Ronald Reagan is dead in 1981

samcster94

Banned
What happens if Reagan is dead and would HW be a different leader??? I wonder how 1984(and 1982 Congressional elections) would look in if that happened.
 
George H.W. Bush becomes president under Twenty-fifth Amendment
First action as President is to deal with Alexander Haig, Caspar Weinberger and Richard Allen
OTL the three ignore the 25th Amendment and rule the USA, as Reagan was hospitalized and Bush in Air force Two on his way to Washington D.C.

follow by the State Funeral of Reagan on Arlington National Cemetery.
Then Bush nominates a successor for Vice President. interesting question who would he take ?

John Hinckley Jr. is found guilty of murdering the 40th President of the USA and certainly get executed in the District of Columbia jail.

over the time Ronald Reagan will be idealized by Republicans and Media
As president who never had the chance to show how great statesman he was.

Finally would Bush continue Reagans Agenda or will do his own political Agenda ?
Like No Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative but Bush Space Exploration Initiative ?
 
Paradoxically, Bush in 1981-84 might be a more conservative president in some respects than Reagan. On taxes, for example, Bush--despite his prior criticism of "voodoo economics"--had long since become reconciled to Kemp-Roth by the time Reagan was shot. Reagan eventually partly offset some of the tax cuts in Kemp-Roth with TEFRA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEFRA [1] I am not sure that Bush would have done so. The reason is that Bush would have to convince skeptical Republicans that he was indeed a "Reaganite"--something which Reagan himself would not have to do. If Bob Dole and others nevertheless convinced Bush that additional revenue just had to be raised, Bush could face conservative primary opposition in 1984. (Probably less serious than the Reagan challenge in 1976, but--depending on the challenger--maybe more so than the Buchanan one of 1992. Jack Kemp would probably be the most dangerous challenger, but my guess is that he was too much a party loyalist to challenge Bush in 1984.)

[1] Also, of course, Reagan signed the gas tax hike of 1982. And the increase in Social Security taxes...
 
I really want to note that with Reagan dead in 1981, this is not "Morning in America" era society. Reagan will be regarded as part of the 1970s malaise period: the corruption and disillusion of Nixon, the failure of Ford and any hope in him after Nixon, and the failure of Carter and the initial hope he would fix things again, and then the assassination of Reagan. Brief respites of hope that immediately crash down to a real world that isn't getting better. It's a burn out even worse than the burnout Americans were going through up to 1980.
 
I really want to note that with Reagan dead in 1981, this is not "Morning in America" era society. Reagan will be regarded as part of the 1970s malaise period: the corruption and disillusion of Nixon, the failure of Ford and any hope in him after Nixon, and the failure of Carter and the initial hope he would fix things again, and then the assassination of Reagan. Brief respites of hope that immediately crash down to a real world that isn't getting better. It's a burn out even worse than the burnout Americans were going through up to 1980.

I think you're right. Remember, too, that the 1981-82 recession was quite nasty as well, so there isn't going to be any sort of good feeling emerging from the period until 1983-ish as economic recovery kicks in. It is very possible that the whole period is remembered as a grim and unpleasant slog through a 1970s that won't end. Reagan, it should be remembered, will have only served for two months and 10 days. A bit more than WH Harrison, less than James Garfield. He may be barely remembered at all. Conservatives will remember him, of course, but he will be remembered as an ideal, a quantity that never got to govern. The broader public will likely forget him for the most part, a vaguely nice man who was tragically murdered.

Over time, a Bush Administration could look very different. He'll pick a conservative VP, perhaps someone like Jack Kemp, but the staffing of the White House will not be the same. It will be more establishment conservatives and fewer movement conservatives. This will matter, particularly in national security policy, which will be more mainstream.
 
Jack Kemp is interesting Choice
another candidate was republican conservative James Strom Thurmond, in time "President pro tempore" in Senat in 1981
he maintained a close relationship with the Reagan administration.

but his biggest problem, he opposed the 1964 cilvil Right act and Thurmond never explicitly renounced his earlier views on racial segregation!
that could let the Democrats, dominating the House of Representatives, to vote against Thurmond as Vice President.

a Alternative is Robert Henry Michel, republican Minority Leader of House of Representatives
he hab connection to Democrats and would more acceptable candidate for Vice President voting
 
Last edited:

ATP45

Banned
Kick
What happens if Reagan is dead and would HW be a different leader??? I wonder how 1984(and 1982 Congressional elections) would look in if that happened.
Soviets never fall.They survivef becouse USA de facto help them economically,Reagan take that from them and in 1987 soviets was dead.Bush try to save soviet union in 1991,so ge would not hurt them in 1981.In 2017 soviet would conqer European Union.Maybe that would be better for France and Germany - soviets could be better than caliphate.
 
Soviets never fall.They survivef becouse USA de facto help them economically,Reagan take that from them and in 1987 soviets was dead.Bush try to save soviet union in 1991,so ge would not hurt them in 1981.In 2017 soviet would conqer European Union.Maybe that would be better for France and Germany - soviets could be better than caliphate.
...What?
 

orwelans II

Banned
Because Bush tried to help preserve the USSR under Gorbachev in 1991 he would obviously not confront Brezhnev's USSR in 1981. This would lead to a surviving USSR that would conquer the EU in 2017. This is a better outcome for France and Germany than being absorbed into a Caliphate. I think we're all clear on that. Anyone wanna bet not if, but when the mods will be giving their own thoughts on this scenario, probably bringing a red warning, kick or ban sign as well?
 
Because Bush tried to help preserve the USSR under Gorbachev in 1991 he would obviously not confront Brezhnev's USSR in 1981. This would lead to a surviving USSR that would conquer the EU in 2017. This is a better outcome for France and Germany than being absorbed into a Caliphate. I think we're all clear on that. Anyone wanna bet not if, but when the mods will be giving their own thoughts on this scenario, probably bringing a red warning, kick or ban sign as well?

......? are you trying to get kicked
 

Deleted member 9338

President Bush knew more about the workings of the Soviets than any previous President and the longevity to out last the Soviet Union
 
Not tonight. I was being sarcastic for the most part and I thought it was pretty obvious. When people bring out that European Caliphate argument without irony in a serious discussion someone often does get kicked.

:biggrin:
well sorry about that note to self don't post after just waking up
 

samcster94

Banned
Too many trolls on here. Regardless, I think he'd have a nearly identical foreign policy, but might be a bit more moderate(for 1980's Republicans) on social policy.
 
Too many trolls on here. Regardless, I think he'd have a nearly identical foreign policy, but might be a bit more moderate(for 1980's Republicans) on social policy.
What about economic policy? Might Bish be even more Libertarian than Reagan in that regard, perhaps using Reagan's Martyr status to push through even more tax cuts then OTL? If so, that could hit his administration hard, considering that the recession is both incoming, and only gonna be made worse by political turmoil as might be caused by, oh, say, the assassination of a President. I could see the Dems retaking the Senate in 1982.
 
Last edited:

samcster94

Banned
What about economic policy? Might BUsh be even more lIbertarian then Reagan in that regard, perhaps using Reagan's Martyr status to push through even more tax cuts then OTL? If so, that could hit his administration hard, considering that the recession is both incoming, and only gonna be made worse by political turmoil as might be caused by, oh, say, the assassination of a President. I could see the Dems retaking the Senate in 1982.
Well, he was a huge fiscal conservative and tax cuts were always his selling point.
 
I think you're right. Remember, too, that the 1981-82 recession was quite nasty as well, so there isn't going to be any sort of good feeling emerging from the period until 1983-ish as economic recovery kicks in. It is very possible that the whole period is remembered as a grim and unpleasant slog through a 1970s that won't end. Reagan, it should be remembered, will have only served for two months and 10 days. A bit more than WH Harrison, less than James Garfield. He may be barely remembered at all. Conservatives will remember him, of course, but he will be remembered as an ideal, a quantity that never got to govern. The broader public will likely forget him for the most part, a vaguely nice man who was tragically murdered.

Over time, a Bush Administration could look very different. He'll pick a conservative VP, perhaps someone like Jack Kemp, but the staffing of the White House will not be the same. It will be more establishment conservatives and fewer movement conservatives. This will matter, particularly in national security policy, which will be more mainstream.


A problem with Reagan as a legacy is also that he was a shallow person. Lincoln, Kennedy and so forth are people where their narrative is as much about their personal depths, personality and inner thoughts as history. Reagan has plagued biographers because even his friends and associates stated they never really knew what was going on in his head or if there was anything beyond the basic level they interacted with. This is likely the result of an alcoholic father and the mental defenses that come with that, but unless there was this deep inner spirit that he always kept hidden, that childhood may also have meant that he developed into a shallow, superficial personality. That means there is nothing to mine there for the peanut gallery. So what you have solely are his political accomplishments and career, which are not so glamorous without a presidency.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Soviets never fall.They survivef becouse USA de facto help them economically,Reagan take that from them and in 1987 soviets was dead.Bush try to save soviet union in 1991,so ge would not hurt them in 1981.In 2017 soviet would conqer European Union.Maybe that would be better for France and Germany - soviets could be better than caliphate.
The Soviets conquer Europe in 2017? i.e. World War III is fought (mainly on German soil). Yet this megadeath event is better than the "caliphate"? Uh huh.

Where ti even begin? Oh, ya...

Kicked for a week for Islamophobia and half ass conspiracy theories.
 

MrP

Banned
Over time, a Bush Administration could look very different. He'll pick a conservative VP, perhaps someone like Jack Kemp, but the staffing of the White House will not be the same. It will be more establishment conservatives and fewer movement conservatives. This will matter, particularly in national security policy, which will be more mainstream.
I suppose James Baker is going to be a key figure of this earlier George H.W. Bush administration.
 
Top