren't going to preserve his political career. Military spending was already on the rise during the Carter years, and after his shellacking in the 1982 midterm elections, Reagan accelerated the trend, adopting the same kind of military keynesianism that had come to define the United States during the early Cold War period. Increased military spending brought the economy back, but not the point that it would mean full employment - IIRC Reagan never got unemployment under 7% for the duration of his presidency.

With H.W. in the White House, you'll probably see a closer race that Mondale could very well win. H.W. was an actual fiscal conservative, unlike his boss, and it was his fiscal conservatism IOTL that made him lose the 1992 race against Bill Clinton (trying to balance the budget during a recession prove not to be popular, as Obama is learning now). Mondale could capitalize on the weak economy and win if Bush doesn't pursue the path Reagan did with jumping up military spending.
 
Reagan was very aggressive in supporting the Mujahideen in Afganistan.

With less support, especially if cooler heads prevail and they don't send in the Stingers, then the sovs would do a lot better there.
 
Gary Hart beats Mondale in the primaries and scores a shock win over Bush as the standard bearer of the new age

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Reagan was very aggressive in supporting the Mujahideen in Afganistan.

With less support, especially if cooler heads prevail and they don't send in the Stingers, then the sovs would do a lot better there.

Bush would have definitely supported them. Carter started the support program, and Bush was the former head of the CIA. No way he doesn't give them as much support as he can.
 
Bush would lose to Mondale in '84.

I doubt that very much.

In any case, I think the Soviet Union was still well along the way to collapse but may have lasted a few years more with President Bush in office. Not too many, but a few. As to open warfare? It might have happened in the late 1980s, but that's really quite hard to say for sure.
 
Interesting views... I don't think I'm in a position to say anything really , as I don't know to much about the 1980's with the Cold War , I tend to read about the 60's and with stuff such as the Cuban Missile Crisis and such...
 
Corbell Mark IV said:
Reagan was very aggressive in supporting the Mujahideen in Afganistan.

With less support, especially if cooler heads prevail and they don't send in the Stingers, then the sovs would do a lot better there.
As former Director CIA, H.W. might be a bit smarter about the endgame there, & we might not end up with OBL a decade later...:eek:
 
Bush would have definitely supported them. Carter started the support program, and Bush was the former head of the CIA. No way he doesn't give them as much support as he can.

Interestingly enough, when he was president Bush was far more courteous towards Carter and interested in his advice than Reagan, who generally treated Carter like shit. Could this shared view on foreign policy have had something to do with it?
 
Bush actually engages with Andropov. Gorbachev probably wins out instead of Chernenko, and the Cold War ends earlier.

Bush was rather unimaginative as president. Essentially he would be Reagan but less so. No War on Drugs. He could easily bungle 1984 as well. Without as much conservative support, 1982 could be three times as bad, like OTL 2010. It was half as bad as it should've been IOTL because the campaign money favored the Republicans, who spent better.
 
Gary Hart beats Mondale in the primaries and scores a shock win over Bush as the standard bearer of the new age

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Oh noes! It's Gary Hotpants! :eek:

Anyway, who knows what an 80s Bush Presidency would turn out like. Maybe the US would be better off not supporting the mujahedin in Afghanistan.
 
Top