Speaking of the A-word, it's likely to remain a much less partisan issue ITTL. The Religious Right per se, is a dead letter electorally and socially speaking (largely because there is no way in hell Catholics would throw in behind the idiots in the AIP), which means that many conservative Catholics who OTL became Republicans are still ITTL still good Democrats. You have to remember it was not until the 1980s that Catholic Democratic politicians were convinced standing with the bishops was a lost cause. Heck, even Ted Kennedy was pro-life until around the time of the Bork crisis. So ITTL a pro-lifer will be as likely to be a Democrat as a Republican. Same would be true of the pro-choice side as well. The main predictor of sentiments on the issue would be primarily sectarian, not partisan - many Catholics of course being on the pro-life side, while many Protestants (including IIRC the Southern Baptists) being less so.
 

Glen

Moderator
While I appreciate the enthusiasm, please do try to keep on topic in other threads.
Wow! I learned somethign really cool today. I wonder what passed for "flashy special effects" then.

This gives me an idea for a post in the "USA 1983ISOT to 1783" TL but come on, Glen and I can't carry the whole thing, someone else shoudl post as if they're living in that world, either born in the U.S. or, if not in the US at the time of the ISOT, an ancestor who would have been alive in 1783 or later and posting thoughts of what's happened.

This woudl be the perfect way to introduce yourself. And some of thsoe born in the '70s and '80s in this thread would be able to write and post now. Glen has us up to June 3, 1998. (Someone born in 1990 could logically post as an 8YO.) Basically covering how thigns are different from OTL becasue of the Event for you, but Glen did a lot of stuff with his friends and such before (since that would be his midnset at that age) and I did the same, probably going overboard a time or two.:) Interesting to hear POVs from those born *after* the Event or with memory of a time whent he U.S. was back in the last 1700s.

(Even born later, I think Glen would accept a post from a child's POV whose parents were "helping" them a bit at first.)

Sorry for the "ad," but it is boring with only 2 of us posting. Now back to our show.
 

Glen

Moderator
Speaking of on topic, a very well done 1980 election, Brainbin. While as a child of the 80s I find it hard to believe in a Reagan defeat emotionally, you've set up a very convincing scenario for that loss, and you took down Proxmire, which is a nice consolation prize. I look forward to hearing more about the Glenn administration.
 
Speaking of the A-word, it's likely to remain a much less partisan issue ITTL. The Religious Right per se, is a dead letter electorally and socially speaking (largely because there is no way in hell Catholics would throw in behind the idiots in the AIP), which means that many conservative Catholics who OTL became Republicans are still ITTL still good Democrats. You have to remember it was not until the 1980s that Catholic Democratic politicians were convinced standing with the bishops was a lost cause. Heck, even Ted Kennedy was pro-life until around the time of the Bork crisis. So ITTL a pro-lifer will be as likely to be a Democrat as a Republican. Same would be true of the pro-choice side as well. The main predictor of sentiments on the issue would be primarily sectarian, not partisan - many Catholics of course being on the pro-life side, while many Protestants (including IIRC the Southern Baptists) being less so.

Two things:

1. Someone, electorally, will have to answer for a Brennan Court-on-steroids issuing very politically unpopular opinions on hot-button issues like abortion, capital punishment, defendants' rights, and the like. The logical candidate is the political party of the President who put those guys on the Court. The fact that nationally, Democrats may not have abortion rights in their platform is unlikely to save them from the wrath of the voters, IMO.

2. The fact that the religious right has been marginalized in national politics makes me think that they're going to try and find another avenue to vent their frustrations; perhaps you'll see something like the homeschooling movement on steroids. Brainbin's comments on Billy Graham suggest a temporary diffusion, but it strikes me that a man who's had the ear of seven U.S. Presidents is not likely to stick with a strategy of disengagement.

Which reminds me: the ways in which evangelicals react to Vice-President Carter ITTL are likely to be very, very interesting.
 
Nice political update; Ohio has another President!

My hunch is he'll win in '84, making this the last major political update. I must say, it's nice to see a world where the 2 parties are not growing so far apart becasue of Watergate and the Unmentionable Thing in Asia.

Not only that, but the Democrats have to tread lightly here. If their rapproachment with the AIP/ADP is too inviting to these members, it might be the first opportunity in a generation for the GOP to draw African-American voters back to them. NOt in huge numbers, but in New Deal-numbers of maybe 65% Democrats, 35% Republicans. Still a lot of work to get there, and it would be beyond the scope of this TL, since it ends in '86, but there is a glimmer of hope that the Republicans might see the need to reinvent themselves after being out of office for all but 4 of 29 years.

And, Andy Griffith in the Senate is really cool! Might it inspire other Hollywood actors and actresses?
 
Last edited:
I do see the Religious Right trying to take over school boards and other local places like OTL. (My community may be one of them, sad to say.)
As for the slogan, I think it was first used OTL in 1982 against Harrison Schmidt.
 
Two things:

1. Someone, electorally, will have to answer for a Brennan Court-on-steroids issuing very politically unpopular opinions on hot-button issues like abortion, capital punishment, defendants' rights, and the like. The logical candidate is the political party of the President who put those guys on the Court. The fact that nationally, Democrats may not have abortion rights in their platform is unlikely to save them from the wrath of the voters, IMO.

2. The fact that the religious right has been marginalized in national politics makes me think that they're going to try and find another avenue to vent their frustrations; perhaps you'll see something like the homeschooling movement on steroids. Brainbin's comments on Billy Graham suggest a temporary diffusion, but it strikes me that a man who's had the ear of seven U.S. Presidents is not likely to stick with a strategy of disengagement.

Which reminds me: the ways in which evangelicals react to Vice-President Carter ITTL are likely to be very, very interesting.

True, but who do they propose to put in its place? The AIP and the Religious Right ITTL are toxic to Catholics, who formed an essential part of the broader moral majority, and even many Southern Evangelicals are still going Democrat.

Also keep in mind many of the evangelicals necessary for the Republicans to IOTalcapitalize on the culture war are off in their own little extremist party. The only comparable force that can mobilize on the issue is the Catholic Church, but the prelates and the people have not yet been particularly alienated as of yet, and the Republicans ITTL do not seem to be much better. The AIP? Forget it.
 
I'm not fully caught up with the pop-culture yet, but I am politically. Just poppig in to to note a) Arthur Goldberg would likely be Chief Justice b) there should definitely be 1-3 female Justices and most importantly c) at first, abortion was not the beast it became later. Ronald Reagan and George Wallace were both pro-choice when the decision came down, and Wallace was on record for supporting it. Evangelicals supported it as well. It was Catholics, like Ted Kennedy, who were initially pro-life. It's not out of the question that Muskie ran as a pro-life candidate in 1976 against the pro-choice Reagan. Helms probably shifts the AIP in a decidedly anti-abortion direction.
 
This is awesome! I'm sad to see my beloved Wisconsin go Republican during this election (during much of the 1970s, the state became very, very Democratic, as a result of Watergate, but in an ATL without that, it makes sense for the Republicans to remain stronger. Interestingly, this may also mean that the old Progressive-Republicans remain a stronger faction within the party, and the state, as they were the worse hit by the fallout of Watergate.) However, if Proxmire cuts significantly into the Democratic vote, it makes sense.

Well, in any case, I wish the John Glenn Presidency a lot of luck. I suspect that having an Space-faring President is going to have some major impacts upon popular culture. I could see the public attention turning towards more Science Fiction during this period as a result, which would be great. Maybe we will see more Star Trek (minus Sulu, of course, who has duties in the Congress).

One question: How has Philip K. Dick fared in this TL? This is time we saw the release of Bladerunner which, based on the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", really launched Philip K. Dick's works into the Hollywood sphere (even if he died before the release of the movie and, of course, even if his works have rarely been accurately put on the silver screen.)

Considering the, likely, increased attention to Science Fiction, I could see Dick still becoming popular in Hollywood (his attention to questions of reality, government intrusion, and identity do make fore great movies). However, I doubt Bladerunner, as we know it, comes to be.
 
Ah good update BB. It's posible we may even see a Takei bid at the Presidency :eek: tho likely after the 86 cutoff

This is awesome! I'm sad to see my beloved Wisconsin go Republican during this election (during much of the 1970s, the state became very, very Democratic, as a result of Watergate, but in an ATL without that, it makes sense for the Republicans to remain stronger. Interestingly, this may also mean that the old Progressive-Republicans remain a stronger faction within the party, and the state, as they were the worse hit by the fallout of Watergate.) However, if Proxmire cuts significantly into the Democratic vote, it makes sense.

Well, in any case, I wish the John Glenn Presidency a lot of luck. I suspect that having an Space-faring President is going to have some major impacts upon popular culture. I could see the public attention turning towards more Science Fiction during this period as a result, which would be great. Maybe we will see more Star Trek (minus Sulu, of course, who has duties in the Congress).

One question: How has Philip K. Dick fared in this TL? This is time we saw the release of Bladerunner which, based on the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", really launched Philip K. Dick's works into the Hollywood sphere (even if he died before the release of the movie and, of course, even if his works have rarely been accurately put on the silver screen.)

Considering the, likely, increased attention to Science Fiction, I could see Dick still becoming popular in Hollywood (his attention to questions of reality, government intrusion, and identity do make fore great movies). However, I doubt Bladerunner, as we know it, comes to be.

I will forego the loss of Bladerunner if it means we get a decent Second Variety film!
 

Thande

Donor
Great update. I see that third parties turn out to be about as unsuccessful as ever in the USA. I saw a hint that the Earth Party will continue after Proxmire (boo, hiss!), maybe it will morph into an alternate Green Party-like organisation?

(BTW, while checking something I found that not only was Proxmire the great enemy of the space programme, he also said that a project which led to 3D navigation like the interface from Google Maps was a waste of money...he probably caused the most damage to human progress of any individual since that guy who invented both CFCs and leaded petrol...)

Huh. I'm used to seeing the American convention of Red = Right.

Allow me to copy-paste my standard explanation of the history of US political party colour schemes. Suffice to say that this 'convention' is barely a decade old.

I have to explain this a lot, but red Republicans and blue Democrats are not "conventional colour norms". They have caught on as a bit of a fad because the US TV networks had decided to use that colour scheme for the 2000 election, and as it was so close and disputed and everyone was looking at electoral maps for weeks afterwards, the idea of "red states and blue states" has stuck. However, prior to that, throughout the 20th century most US TV networks randomly selected colours to represent the parties, usually some combination of blue, red, white and gold. They kept changing them around due to accusations that people associate red with evil and commies so they didn't want to look like they were demonising one party over the other. 2000 was unusual because all the TV networks settled on the same colour scheme, but they were planning to swap over for the next election, but as I mentioned before, all the kerfuffle over the disputed election meant the colours have got fixed in the public imagination.

The US Election Atlas electoral calculator, which everyone on here is using to make their maps, predates the 2000 election and therefore does not use this scheme. It uses red for Democrats and blue for Republicans in part because this was the most common colour choice before 2000, which is obvious when you think about it--in pretty much every other country, blue means conservatives and red means progressives. If you don't believe me, look at this statistical and political atlas of the United States published in 1893, which consistently uses red for Democrats, blue for Republicans and green for everything else.
 
Excellent update, Brainbin! Of course, I was privy to the information beforehand, but I can say that you put it together exceptionally well. ;)
 
I can see a lot of sci-fi books, movies and shows written or made after this election making some sort of reference to an astronaut President (maybe even mentioning Glenn specifically). Might Deep Space be the first of these?
 
Given the subject matter of this thread, I thought it fitting to commemorate the late Sir David Frost with this photo which leaped out at me from the BBC's slideshow...

One interesting snippet from Monday's BBC Radio 4 News was that he paid for the rights to conduct the Nixon interviews with his own money, which meant that he had to sell his shares in London Weekend Television. Obviously ITTL, there's nothing comparable to OTL's Nixon Interviews, so Frost will remain an LWT shareholder. I'm not sure what effect that would have on LWT itself, but it probably means that Frost is less likely to become involved with a venture such as TV-AM.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 

Thande

Donor
One interesting snippet from Monday's BBC Radio 4 News was that he paid for the rights to conduct the Nixon interviews with his own money, which meant that he had to sell his shares in London Weekend Television. Obviously ITTL, there's nothing comparable to OTL's Nixon Interviews, so Frost will remain an LWT shareholder. I'm not sure what effect that would have on LWT itself, but it probably means that Frost is less likely to become involved with a venture such as TV-AM.

Cheers,
Nigel.

Yes, I heard that bit as well. Quite POD-worthy in itself. They said that Frost's LWT shares would be worth millions today if he'd kept them.
 
Top