THE BEATEN PATH: One Bicentennial and Counting
- Thread starter Enigma-Conundrum
- Start date
ACT ONE: Part 10 - Iran (So Far Away)
Khomeini’s death sent a shockwave through the Iranian revolutionary crowds. In their eyes, the man from Qom who would lead Iranians down a righteous path had just been cut down, gone before he could save the nation from its own Shah. The martyrdom of the Ayatollah had only driven people to more radical responses to the government. In addition, Khomeini had a spark of the divine in the eyes of the people. He was almost messianic, and his death weakened the control anyone truly had on the revolution. While his deputies would attempt to seize control, none truly had the same influence Khomeini ever had. This spiral out of control led to some of the most violent mass demonstrations ever seen in Iran, now known as Bloody January.
A HISTORY OF THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION, written in 2003
MAJOR IRANIAN CITIES CONSUMED BY PROTESTS: ATTACKS ON GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BY DEMONSTRATORS
THE NEW YORK TIMES, January 3rd, 1979
SHAH FLEES IRAN, ADMITTED TO UNITED STATES BY PRESIDENT REAGAN
THE WASHINGTON POST, January 21st, 1979
TWENTY YEARS LATER: STUDENT INVOLVED IN BATTLE OF DAR AL-TABLIGH REFLECTS ON EVENTS
Mohammad Lankarani takes a sip of his coffee. “There’s no better coffee shop in Qom.” Indeed, the holy city is one of the most rapidly-developing cities in the Middle East. It is a city for both imams and tech-sector professionals like Lankarani. It’s already ranked as one of the fastest-growing cities in the world, befitting a quickly-developing nation like the Iranian Republic. Included in this development is, of course, a cultural quarter that does have excellent coffee shops. For this to have happened, Lankarani is uniquely responsible, despite his objection to such a label. “I was no Shariatmadari. I was no Montazeri. I was just a student, and one who happened to be present at that key moment.”
In January of 1979, Qom was one of the cities plunged into terror as the people violently mourned the death of Khomeini. Arguably, Qom was dealt the greatest blow due to its religious nature. Thousands were killed on both sides, as protestors assaulted officers and troops fired on crowds. However, one key moment would begin on January 14th - the Battle of Dar al-Tabligh. Dar al-Tabligh, Ayatollah Mohammad Shariatmadari’s seminary, was no stranger to violence, though. It had already been fired upon in prior protests, in which six of Shariatmadari’s students were killed. In turn, this drove Shariatmadari to support Khomeini’s return to Iran. On the 14th, though, in the midst of the Bloody January protests, military police came demanding Shariatmadari come out for arrest. As Lankarani put it, “We were not going to allow those thugs to take our teacher. We never would. So Ali, one of the more outspoken amongst the students, stood up and declared that we would never hand him over. Soon, the rest of us followed suit.” Thus began a veritable siege. According to Lankarani, “We fortified every entrance and exit we could. We had no weapons there, but someone found metal pipes, rods, wooden planks, anything we could use to stop anyone from entering.” The students, now blockaded in their school, simply waited and dared the troops to enter the complex. For nearly two hours the siege held, as the soldiers seemed unwilling to attempt to attack a seminary, as another dead Ayatollah would likely worsen the protests further. However, the siege could not last, and it ended when “some inexperienced conscript outside fired at Ali, who was hotheadedly shouting insults at the soldiers.” Ali Jazani was one of the forty-seven of Shariatmadari’s students killed that day.
“It was chaos. Everyone holding something they could hit a soldier with was charging out of the building, desperate to stop the soldiers from arresting our teacher and enraged for killing Ali.” Lankarani himself was a part of this crowd, and was shot in the shoulder for doing so. As he showed me, he still has a scar to prove it. “I don’t even truly remember getting shot. I was seeing my friends gunned down next to me, and I figured that every one of the Shah’s dogs I downed was another life of ours saved. Eventually, though, I was unable to continue. I collapsed to the ground and was ready for death, with the army firing on my dearest friends the final sounds of my life.” Around this moment, Lankarani says, is when the moment that propelled Mohammad Shariatmadari to fame occurred. “I remember seeing the Ayatollah walking out of the door, and trying to cry out to him to stay away. But then, as bullets whirred by him and he gave the scene a look of immeasurable sadness, he shouted out one word with a force nobody had ever seen from him. Just one: Peace! The few of us still standing stopped, dumbfounded at his boldness, while the soldiers seem simply perplexed at why he would leave relative safety.” From there, the Ayatollah began to speak. As the first and most widely recognized lines of his now-famed Seminary Address go:
“Have you no sense of decency? This is not becoming of Iranians. Why are we fighting in the streets? Why, because the king demands order in a nation that no longer belongs to him? Iran is a proud nation of twenty-five centuries, and we are allowing it to be undone by one mad king. Enough! Iran belongs to the people! Iran belongs to God! Iran has never belonged to despots and selfish madmen, and we cannot have brothers killing brothers in the name of a tyrant! Our nation must be one of independence, freedom, and faith! Not one of chaos and destruction!”
From there, Lankarani only recalls that “I was awestruck. Nothing else mattered, not my bleeding shoulder or Ali’s body slumped over nearby. Our teacher was right about this, and even the soldiers seemed to be doubting their orders.” Shariatmadari went on, naming the abuses of the Shah’s government, and calling for all Iranians to rise up against his government. By the end of his speech, according to Lankarani, “No soldier was willing to lay a finger on the Ayatollah. To do so would’ve felt… sacreligious, in a way.” As word quickly spread of the now-legendary event across Iran, a prophecy many believed applied to the deceased Ruhollah Khomeini was whispered hesitantly. “A man will come out from Qom and he will summon people to the right path.” The leaderless revolution had found its voice once again.
The results of Shariatmadari’s speech and subsequent addresses to massive crowds in cities across Iran were plain to see. Six weeks later, the protests would swell to such a fever pitch that the Shah fled the nation, seeking asylum first in Egypt then later, controversially allowed by then-President Ronald Reagan, in the United States. Within the next three months revolutionary guerrillas would have control of the nation, defeating the remnants of the monarchy’s troops. On July 1st, 1979, a constitutional convention led by Ayatollah Shariatmadari, by then the new face of the Revolution and leader of the provisional government, convened in Tehran. Two weeks later, on the very date this article is being published, the Iran celebrated its first Republic Day. “Shariatmadari is a hero. Without him, I doubt we would have the freedom we do today. He could’ve taken control of this nation, but he didn’t. He only cared for the wellness of Iran.” Down the street from us stands a statue of Shariatmadari, but not as a conquering hero. Instead, it shows a thoughtful leader guiding his people, book in hand. Inscribed on the pedestal are just three words - “Independence, Freedom, Faith.”
THE WASHINGTON POST, July 14th, 1999
Above: Ayatollah Mohammad Shariatmadari, the Republic of Iran’s founding father.
“The clergy has no role in government. We are but guides, teachers, and advisors of the Iranian people. No government established here will allow any Ayatollah to rule unchallenged until I’m gone. Our culture is one of faith, but our governance is not.”
Ayatollah Mohammad Shariatmadari at the Tehran Constitutional Convention, July 2nd, 1979
KARIM SANJABI WINS FIRST DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN NEWLY-MINTED REPUBLIC OF IRAN
LE MONDE, June 5th, 1979
Above: Karim Sanjabi, the first President of Iran.
DECLASSIFIED REAGAN-ERA DOCUMENTS REVEAL CIA INVOLVEMENT IN KHOMEINI DEATH
...this has resulted in what officials are referring to as a surge in support for the National Islamic Party, a controversial party international observers have described as nationalistic and theocratic in nature. A US State Department spokesman stated the following: “In the eyes of Iranians, the conspiracy theories pushed by the NIP have been totally vindicated. Even though CIA involvement was, according to the declassified reports, limited to providing intelligence and support to SAVAK, the National Islamists sound like they’ve been telling the truth about the Americans the whole time and everyone else has been taken as a fool.” Current polling shows that the NIP candidate, ousted general Qassem Soleimani, would narrowly win the upcoming presidential election were it to be held today…
THE WASHINGTON POST, April 23rd, 2009
NO MERCY: LABOUR PROTESTS ROCK BRITAIN, THATCHER PROMISES “AGGRESSIVE RESPONSE”
...outgoing Labour Leader and former PM Michael Foot has expressed his concern with “trampling on the working people of Britain to silence their discontent.” It appears that his doubts are held by a sizable number of Britons, with nearly 59% polled expressing some level of concern with the Prime Minister’s promise for aggressive action against the trade unions...
THE GUARDIAN, January 3rd, 1979
LABOUR LEADERSHIP ELECTION: JENKINS EKES OUT NARROW VICTORY OVER HEALEY ON SECOND BALLOT
THE DAILY MAIL, January 15th, 1979
Above: Opposition Leader Roy Jenkins.
BAYH ELECTORAL COLLEGE AMENDMENT PASSES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS
THE WASHINGTON POST, January 23rd, 1979
“When I told you we’d be waiting on the amendment, Birch, this is why. With the Libs here to vote for it because they can’t survive nationally without it, and majorities in our favor, it was perfect timing. Stennis and his bunch are cranky old men, but we finally had enough to ignore them. Now we see how many arms our friends from Dixie can twist to get this thing actually ratified.”
Comments made by Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd to Senator Birch Bayh as reported by an unnamed aide, January 23rd, 1979
Commentators like to claim that Reagan was largely boxed out of domestic policy after the midterms. However, he was a compromiser in a way liberal perspectives tend to ignore. Both parties very much enjoyed deregulation at that moment, with President Reagan as one of the greatest advocates for such. Under his watch, deregulatory laws were enacted aimed towards the airlines, breweries, trucking, and railroads, just to name a few. The long-term economic benefit of these Reagan-era policies is clear to see, but yet he seemingly gets no credit for this.
THE CASE FOR RONALD REAGAN: Why The Gipper Deserves Another Look, written by Newt Gingrich in 2002
ISRAEL AND EGYPT SIGN TREATY OF MUTUAL RECOGNITION, ISRAEL TO WITHDRAW FROM SINAI OVER FIVE-YEAR PERIOD
THE NEW YORK TIMES, February 23rd, 1979
BREZHNEV DIES OF HEART ATTACK AT 72, DEPUTY SUSLOV TO SUCCEED HIM
THE GUARDIAN, March 2nd, 1979
Above: General-Secretary Mikhail Suslov.
“We have two swaggering hardliners with their fingers on the nuclear button, opposing each other on the world stage. God help us all.”
Private comment made by a Democratic Senator, later revealed to be George McGovern, March 3rd, 1979
WOULD-BE MOSCONE ASSASSIN DAN WHITE SENTENCED TO LIFE FOR MURDER OF DIANNE FEINSTEIN
THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, February 17th, 1979
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND BOMBED IN WESTMINSTER PARKING LOT, INLA CLAIMS RESPONSIBILITY
...Mr. Neave is currently hospitalized, but is expected to survive the attempt on his life, albeit while losing an arm…
THE SUN, March 31st, 1979
Above: Conservative MP and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Airey Neave, who was famously attacked by an Irish nationalist car bomb.
“It seems that Mrs. Thatcher prefers to crack the whip over people’s backs when an issue arises. For the sake of all involved, we must reach a peaceful settlement to the tensions in Ireland, and the present British government seems determined to avoid this. Unity is the solution, not attempting to break the people of Northern Ireland.”
Gov. Hugh Carey speaking about Northern Ireland, April 2nd, 1979
POPE MARTIN GOES ON SPEAKING TOUR IN BRAZIL, ARGENTINA, CHILE; DECRIES DICTATORSHIPS
THE BOSTON GLOBE, April 14th, 1979
Poland provides a perfect window into Martin VI’s goals in the papacy. Worsening economic conditions and overall tensions had led to deep dissatisfaction by the people, and this was best personified by the growing popularity of Cardinal Karol Wojtyla. He was a deep personal friend of the Pope, and he convinced the Pope to visit Poland alongside him following his visit to his native Brazil. While Wojtyla preferred to hold masses and give powerful homilies, Martin spent his days in Poland among the poor and destitute. He stayed with the unemployed, shaking every hand and reaching everyone he truly could. The influence of the Church in this case cannot go understated, as Martin and Wojtyla’s actions led to a true spark of hope amongst the people of Poland that some day, they would be free once more. As such, the new General-Secretary, Mikhail Suslov, saw reason to begin formulating action. As he could not target the Pope, he set his eyes on the Cardinal, who lived in Krakow and could be reached by the Soviets. This message could not stand, in the Kremlin’s view.
THE LIBERATION OF ALL: The Life of Pope Martin VI, written in 2008
ALABAMA RATIFIES BAYH AMENDMENT IN SURPRISE, BECOMES ELEVENTH STATE TO DO SO
Maryland, Hawaii, New York, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Maine, and now Alabama. These eleven states have ratified the Electoral College-removing constitutional amendment simply known as the Bayh Amendment. This is considered to be in large part due to one man: Bill Baxley. Gov. Baxley’s advocacy for the state legislature to adopt the measure has widely been considered as the main reason for the results of this vote. The Governor even stated that “there’s not an arm in Montgomery I haven’t twisted over this,” with clear satisfaction at this fact…
THE BIRMINGHAM NEWS, May 20th, 1979
“God-fucking-dammit! Who let this little shit win the primary?”
Fmr. Gov. George Wallace upon hearing of Alabama’s ratification of the amendment, May 20th, 1979
A brief divergence from the normal nature of this book is necessary to explain the economic views of Ronald Reagan, as they become quite important to the future of this nation. In fact, this is why the Reagan presidency gets its own chapter, while very few other presidencies do: he is vital to understanding the rationale behind a bevy of future reforms. Indeed, Reagan’s views and policies, particularly on economics, very much shaped this nation for decades. Ronald Reagan’s attitudes towards the poor in America are made most obvious by a seemingly-small decision: his choice for Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Arthur Burns retired in 1978, and with this came a chance to dictate aspects of economic policy in the United States for years to come. To Reagan, everything was about ideological victory - and by that same token victory for his wealthy backers. As such, his choice was not someone who would break inflation and protect Americans from the worst excesses of the policies needed to do so. Rather, he chose an economic adviser to both him and Gerald Ford - Alan Greenspan. Greenspan’s attitudes could have an entire book written about them and their prevalence in American society, but one quote will suffice to describe him: “We are obviously all hurt by inflation. Everybody is hurt by inflation. If you really wanted to examine who percentage-wise is hurt the most in their incomes, it is the Wall Street brokers. I mean their incomes have gone down the most.” Greenspan very much viewed economics through the mind of the impacts on the wealthiest Americans. However, that was not the depth of it. The rampant unemployment caused by his deflationary measures was very much an intended effect for one reason: labor. The Reagan administration gave the game away with Robert Bork, but his removal did not mean that union-busting was over. On the contrary, it simply became more clever. Instead of using the law or proposing the military, they would use deflationary policy to cause high unemployment, as fewer working Americans means less power for organized labor. Now, how did this shape America economically? Reagan could not get his economic notions through Congress, not with Tip O’Neill blocking him in the House. This meant he would need more obvious measures like the aforementioned Reserve policies. In turn, this made them more easily discoverable, allowing future administrations with the backing of organized labor to end them and attempt to ensure they wouldn’t be allowed again. In a way, Ronald Reagan exposed fundamental flaws within the American economic system, allowing them to be corrected.
A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, 2nd edition written by Howard Zinn in 2009
One of the most consequential meetings of my time in the Reagan administration occurred in May 1979. This was not in the Oval Office, or the Situation Room, or even Camp David, but a nondescript conference room at President Reagan’s ranch in California. Present were myself, President Reagan, Vice President Baker, Defense Secretary Bill Clements, National Security Advisor William Clark, CIA Director Bill Casey, and General Alexander Haig, whom the President had appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a few months prior. The reason that every significant foreign-policy maker was in the same room in California was the Middle East. Iran was at the tail end of its revolution, with the Shah holed up in Cairo. While the incoming revolutionary movement and its leader Ayatollah Shariatmadari seemed to be fairly large proponents of democracy, we were still on edge about what would happen. More frighteningly, though, the Soviet Union was currently engaged in an invasion of Afghanistan to prop up their puppet government. Our goal was to sort out what we could do to stop them from taking Afghanistan, and with it, endangering Pakistan and a democratic Iran.
The President posed his first question. “So, Bill, this operation you’re proposing… what exactly would it entail?” The NSA practically leapt at the chance to justify his idea to the skeptical in the room, namely myself, Secretary Clements, and the Vice President.
“Sir, the idea here is to effectively bleed the Soviets dry. Suslov is a hardliner, but he’s expressed an aversion to war. However, his ground is still shaky, especially with the reformists, particularly Andropov. He wants to shore up within the Politburo, to make sure that they know he’s not messing around, so to speak. Suslov needs to prove himself to the hawks and to shore up ground. As such, he hopes for a quick war to reinstate the Red government. That’s where we can come into play. There’s a large number of resistance groups, all under the mujahideen banner. If we,” here Clark gestured at Bill Casey, “can tacitly support them, fund them, give them weaponry, any of that, we can hopefully force the Soviets into a long, bloody guerrilla war. This would ideally economically harm them as they have to funnel more money to the war to make up for it, and in addition it lowers Mr. Suslov’s stock, increasing the likelihood one of the reformists attempts a coup and further destabilizes the Soviet Union.” Seemingly mildly exhausted from this display, Bill Clark sat back in his chair as General Haig set his contributions out on the table.
“Sir, this is a prime opportunity to sucker-punch the Soviets without even touching them. If we can break them militarily, they wouldn’t last a year. This is a chance to effectively make them flush countless billions down the toilet in the name of a puppet government in a region they barely care about. Meanwhile, this is a chance for us to reinvigorate the military. We’ve cut spending so severely since Vietnam, and the manufacturing needed to facilitate such an operation would no doubt spur the DoD again. We can project greater strength, keep the Soviets where we like to see them.” After this, the Vice President spoke up.
“Mr. President, there’s a major problem with this.” The President perked up a bit.
“Go on, Howard.”
“Well, Mr. President, for lack of a better term it seems that the National Security Advisor wants to largely draw the Soviets into a sort of Vietnam of their own. However, in that case, the VC were largely aligned with the communists. Here, I severely doubt the mujahideen’s allegiances. Some of them, hell, most of them are Islamist fundamentalists, and I’m not so certain these are the people we should be supporting. From what I’ve seen here, they’re diametrically opposed to our values. Also, as I’m sure Secretary Clements would tell you, we’d likely need to increase our defense spending further to accommodate everything the CIA would need. I’m not opposed to that, I know you’re absolutely not opposed to that, but will the American people enjoy that? We saw how the Prop 13 vote went right here in California. They don’t want tax increases, and they don’t want welfare cuts no matter how much you want them. Do you want to have to walk into the election with God-knows-who talking about the economic crisis and how you’re wasting money on the military instead of the good people of wherever they happen to be campaigning at that moment?” I had to smile the tiniest bit. Clearly the Vice President had done his homework. The President sat forward and paused for a moment before delivering a response.
“It may be politically hard on us to do this. Hell, it might make the election another squeaker. When should that ever factor into our decision-making, though? This is a chance to liberate the people of Afghanistan from Soviet tyranny. Anyone who is opposed to their evils is a friend of ours, at least in my book. Casey, Clements, how quickly do you think you could piece together a report for how much this would feasibly cost?”
A STATESMAN’S LIFE, George Bush’s autobiography written in 2003
Above: President Reagan meeting with the mujahideen fighters funded in Operation Whirlwind in the White House, October 1979.
Above: Gen. Alexander Haig, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1978-1982.
A HISTORY OF THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION, written in 2003
MAJOR IRANIAN CITIES CONSUMED BY PROTESTS: ATTACKS ON GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BY DEMONSTRATORS
THE NEW YORK TIMES, January 3rd, 1979
SHAH FLEES IRAN, ADMITTED TO UNITED STATES BY PRESIDENT REAGAN
THE WASHINGTON POST, January 21st, 1979
TWENTY YEARS LATER: STUDENT INVOLVED IN BATTLE OF DAR AL-TABLIGH REFLECTS ON EVENTS
Mohammad Lankarani takes a sip of his coffee. “There’s no better coffee shop in Qom.” Indeed, the holy city is one of the most rapidly-developing cities in the Middle East. It is a city for both imams and tech-sector professionals like Lankarani. It’s already ranked as one of the fastest-growing cities in the world, befitting a quickly-developing nation like the Iranian Republic. Included in this development is, of course, a cultural quarter that does have excellent coffee shops. For this to have happened, Lankarani is uniquely responsible, despite his objection to such a label. “I was no Shariatmadari. I was no Montazeri. I was just a student, and one who happened to be present at that key moment.”
In January of 1979, Qom was one of the cities plunged into terror as the people violently mourned the death of Khomeini. Arguably, Qom was dealt the greatest blow due to its religious nature. Thousands were killed on both sides, as protestors assaulted officers and troops fired on crowds. However, one key moment would begin on January 14th - the Battle of Dar al-Tabligh. Dar al-Tabligh, Ayatollah Mohammad Shariatmadari’s seminary, was no stranger to violence, though. It had already been fired upon in prior protests, in which six of Shariatmadari’s students were killed. In turn, this drove Shariatmadari to support Khomeini’s return to Iran. On the 14th, though, in the midst of the Bloody January protests, military police came demanding Shariatmadari come out for arrest. As Lankarani put it, “We were not going to allow those thugs to take our teacher. We never would. So Ali, one of the more outspoken amongst the students, stood up and declared that we would never hand him over. Soon, the rest of us followed suit.” Thus began a veritable siege. According to Lankarani, “We fortified every entrance and exit we could. We had no weapons there, but someone found metal pipes, rods, wooden planks, anything we could use to stop anyone from entering.” The students, now blockaded in their school, simply waited and dared the troops to enter the complex. For nearly two hours the siege held, as the soldiers seemed unwilling to attempt to attack a seminary, as another dead Ayatollah would likely worsen the protests further. However, the siege could not last, and it ended when “some inexperienced conscript outside fired at Ali, who was hotheadedly shouting insults at the soldiers.” Ali Jazani was one of the forty-seven of Shariatmadari’s students killed that day.
“It was chaos. Everyone holding something they could hit a soldier with was charging out of the building, desperate to stop the soldiers from arresting our teacher and enraged for killing Ali.” Lankarani himself was a part of this crowd, and was shot in the shoulder for doing so. As he showed me, he still has a scar to prove it. “I don’t even truly remember getting shot. I was seeing my friends gunned down next to me, and I figured that every one of the Shah’s dogs I downed was another life of ours saved. Eventually, though, I was unable to continue. I collapsed to the ground and was ready for death, with the army firing on my dearest friends the final sounds of my life.” Around this moment, Lankarani says, is when the moment that propelled Mohammad Shariatmadari to fame occurred. “I remember seeing the Ayatollah walking out of the door, and trying to cry out to him to stay away. But then, as bullets whirred by him and he gave the scene a look of immeasurable sadness, he shouted out one word with a force nobody had ever seen from him. Just one: Peace! The few of us still standing stopped, dumbfounded at his boldness, while the soldiers seem simply perplexed at why he would leave relative safety.” From there, the Ayatollah began to speak. As the first and most widely recognized lines of his now-famed Seminary Address go:
“Have you no sense of decency? This is not becoming of Iranians. Why are we fighting in the streets? Why, because the king demands order in a nation that no longer belongs to him? Iran is a proud nation of twenty-five centuries, and we are allowing it to be undone by one mad king. Enough! Iran belongs to the people! Iran belongs to God! Iran has never belonged to despots and selfish madmen, and we cannot have brothers killing brothers in the name of a tyrant! Our nation must be one of independence, freedom, and faith! Not one of chaos and destruction!”
From there, Lankarani only recalls that “I was awestruck. Nothing else mattered, not my bleeding shoulder or Ali’s body slumped over nearby. Our teacher was right about this, and even the soldiers seemed to be doubting their orders.” Shariatmadari went on, naming the abuses of the Shah’s government, and calling for all Iranians to rise up against his government. By the end of his speech, according to Lankarani, “No soldier was willing to lay a finger on the Ayatollah. To do so would’ve felt… sacreligious, in a way.” As word quickly spread of the now-legendary event across Iran, a prophecy many believed applied to the deceased Ruhollah Khomeini was whispered hesitantly. “A man will come out from Qom and he will summon people to the right path.” The leaderless revolution had found its voice once again.
The results of Shariatmadari’s speech and subsequent addresses to massive crowds in cities across Iran were plain to see. Six weeks later, the protests would swell to such a fever pitch that the Shah fled the nation, seeking asylum first in Egypt then later, controversially allowed by then-President Ronald Reagan, in the United States. Within the next three months revolutionary guerrillas would have control of the nation, defeating the remnants of the monarchy’s troops. On July 1st, 1979, a constitutional convention led by Ayatollah Shariatmadari, by then the new face of the Revolution and leader of the provisional government, convened in Tehran. Two weeks later, on the very date this article is being published, the Iran celebrated its first Republic Day. “Shariatmadari is a hero. Without him, I doubt we would have the freedom we do today. He could’ve taken control of this nation, but he didn’t. He only cared for the wellness of Iran.” Down the street from us stands a statue of Shariatmadari, but not as a conquering hero. Instead, it shows a thoughtful leader guiding his people, book in hand. Inscribed on the pedestal are just three words - “Independence, Freedom, Faith.”
THE WASHINGTON POST, July 14th, 1999
Above: Ayatollah Mohammad Shariatmadari, the Republic of Iran’s founding father.
“The clergy has no role in government. We are but guides, teachers, and advisors of the Iranian people. No government established here will allow any Ayatollah to rule unchallenged until I’m gone. Our culture is one of faith, but our governance is not.”
Ayatollah Mohammad Shariatmadari at the Tehran Constitutional Convention, July 2nd, 1979
KARIM SANJABI WINS FIRST DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN NEWLY-MINTED REPUBLIC OF IRAN
LE MONDE, June 5th, 1979
Above: Karim Sanjabi, the first President of Iran.
DECLASSIFIED REAGAN-ERA DOCUMENTS REVEAL CIA INVOLVEMENT IN KHOMEINI DEATH
...this has resulted in what officials are referring to as a surge in support for the National Islamic Party, a controversial party international observers have described as nationalistic and theocratic in nature. A US State Department spokesman stated the following: “In the eyes of Iranians, the conspiracy theories pushed by the NIP have been totally vindicated. Even though CIA involvement was, according to the declassified reports, limited to providing intelligence and support to SAVAK, the National Islamists sound like they’ve been telling the truth about the Americans the whole time and everyone else has been taken as a fool.” Current polling shows that the NIP candidate, ousted general Qassem Soleimani, would narrowly win the upcoming presidential election were it to be held today…
THE WASHINGTON POST, April 23rd, 2009
NO MERCY: LABOUR PROTESTS ROCK BRITAIN, THATCHER PROMISES “AGGRESSIVE RESPONSE”
...outgoing Labour Leader and former PM Michael Foot has expressed his concern with “trampling on the working people of Britain to silence their discontent.” It appears that his doubts are held by a sizable number of Britons, with nearly 59% polled expressing some level of concern with the Prime Minister’s promise for aggressive action against the trade unions...
THE GUARDIAN, January 3rd, 1979
LABOUR LEADERSHIP ELECTION: JENKINS EKES OUT NARROW VICTORY OVER HEALEY ON SECOND BALLOT
THE DAILY MAIL, January 15th, 1979
Above: Opposition Leader Roy Jenkins.
BAYH ELECTORAL COLLEGE AMENDMENT PASSES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS
THE WASHINGTON POST, January 23rd, 1979
“When I told you we’d be waiting on the amendment, Birch, this is why. With the Libs here to vote for it because they can’t survive nationally without it, and majorities in our favor, it was perfect timing. Stennis and his bunch are cranky old men, but we finally had enough to ignore them. Now we see how many arms our friends from Dixie can twist to get this thing actually ratified.”
Comments made by Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd to Senator Birch Bayh as reported by an unnamed aide, January 23rd, 1979
Commentators like to claim that Reagan was largely boxed out of domestic policy after the midterms. However, he was a compromiser in a way liberal perspectives tend to ignore. Both parties very much enjoyed deregulation at that moment, with President Reagan as one of the greatest advocates for such. Under his watch, deregulatory laws were enacted aimed towards the airlines, breweries, trucking, and railroads, just to name a few. The long-term economic benefit of these Reagan-era policies is clear to see, but yet he seemingly gets no credit for this.
THE CASE FOR RONALD REAGAN: Why The Gipper Deserves Another Look, written by Newt Gingrich in 2002
ISRAEL AND EGYPT SIGN TREATY OF MUTUAL RECOGNITION, ISRAEL TO WITHDRAW FROM SINAI OVER FIVE-YEAR PERIOD
THE NEW YORK TIMES, February 23rd, 1979
BREZHNEV DIES OF HEART ATTACK AT 72, DEPUTY SUSLOV TO SUCCEED HIM
THE GUARDIAN, March 2nd, 1979
Above: General-Secretary Mikhail Suslov.
“We have two swaggering hardliners with their fingers on the nuclear button, opposing each other on the world stage. God help us all.”
Private comment made by a Democratic Senator, later revealed to be George McGovern, March 3rd, 1979
WOULD-BE MOSCONE ASSASSIN DAN WHITE SENTENCED TO LIFE FOR MURDER OF DIANNE FEINSTEIN
THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, February 17th, 1979
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND BOMBED IN WESTMINSTER PARKING LOT, INLA CLAIMS RESPONSIBILITY
...Mr. Neave is currently hospitalized, but is expected to survive the attempt on his life, albeit while losing an arm…
THE SUN, March 31st, 1979
Above: Conservative MP and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Airey Neave, who was famously attacked by an Irish nationalist car bomb.
“It seems that Mrs. Thatcher prefers to crack the whip over people’s backs when an issue arises. For the sake of all involved, we must reach a peaceful settlement to the tensions in Ireland, and the present British government seems determined to avoid this. Unity is the solution, not attempting to break the people of Northern Ireland.”
Gov. Hugh Carey speaking about Northern Ireland, April 2nd, 1979
POPE MARTIN GOES ON SPEAKING TOUR IN BRAZIL, ARGENTINA, CHILE; DECRIES DICTATORSHIPS
THE BOSTON GLOBE, April 14th, 1979
Poland provides a perfect window into Martin VI’s goals in the papacy. Worsening economic conditions and overall tensions had led to deep dissatisfaction by the people, and this was best personified by the growing popularity of Cardinal Karol Wojtyla. He was a deep personal friend of the Pope, and he convinced the Pope to visit Poland alongside him following his visit to his native Brazil. While Wojtyla preferred to hold masses and give powerful homilies, Martin spent his days in Poland among the poor and destitute. He stayed with the unemployed, shaking every hand and reaching everyone he truly could. The influence of the Church in this case cannot go understated, as Martin and Wojtyla’s actions led to a true spark of hope amongst the people of Poland that some day, they would be free once more. As such, the new General-Secretary, Mikhail Suslov, saw reason to begin formulating action. As he could not target the Pope, he set his eyes on the Cardinal, who lived in Krakow and could be reached by the Soviets. This message could not stand, in the Kremlin’s view.
THE LIBERATION OF ALL: The Life of Pope Martin VI, written in 2008
ALABAMA RATIFIES BAYH AMENDMENT IN SURPRISE, BECOMES ELEVENTH STATE TO DO SO
Maryland, Hawaii, New York, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Maine, and now Alabama. These eleven states have ratified the Electoral College-removing constitutional amendment simply known as the Bayh Amendment. This is considered to be in large part due to one man: Bill Baxley. Gov. Baxley’s advocacy for the state legislature to adopt the measure has widely been considered as the main reason for the results of this vote. The Governor even stated that “there’s not an arm in Montgomery I haven’t twisted over this,” with clear satisfaction at this fact…
THE BIRMINGHAM NEWS, May 20th, 1979
“God-fucking-dammit! Who let this little shit win the primary?”
Fmr. Gov. George Wallace upon hearing of Alabama’s ratification of the amendment, May 20th, 1979
A brief divergence from the normal nature of this book is necessary to explain the economic views of Ronald Reagan, as they become quite important to the future of this nation. In fact, this is why the Reagan presidency gets its own chapter, while very few other presidencies do: he is vital to understanding the rationale behind a bevy of future reforms. Indeed, Reagan’s views and policies, particularly on economics, very much shaped this nation for decades. Ronald Reagan’s attitudes towards the poor in America are made most obvious by a seemingly-small decision: his choice for Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Arthur Burns retired in 1978, and with this came a chance to dictate aspects of economic policy in the United States for years to come. To Reagan, everything was about ideological victory - and by that same token victory for his wealthy backers. As such, his choice was not someone who would break inflation and protect Americans from the worst excesses of the policies needed to do so. Rather, he chose an economic adviser to both him and Gerald Ford - Alan Greenspan. Greenspan’s attitudes could have an entire book written about them and their prevalence in American society, but one quote will suffice to describe him: “We are obviously all hurt by inflation. Everybody is hurt by inflation. If you really wanted to examine who percentage-wise is hurt the most in their incomes, it is the Wall Street brokers. I mean their incomes have gone down the most.” Greenspan very much viewed economics through the mind of the impacts on the wealthiest Americans. However, that was not the depth of it. The rampant unemployment caused by his deflationary measures was very much an intended effect for one reason: labor. The Reagan administration gave the game away with Robert Bork, but his removal did not mean that union-busting was over. On the contrary, it simply became more clever. Instead of using the law or proposing the military, they would use deflationary policy to cause high unemployment, as fewer working Americans means less power for organized labor. Now, how did this shape America economically? Reagan could not get his economic notions through Congress, not with Tip O’Neill blocking him in the House. This meant he would need more obvious measures like the aforementioned Reserve policies. In turn, this made them more easily discoverable, allowing future administrations with the backing of organized labor to end them and attempt to ensure they wouldn’t be allowed again. In a way, Ronald Reagan exposed fundamental flaws within the American economic system, allowing them to be corrected.
A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, 2nd edition written by Howard Zinn in 2009
One of the most consequential meetings of my time in the Reagan administration occurred in May 1979. This was not in the Oval Office, or the Situation Room, or even Camp David, but a nondescript conference room at President Reagan’s ranch in California. Present were myself, President Reagan, Vice President Baker, Defense Secretary Bill Clements, National Security Advisor William Clark, CIA Director Bill Casey, and General Alexander Haig, whom the President had appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a few months prior. The reason that every significant foreign-policy maker was in the same room in California was the Middle East. Iran was at the tail end of its revolution, with the Shah holed up in Cairo. While the incoming revolutionary movement and its leader Ayatollah Shariatmadari seemed to be fairly large proponents of democracy, we were still on edge about what would happen. More frighteningly, though, the Soviet Union was currently engaged in an invasion of Afghanistan to prop up their puppet government. Our goal was to sort out what we could do to stop them from taking Afghanistan, and with it, endangering Pakistan and a democratic Iran.
The President posed his first question. “So, Bill, this operation you’re proposing… what exactly would it entail?” The NSA practically leapt at the chance to justify his idea to the skeptical in the room, namely myself, Secretary Clements, and the Vice President.
“Sir, the idea here is to effectively bleed the Soviets dry. Suslov is a hardliner, but he’s expressed an aversion to war. However, his ground is still shaky, especially with the reformists, particularly Andropov. He wants to shore up within the Politburo, to make sure that they know he’s not messing around, so to speak. Suslov needs to prove himself to the hawks and to shore up ground. As such, he hopes for a quick war to reinstate the Red government. That’s where we can come into play. There’s a large number of resistance groups, all under the mujahideen banner. If we,” here Clark gestured at Bill Casey, “can tacitly support them, fund them, give them weaponry, any of that, we can hopefully force the Soviets into a long, bloody guerrilla war. This would ideally economically harm them as they have to funnel more money to the war to make up for it, and in addition it lowers Mr. Suslov’s stock, increasing the likelihood one of the reformists attempts a coup and further destabilizes the Soviet Union.” Seemingly mildly exhausted from this display, Bill Clark sat back in his chair as General Haig set his contributions out on the table.
“Sir, this is a prime opportunity to sucker-punch the Soviets without even touching them. If we can break them militarily, they wouldn’t last a year. This is a chance to effectively make them flush countless billions down the toilet in the name of a puppet government in a region they barely care about. Meanwhile, this is a chance for us to reinvigorate the military. We’ve cut spending so severely since Vietnam, and the manufacturing needed to facilitate such an operation would no doubt spur the DoD again. We can project greater strength, keep the Soviets where we like to see them.” After this, the Vice President spoke up.
“Mr. President, there’s a major problem with this.” The President perked up a bit.
“Go on, Howard.”
“Well, Mr. President, for lack of a better term it seems that the National Security Advisor wants to largely draw the Soviets into a sort of Vietnam of their own. However, in that case, the VC were largely aligned with the communists. Here, I severely doubt the mujahideen’s allegiances. Some of them, hell, most of them are Islamist fundamentalists, and I’m not so certain these are the people we should be supporting. From what I’ve seen here, they’re diametrically opposed to our values. Also, as I’m sure Secretary Clements would tell you, we’d likely need to increase our defense spending further to accommodate everything the CIA would need. I’m not opposed to that, I know you’re absolutely not opposed to that, but will the American people enjoy that? We saw how the Prop 13 vote went right here in California. They don’t want tax increases, and they don’t want welfare cuts no matter how much you want them. Do you want to have to walk into the election with God-knows-who talking about the economic crisis and how you’re wasting money on the military instead of the good people of wherever they happen to be campaigning at that moment?” I had to smile the tiniest bit. Clearly the Vice President had done his homework. The President sat forward and paused for a moment before delivering a response.
“It may be politically hard on us to do this. Hell, it might make the election another squeaker. When should that ever factor into our decision-making, though? This is a chance to liberate the people of Afghanistan from Soviet tyranny. Anyone who is opposed to their evils is a friend of ours, at least in my book. Casey, Clements, how quickly do you think you could piece together a report for how much this would feasibly cost?”
A STATESMAN’S LIFE, George Bush’s autobiography written in 2003
Above: President Reagan meeting with the mujahideen fighters funded in Operation Whirlwind in the White House, October 1979.
Above: Gen. Alexander Haig, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1978-1982.
Last edited:
So, so much powerful goodness. As - in my amateur study of Iranian politics and history - a Shariatmadari stan of many years, well, standing, and empathetic to this richly lived, terribly benighted nation, the Iran stuff was genuinely affecting. Also interesting to see Howard the Veep work his angle. The pants-crapping juxtaposition of America's Pinochet getting to fill his jackboots as CJCS at the end really gave it a sendoff with flair. Not a wrong note in the whole session - well, other than I tend to go with the majority Kremlinology that Suslov much preferred being "Lenin's Pope" to actually being in charge of anything, but that might be a reason for Andropov et al. to leave him holding the bag in Lenny's immediate wake, the better to build their outsider-insider cred. Three or four thumbs up.
Also too: M A R T I N V I
Also too: M A R T I N V I
Thank you so much! The minute I started my dive into the politics of the Iranian revolution for the totally-not-CIA-we-promise-guys-why-would-Bill-Casey-ever-do-that death of Khomeini, I knew Shariatmadari needed to make an appearance. Man was just too great to see that not happening. I pretty much had a choice between him or one of Khomeini’s goons seizing power, and this was way more fun. It’s not all sunshine and rainbows, though, as seen by the present-ish update. Iran is basically like OTL India in that it’s a secular democracy getting overtaken by religious nationalist movements (ironically enough, Soleimani ended up as my choice to lead the NIP about a week before he caught the wrong end of a drone - don’t hurt me CalBear). As for Micky S, I’ll flesh out his reason to take power later on, but I’ll tease that he didn’t really do it because he wanted to. Finally, Haig is loving his new job - he really feels in control
.Martin might eventually bash Pinochet’s head in with a gaudy metal crucifix. He’s certainly way more concerned about dictators in Latin America than JPII...
Thank you so much! The minute I started my dive into the politics of the Iranian revolution for the totally-not-CIA-we-promise-guys-why-would-Bill-Casey-ever-do-that death of Khomeini, I knew Shariatmadari needed to make an appearance. Man was just too great to see that not happening. I pretty much had a choice between him or one of Khomeini’s goons seizing power, and this was way more fun. It’s not all sunshine and rainbows, though, as seen by the present-ish update. Iran is basically like OTL India in that it’s a secular democracy getting overtaken by religious nationalist movements (ironically enough, Soleimani ended up as my choice to lead the NIP about a week before he caught the wrong end of a drone - don’t hurt me CalBear). As for Micky S, I’ll flesh out his reason to take power later on, but I’ll tease that he didn’t really do it because he wanted to. Finally, Haig is loving his new job - he really feels in control
Martin might eventually bash Pinochet’s head in with a gaudy metal crucifix. He’s certainly way more concerned about dictators in Latin America than JPII...
HIS HOLINESS THE BISHOP OF ROME FROM OUT OF THE CROWD WITH THE FOLDING CHAIR
I cannot begin to explain how very very badly I now want to see an old-school Claymation Celebrity Death Match in which His Holiness Martin VI/Dom Aloisio Lorscheider suplexes Augusto Pinochet then rips out his spleen and holds it high for the crowd as he ululates. It would be the best of things.
I very much look forward to Deep Suslov - yes, I think the Turkey-gone-south/Whoops Hindutva vibe coming off present*-day Iranian politics is excellently well achieved and entirely plausible ITTL, nothing gets reactionaries het up so much as not getting to incompetently run entire nation-states into the ground.
My Eighties Sense just tingled, then threw up in its mouth. It's not pretty but it's accurate.
Exactly for the reactionaries. I mean, the only thing even better there is when the guy is military, so they can have some fun playing the war-games fetish out. Also, I think Dom Aloisio might end up going through a tag-team Operation Condor smackdown, considering how he’s feeling. Maybe if he’s up for it afterwards he does a little journey to the eastern bloc and does a buddy-cop version of it with not-JP. Also, Bill Casey still has to do Bill Casey things, especially when they involve convenient strokes.
With regards to Dan White, there was an article about him that had some interesting things about him--for instance, he supported the hiring and promotion of African-American officers and firefighters, to the point of helping them study for their exams (White had also been a firefighter, IIRC), which did not make him popular with his superiors...
With regards to why he shot Milk and Moscone IOTL, while homophobia did play a part, IMO, he blamed them for being the cause of his quitting and not getting his job back (White and Milk had infamously not gotten along on the Board of Supervisors); it just strikes me as a workplace violence act...
Another interesting fact--Dan White, had he been convicted of first-degree murder, could have gotten the death penalty in California under a new act that allowed people to be sentenced to death for murdering public officials in the course of their duty. The irony is that Milk and Moscone (who were killed IOTL) both opposed the act and White supported it.
Here, his killing just Feinstein (and the attempted murders of Moscone and Milk) is the reason why he deservedly gets a longer sentence ITTL, IMO, if I'm correct...
Wonder who will take Feinstein's place (her becoming mayor after Moscone's death allowed her career to take off, to the point that she's a Senator from California currently IOTL); assuming this isn't butterflied, I could see Nancy Pelosi running for the Senate from California after she takes over for Phil Burton's widow in the House...
Good update overall, and waiting for more, of course...
With regards to why he shot Milk and Moscone IOTL, while homophobia did play a part, IMO, he blamed them for being the cause of his quitting and not getting his job back (White and Milk had infamously not gotten along on the Board of Supervisors); it just strikes me as a workplace violence act...
Another interesting fact--Dan White, had he been convicted of first-degree murder, could have gotten the death penalty in California under a new act that allowed people to be sentenced to death for murdering public officials in the course of their duty. The irony is that Milk and Moscone (who were killed IOTL) both opposed the act and White supported it.
Here, his killing just Feinstein (and the attempted murders of Moscone and Milk) is the reason why he deservedly gets a longer sentence ITTL, IMO, if I'm correct...
Wonder who will take Feinstein's place (her becoming mayor after Moscone's death allowed her career to take off, to the point that she's a Senator from California currently IOTL); assuming this isn't butterflied, I could see Nancy Pelosi running for the Senate from California after she takes over for Phil Burton's widow in the House...
Good update overall, and waiting for more, of course...
Yeah, I kind of went the homophobia angle mostly because I do think he’d probably say that in a fit of rage/instability even if he wasn’t particularly one - after all, it’s the 1970s and a certain six-letter word isn’t fully frowned upon yet. Also, there were a lot of accusations of homophobia in the sentencing in that he got off easy because he killed a gay man, and I’m a bit sympathetic to that argument for reasons. Pelosi is an interesting choice, and she’ll have her own place, but remember - she has to share a district with now-Assemblyman Harvey Milk. What would be interesting is other places for Pelosi to pop up though, particularly in a statewide sense. Stay tuned for more, but next part isn’t exactly focused too locally, hint hint.
I can buy that, @Enigma-Conundrum, and I like that, ITTL, he doesn't get away with it (IOTL, he killed himself shortly after getting out)...
Damn Twinkies. They do the strangest things to people’s heads.
I'm looking forward to more of this; it's been lovely thus far.
Always glad to hear that people are liking my musings-turned-writings. A lot of careful consideration and (re)writing is heading here, and every time I see that someone gets enjoyment from what I’ve put out here it just feels absolutely great. Thank you.
It really shows how much consideration went into it, and that's why I've kept reading. It's rare that a non-fandom timeline catches and keeps my attention like this.
Found this via Yes’ McGovern TL, and I am absolutely loving this story, the 70’s and 80’s were such a dramatic and monumental time.
Thank you! Again, always glad to see people interested in my mental stew. As for drama, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
ACT ONE: Part 11 - The Steel-Cage Presidential Deathmatch Pre-Show
“The announcement I wished to bring to the people of Florida and the nation is that I will be a candidate for President of the United States of America!”
[CHEERING]
“Y’know, there’s some folks who think I can’t win. They think I’ve stood for too many unpopular things, that I’ve been too different in office to ever win nationally. There’s one thing I say to that. I had the courage to stand up for what’s right, regardless of popularity. That’s what the people want, not someone who tells them what they like to hear. They want someone who goes to Americans and tells them what’s going on. They want someone who goes to bat for them against all of the vested interests against them. That’s what they want, and come November, we’re going to bring this all to President Reagan and his corporate buddies in Washington!”
Gov. Reubin Askew at his Presidential kickoff rally in Tallahassee, August 12th, 1979
Above: Governor Reubin Askew (D-FL) campaigning for President.
A DIFFERENT SORT OF DEMOCRAT
Reubin Askew has been called "The Different Democrat."
Why?
Because he's not willing to tell people just what they want to hear.
He's willing to take unpopular stands for the good of the nation -- even though it makes the task of winning the presidential nomination of his party and becoming President more difficult.
None of this surprises anyone who has followed Reubin Askew's career.
He campaigned the same way as a dark horse candidate for Governor of Florida.
He was supposed to finish last in that race. But he won. He won because he was willing to trust the people of Florida with the truth of their circumstances. He won because he was willing to challenge the large corporations, the developers, the mining companies, and other special interests on behalf of all the people of the state.
As Governor, he stood up for racial equality in the public schools when others would not. He appointed blacks and women and Hispanics to public office when others did not. Time and again, he had the courage to stand alone on public issues when others found they could not.
Reubin Askew was different then. And he's different now.
An Askew for President flyer distributed in Iowa, September 1979
“I will be a candidate for President. Someone needs to stop the worst excesses of the present administration.”
Sen. Alan Cranston at a press conference, August 21st, 1979
“Soon, we’re going to take Washington back for all of us, and finally bring an end to the results of this disastrous presidency!”
Sen. Lloyd Bentsen at his Presidential kickoff rally in Houston, June 13th, 1979
“Someone needs to ensure that there’s a steady hand in our foreign policy, a hand that President Reagan does not have. While he and I do agree on some issues, his methods are far too unstable and simply unbecoming of a superpower such as ourselves. As such, I will be running for President once again in 1980!”
Fmr. Sen. Scoop Jackson announcing his Presidential campaign, July 7th, 1979
JACKSON ‘80: BECAUSE ONE CARTER WASN’T ENOUGH!
A sign seen in Iowa in late 1979
Johnny Carson: So, Congressman, before the show you told me before you had something to tell the people on here tonight. When I asked, you just gave me a bit of a grin.
[UDALL CHUCKLES]
JC: So I suppose I’ll just ask - what is it you’d like to say, Congressman Udall?
Mo Udall: About four years ago I launched a presidential campaign. But, by the end of the primary season, we had won a couple of states - more than I ever expected. This time, though, there’s so much more that needs to be fixed. We’re seeing the President’s economics hurt more and more of the poorest Americans, people who can scarcely afford it in these dire times. I want to fix this, and as such I’ve got to tell the great people here today and the people of the nation I’m going to be running for President!
[AUDIENCE CHEERS]
JC: What do you mean about Reagan’s economics?
MU: See, Johnny, the President’s economic policy is more or less based on the principle that everyone gets the same amount of ice. The difference is, the poor get their ice in the winter.
[AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]
Mo Udall on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, July 25th, 1979
“Allow me to introduce you to a man I feel is truly dedicated to those this country leaves behind. He cares to fight for all of us, especially those the Reagan regime seems to want to push down the most in their twisted interpretation of faith. Please welcome the next President of the United States of America, Andy Young!”
[CHEERING]
Rev. Jesse Jackson at a campaign rally for Rep. Andrew Young in Atlanta, September 6th, 1979
Above: Reverend Jesse Jackson and Representative Andrew Young (D-GA-5) on the campaign trail together.
“Mr. Young is the first well-spoken black candidate we’ve ever had.”
Remarks made by fellow Presidential candidate Sen. Ernest Hollings, September 7th, 1979
Reporter: Senator Bayh, are you planning on or considering running for President?
Birch Bayh: Let me just make it clear right now. No, I’m not going to run for President. I have to focus on serving Indiana’s needs first and foremost, as well as continuing the fight for a one-man, one-vote system.
R: Do you support any candidate in particular at the moment?
BB: I’d have to wait and see how things play out first.
Sen. Birch Bayh at a press conference, September 16th, 1979
“The issue facing our nation isn’t necessarily one of corruption or poor policy. It runs deeper, much deeper. Fundamentally, there is an ideology spreading that proposes that the goal of government elected by the people, for the people, and through the people is not meant to help those same people. This notion the President proposes, one of government itself as the problem, not bad government, is something I deeply object to. How can we achieve those goals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if there is not a good government in Washington ensuring these ideals? If there’s anything I would like to be remembered for as President, it would be that I cared about people a great deal. It would be that the Carey administration fought for everyone who needs it, that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.”
Gov. Hugh Carey at his Presidential kickoff rally in Brooklyn, September 4th, 1979
Above: Governor Hugh Carey (D-NY) at a press conference following his Presidential announcement.
“Today I am announcing my candidacy for the Presidency of the United States of America! The problems facing this nation are numerous, regardless of what the always-smiling aura of the President tells you. People are hurting in this country, and he honestly doesn't seem to care. To that I simply say, I’ve fixed Ronald Reagan’s mistakes once in California, and I can do it again for this country!”
Gov. Jerry Brown at his Presidential kickoff rally in San Francisco, July 25th, 1979
Above: Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) announcing his Presidential bid.
“Come November, we can set this country back on the track of working for the people and not the president’s wealthiest backers. Honestly, if they want the government off of their backs, they should really get their hands out of its pockets.”
Sen. Gary Hart announcing his Presidential campaign, July 13th, 1979
Jerry Litton: Now, I know we have a… significantly bigger venue than normal. We have a very special show today, and that needed more room for the good people of this state to watch. Trust me, I wouldn’t have spent the money otherwise.
[SCATTERED LAUGHS IN AUDIENCE]
JL: Anyways, we do not have a guest today, because as I mentioned this is a different show. Allow me to speak for a few minutes, then I’ll open the floor. This nation has stood at a crossroads, a conflict of what its ideals truly are. The grand ideals of rustic individualism and hardy self-reliance have stood against the inalienable rights for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The question of the day is just that: does the government exist to provide opportunities to the people, or does it hinder opportunity by intervening in people’s lives? This is not new. This is the debate that came to define our nation while it suffered the worst economic crisis in its history. I know this debate well, as, in the midst of it, in a small town named Lock Springs, I was born. I grew up in a home with no electricity, with no telephone, with scarcely a hint of the things we consider indispensable now. Thanks to the development programs of the New Deal, we gained these luxuries. I do not doubt that I would not be in front of you today without that chance. The “government bureaucracy” that supposedly demolishes livelihoods and harms the nation irrevocably is the reason I have one at all. I know there are countless other stories like mine in this nation. I know there are people who have work because the government provided it to them. I know there are small farmers across the nation that are in business because government policy has protected them from the largest agricultural corporations. To hit at the root of the argument for “state’s rights,” I know there are countless black Americans who have the right to vote and do business where they like because of government protection. The rampant, out-of-control federal bureaucracy is something that has deeply impacted millions of lives for the better, providing them with a better life and the opportunities men like George Washington dreamed of when they declared independence over two centuries ago. However, there is still work to be done in the name of equal opportunity. Our nation does not guarantee healthcare to its people, leaving millions without the ability to obtain the care they need when sick. Our nation continues to bend its policy for the wealthiest Americans, forgetting those who need it in this economic stagnation. Most importantly, as this economic situation which I dare call a crisis continues, the administration seems more concerned with protecting the rich as opposed to aiding those who have lost their jobs and the value of their wages. Every time this is brought to the government, there is a predictable response: “Well, it’s not me!” If I went to President Reagan’s office and posed that question to him, he would not hesitate to tell me all about the tax-and-spend policies of the Democratic Congress that worsen this situation. He would not hesitate to pin this on Speaker O’Neill, Senator Byrd, and all of those that sit on our side of the aisle. The logic that comes from the world of Ronald Reagan, Cap Weinberger, and Robert Bork is one of partisanship, not national interest. It cannot be on them, so it must be on the other party. To borrow from the most famous Missouri politician and a man I pull a heck of a lot of inspiration from, the buck stops here, Mr. President. The buck stops here! We cannot continue to leave the people who need it behind. We cannot continue to give handouts to the corporate world at the expense of the small farmer, the industrial worker, and all of those who need it most. We cannot continue to watch the greed-is-good mentality consume the nation and the American dream. This nation is built on the spirit of mutual cooperation. Everyone in American can get the help they need to reach those inalienable rights. While this spirit is too strong for any single administration to defeat, we must renew it or all that makes our nation great will be lost. As such, as of today, to bring back this humanity to our government, I am now a candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America!
[CHEERING]
JL: Now, I know there’s one burning question for this announcement. Before anyone asks, if I’m elected president, will I continue these dialogues? The answer to that is you’re darn right I will. My effort to bring the government to the people won’t end if I’m the one in the big chair. Now, in the spirit of this openness, if anyone has a question about this, go right ahead to one of the microphones.
Sen. Jerry Litton on Dialogues with Litton, August 27th, 1979
Above: Senator Jerry Litton (D-MO) announces his Presidential bid on Dialogues with Litton.
MAYOR LINDSAY RUNS FOR PRESIDENT AS LIBERAL
THE NEW YORK TIMES, September 7th, 1979
“I’ve been a reformer with results in Massachusetts. Despite everything they’ve thrown at me, every challenge by the back-room power brokers in the state hasn’t been able to stop me from doing what’s right for the people. Together, we can return this government to the people and not the rich and powerful behind the President!”
Gov. Michael Dukakis at his Presidential kickoff rally, August 29th, 1979
“This gives me no small pleasure. Frankly, though, this Presidency is an experiment in extremism that’ll only doom us as a party for years to come. Abandoning the tradition of moderation, with such practitioners as President Eisenhower, that has given us so much peace and prosperity will do nothing but harm us. This is not just my campaign, but one designed for every member of this party who disagrees with the ideologically uncompromising stands this President has taken.”
Sen. Charles Percy announcing his Presidential campaign, September 10th, 1979
Cap,
Get John [Sears] on it right away. Chuck Percy isn’t a serious threat, but we have to be vigilant. Any damage he does here only bloodies us up for the general. We can’t let him crack double digits, and make damn sure John knows that.
RR
A memo sent in the White House, September 10th, 1979
Immediately, Hugh Carey was the frontrunner. He had vast institutional support, a multitude of wealthy connections due to his benefits in New York City, and overall filled the Midwestern unionized voters the national party was desperately chasing following Reagan’s victory. However, this wasn’t necessarily set to last. As it happens, once the Governor began to campaign, it was clear he was not an inspiring presence. While he commanded an almost presidential aura as a tall, deep-voiced Brooklynite (and a tough Brooklyn wit, as reported by those who knew him personally) he tended to give long, reflective speeches to sound presidential which, in the end, didn’t truly sway any of these voters to his side. It reached such a boiling point that his competitor and famed loose cannon Fritz Hollings began to talk about the Governor as “an utter bore” and “droning on and on.” Many seemed to think the establishment support would carry him across the finish line, though. This ultimately came down to one man…
A NEW PATH FOR AMERICA: The Creation of the Sixth Party System, published in 2009
Reporter: Senator Kennedy, you’ve repeatedly stated you’re not running for President. Do you have any particular candidate you support in the race?
Ted Kennedy: No, no I don’t at this particular moment. I like a lot of people there, but I’m not ready to endorse any of them yet.
R: Who would you say you like?
TK: Well, Jerry Litton is an excellent man and a great colleague of mine who I’ve worked with fairly closely… obviously I agree with Governor Carey quite a lot, and I’d have to say, after working with him in Massachusetts, I definitely have a soft spot for Governor Dukakis… we’ll just have to wait and see, though. I’m not listing any particular order here, and these aren’t necessarily endorsements.
Sen. Ted Kennedy at a press conference, August 16th, 1979
1980 PRIMARY POLLING: REPORT
Democratic
If the Presidential election were held today, who would you vote for?
If the Presidential election were held today, who would you vote for?
DEMOCRATS HOLD KY, LA, MS: 1979 ELECTION RECAP
KY Gubernatorial Race
John Y. Brown Jr. (Democrat): 61.4%
Louie B. Nunn (Republican): 38.6%
KFC executive John Brown Jr. ran promising management of the state in a corporate manner, and evidently, Kentuckians agreed with this approach.
LA Gubernatorial Runoff
Edgar G. Mouton Jr. (Democrat): 50.1%
Dave Treen (Republican): 49.9%
Senate President Pro Tempore "Sonny" Mouton was generally not expected to win. He was far too liberal for Louisiana, according to detractors. Plus, his Cajun background and Catholic beliefs would harm him in the Deep South, surely. However, when he came in first above the pack of other Democrats and Republican Dave Treen, people took notice of his folksy barnstorming and focus on turnout in Acadiana. Suddenly, money was flowing into the Mouton campaign's coffers as the state Democratic Party focused on their only shot at defeating Treen. The race was bitterly close, but high turnout in the southern half of the state and New Orleans brought "the Cajun candidate" to the governor's mansion.
MS Gubernatorial Race
William Winter (Democrat): 63.1%
Gil Carmichael (Republican): 36.9%
William Winter, a moderate southerner in the mold of Reubin Askew, carried the election handily against Gil Carmichael, an influential Republican businessman who baffled observers by attempting to seemingly run as both a Reagan supporter and a Liberal Party member at the same time. Needless to say, by October every poll favored Winter, and by election day he won with a landslide margin.
THE AP, December 9th, 1979
[CHEERING]
“Y’know, there’s some folks who think I can’t win. They think I’ve stood for too many unpopular things, that I’ve been too different in office to ever win nationally. There’s one thing I say to that. I had the courage to stand up for what’s right, regardless of popularity. That’s what the people want, not someone who tells them what they like to hear. They want someone who goes to Americans and tells them what’s going on. They want someone who goes to bat for them against all of the vested interests against them. That’s what they want, and come November, we’re going to bring this all to President Reagan and his corporate buddies in Washington!”
Gov. Reubin Askew at his Presidential kickoff rally in Tallahassee, August 12th, 1979
Above: Governor Reubin Askew (D-FL) campaigning for President.
A DIFFERENT SORT OF DEMOCRAT
Reubin Askew has been called "The Different Democrat."
Why?
Because he's not willing to tell people just what they want to hear.
He's willing to take unpopular stands for the good of the nation -- even though it makes the task of winning the presidential nomination of his party and becoming President more difficult.
None of this surprises anyone who has followed Reubin Askew's career.
He campaigned the same way as a dark horse candidate for Governor of Florida.
He was supposed to finish last in that race. But he won. He won because he was willing to trust the people of Florida with the truth of their circumstances. He won because he was willing to challenge the large corporations, the developers, the mining companies, and other special interests on behalf of all the people of the state.
As Governor, he stood up for racial equality in the public schools when others would not. He appointed blacks and women and Hispanics to public office when others did not. Time and again, he had the courage to stand alone on public issues when others found they could not.
Reubin Askew was different then. And he's different now.
An Askew for President flyer distributed in Iowa, September 1979
“I will be a candidate for President. Someone needs to stop the worst excesses of the present administration.”
Sen. Alan Cranston at a press conference, August 21st, 1979
“Soon, we’re going to take Washington back for all of us, and finally bring an end to the results of this disastrous presidency!”
Sen. Lloyd Bentsen at his Presidential kickoff rally in Houston, June 13th, 1979
“Someone needs to ensure that there’s a steady hand in our foreign policy, a hand that President Reagan does not have. While he and I do agree on some issues, his methods are far too unstable and simply unbecoming of a superpower such as ourselves. As such, I will be running for President once again in 1980!”
Fmr. Sen. Scoop Jackson announcing his Presidential campaign, July 7th, 1979
JACKSON ‘80: BECAUSE ONE CARTER WASN’T ENOUGH!
A sign seen in Iowa in late 1979
Johnny Carson: So, Congressman, before the show you told me before you had something to tell the people on here tonight. When I asked, you just gave me a bit of a grin.
[UDALL CHUCKLES]
JC: So I suppose I’ll just ask - what is it you’d like to say, Congressman Udall?
Mo Udall: About four years ago I launched a presidential campaign. But, by the end of the primary season, we had won a couple of states - more than I ever expected. This time, though, there’s so much more that needs to be fixed. We’re seeing the President’s economics hurt more and more of the poorest Americans, people who can scarcely afford it in these dire times. I want to fix this, and as such I’ve got to tell the great people here today and the people of the nation I’m going to be running for President!
[AUDIENCE CHEERS]
JC: What do you mean about Reagan’s economics?
MU: See, Johnny, the President’s economic policy is more or less based on the principle that everyone gets the same amount of ice. The difference is, the poor get their ice in the winter.
[AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]
Mo Udall on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, July 25th, 1979
“Allow me to introduce you to a man I feel is truly dedicated to those this country leaves behind. He cares to fight for all of us, especially those the Reagan regime seems to want to push down the most in their twisted interpretation of faith. Please welcome the next President of the United States of America, Andy Young!”
[CHEERING]
Rev. Jesse Jackson at a campaign rally for Rep. Andrew Young in Atlanta, September 6th, 1979
Above: Reverend Jesse Jackson and Representative Andrew Young (D-GA-5) on the campaign trail together.
“Mr. Young is the first well-spoken black candidate we’ve ever had.”
Remarks made by fellow Presidential candidate Sen. Ernest Hollings, September 7th, 1979
Reporter: Senator Bayh, are you planning on or considering running for President?
Birch Bayh: Let me just make it clear right now. No, I’m not going to run for President. I have to focus on serving Indiana’s needs first and foremost, as well as continuing the fight for a one-man, one-vote system.
R: Do you support any candidate in particular at the moment?
BB: I’d have to wait and see how things play out first.
Sen. Birch Bayh at a press conference, September 16th, 1979
“The issue facing our nation isn’t necessarily one of corruption or poor policy. It runs deeper, much deeper. Fundamentally, there is an ideology spreading that proposes that the goal of government elected by the people, for the people, and through the people is not meant to help those same people. This notion the President proposes, one of government itself as the problem, not bad government, is something I deeply object to. How can we achieve those goals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if there is not a good government in Washington ensuring these ideals? If there’s anything I would like to be remembered for as President, it would be that I cared about people a great deal. It would be that the Carey administration fought for everyone who needs it, that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.”
Gov. Hugh Carey at his Presidential kickoff rally in Brooklyn, September 4th, 1979
Above: Governor Hugh Carey (D-NY) at a press conference following his Presidential announcement.
“Today I am announcing my candidacy for the Presidency of the United States of America! The problems facing this nation are numerous, regardless of what the always-smiling aura of the President tells you. People are hurting in this country, and he honestly doesn't seem to care. To that I simply say, I’ve fixed Ronald Reagan’s mistakes once in California, and I can do it again for this country!”
Gov. Jerry Brown at his Presidential kickoff rally in San Francisco, July 25th, 1979
Above: Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) announcing his Presidential bid.
“Come November, we can set this country back on the track of working for the people and not the president’s wealthiest backers. Honestly, if they want the government off of their backs, they should really get their hands out of its pockets.”
Sen. Gary Hart announcing his Presidential campaign, July 13th, 1979
Jerry Litton: Now, I know we have a… significantly bigger venue than normal. We have a very special show today, and that needed more room for the good people of this state to watch. Trust me, I wouldn’t have spent the money otherwise.
[SCATTERED LAUGHS IN AUDIENCE]
JL: Anyways, we do not have a guest today, because as I mentioned this is a different show. Allow me to speak for a few minutes, then I’ll open the floor. This nation has stood at a crossroads, a conflict of what its ideals truly are. The grand ideals of rustic individualism and hardy self-reliance have stood against the inalienable rights for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The question of the day is just that: does the government exist to provide opportunities to the people, or does it hinder opportunity by intervening in people’s lives? This is not new. This is the debate that came to define our nation while it suffered the worst economic crisis in its history. I know this debate well, as, in the midst of it, in a small town named Lock Springs, I was born. I grew up in a home with no electricity, with no telephone, with scarcely a hint of the things we consider indispensable now. Thanks to the development programs of the New Deal, we gained these luxuries. I do not doubt that I would not be in front of you today without that chance. The “government bureaucracy” that supposedly demolishes livelihoods and harms the nation irrevocably is the reason I have one at all. I know there are countless other stories like mine in this nation. I know there are people who have work because the government provided it to them. I know there are small farmers across the nation that are in business because government policy has protected them from the largest agricultural corporations. To hit at the root of the argument for “state’s rights,” I know there are countless black Americans who have the right to vote and do business where they like because of government protection. The rampant, out-of-control federal bureaucracy is something that has deeply impacted millions of lives for the better, providing them with a better life and the opportunities men like George Washington dreamed of when they declared independence over two centuries ago. However, there is still work to be done in the name of equal opportunity. Our nation does not guarantee healthcare to its people, leaving millions without the ability to obtain the care they need when sick. Our nation continues to bend its policy for the wealthiest Americans, forgetting those who need it in this economic stagnation. Most importantly, as this economic situation which I dare call a crisis continues, the administration seems more concerned with protecting the rich as opposed to aiding those who have lost their jobs and the value of their wages. Every time this is brought to the government, there is a predictable response: “Well, it’s not me!” If I went to President Reagan’s office and posed that question to him, he would not hesitate to tell me all about the tax-and-spend policies of the Democratic Congress that worsen this situation. He would not hesitate to pin this on Speaker O’Neill, Senator Byrd, and all of those that sit on our side of the aisle. The logic that comes from the world of Ronald Reagan, Cap Weinberger, and Robert Bork is one of partisanship, not national interest. It cannot be on them, so it must be on the other party. To borrow from the most famous Missouri politician and a man I pull a heck of a lot of inspiration from, the buck stops here, Mr. President. The buck stops here! We cannot continue to leave the people who need it behind. We cannot continue to give handouts to the corporate world at the expense of the small farmer, the industrial worker, and all of those who need it most. We cannot continue to watch the greed-is-good mentality consume the nation and the American dream. This nation is built on the spirit of mutual cooperation. Everyone in American can get the help they need to reach those inalienable rights. While this spirit is too strong for any single administration to defeat, we must renew it or all that makes our nation great will be lost. As such, as of today, to bring back this humanity to our government, I am now a candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America!
[CHEERING]
JL: Now, I know there’s one burning question for this announcement. Before anyone asks, if I’m elected president, will I continue these dialogues? The answer to that is you’re darn right I will. My effort to bring the government to the people won’t end if I’m the one in the big chair. Now, in the spirit of this openness, if anyone has a question about this, go right ahead to one of the microphones.
Sen. Jerry Litton on Dialogues with Litton, August 27th, 1979
Above: Senator Jerry Litton (D-MO) announces his Presidential bid on Dialogues with Litton.
MAYOR LINDSAY RUNS FOR PRESIDENT AS LIBERAL
THE NEW YORK TIMES, September 7th, 1979
“I’ve been a reformer with results in Massachusetts. Despite everything they’ve thrown at me, every challenge by the back-room power brokers in the state hasn’t been able to stop me from doing what’s right for the people. Together, we can return this government to the people and not the rich and powerful behind the President!”
Gov. Michael Dukakis at his Presidential kickoff rally, August 29th, 1979
“This gives me no small pleasure. Frankly, though, this Presidency is an experiment in extremism that’ll only doom us as a party for years to come. Abandoning the tradition of moderation, with such practitioners as President Eisenhower, that has given us so much peace and prosperity will do nothing but harm us. This is not just my campaign, but one designed for every member of this party who disagrees with the ideologically uncompromising stands this President has taken.”
Sen. Charles Percy announcing his Presidential campaign, September 10th, 1979
Cap,
Get John [Sears] on it right away. Chuck Percy isn’t a serious threat, but we have to be vigilant. Any damage he does here only bloodies us up for the general. We can’t let him crack double digits, and make damn sure John knows that.
RR
A memo sent in the White House, September 10th, 1979
Immediately, Hugh Carey was the frontrunner. He had vast institutional support, a multitude of wealthy connections due to his benefits in New York City, and overall filled the Midwestern unionized voters the national party was desperately chasing following Reagan’s victory. However, this wasn’t necessarily set to last. As it happens, once the Governor began to campaign, it was clear he was not an inspiring presence. While he commanded an almost presidential aura as a tall, deep-voiced Brooklynite (and a tough Brooklyn wit, as reported by those who knew him personally) he tended to give long, reflective speeches to sound presidential which, in the end, didn’t truly sway any of these voters to his side. It reached such a boiling point that his competitor and famed loose cannon Fritz Hollings began to talk about the Governor as “an utter bore” and “droning on and on.” Many seemed to think the establishment support would carry him across the finish line, though. This ultimately came down to one man…
A NEW PATH FOR AMERICA: The Creation of the Sixth Party System, published in 2009
Reporter: Senator Kennedy, you’ve repeatedly stated you’re not running for President. Do you have any particular candidate you support in the race?
Ted Kennedy: No, no I don’t at this particular moment. I like a lot of people there, but I’m not ready to endorse any of them yet.
R: Who would you say you like?
TK: Well, Jerry Litton is an excellent man and a great colleague of mine who I’ve worked with fairly closely… obviously I agree with Governor Carey quite a lot, and I’d have to say, after working with him in Massachusetts, I definitely have a soft spot for Governor Dukakis… we’ll just have to wait and see, though. I’m not listing any particular order here, and these aren’t necessarily endorsements.
Sen. Ted Kennedy at a press conference, August 16th, 1979
1980 PRIMARY POLLING: REPORT
Democratic
If the Presidential election were held today, who would you vote for?
- Hugh Carey: 23.6%
- Jerry Brown: 21.3%
- Jerry Litton: 13.7%
- Reubin Askew: 13.6%
- Andrew Young: 7.4%
- Mo Udall: 6.9%
- Michael Dukakis: 2.1%
- Scoop Jackson: 0.5%
- Lloyd Bentsen: 0.4%
- Gary Hart: 0.4%
- Alan Cranston: 0.3%
- Ernest Hollings: 0.2%
- Unknown: 10.8%
If the Presidential election were held today, who would you vote for?
- Ronald Reagan: 75.7%
- Charles Percy: 13.4%
- Unknown: 11.1%
DEMOCRATS HOLD KY, LA, MS: 1979 ELECTION RECAP
KY Gubernatorial Race
John Y. Brown Jr. (Democrat): 61.4%
Louie B. Nunn (Republican): 38.6%
KFC executive John Brown Jr. ran promising management of the state in a corporate manner, and evidently, Kentuckians agreed with this approach.
LA Gubernatorial Runoff
Edgar G. Mouton Jr. (Democrat): 50.1%
Dave Treen (Republican): 49.9%
Senate President Pro Tempore "Sonny" Mouton was generally not expected to win. He was far too liberal for Louisiana, according to detractors. Plus, his Cajun background and Catholic beliefs would harm him in the Deep South, surely. However, when he came in first above the pack of other Democrats and Republican Dave Treen, people took notice of his folksy barnstorming and focus on turnout in Acadiana. Suddenly, money was flowing into the Mouton campaign's coffers as the state Democratic Party focused on their only shot at defeating Treen. The race was bitterly close, but high turnout in the southern half of the state and New Orleans brought "the Cajun candidate" to the governor's mansion.
MS Gubernatorial Race
William Winter (Democrat): 63.1%
Gil Carmichael (Republican): 36.9%
William Winter, a moderate southerner in the mold of Reubin Askew, carried the election handily against Gil Carmichael, an influential Republican businessman who baffled observers by attempting to seemingly run as both a Reagan supporter and a Liberal Party member at the same time. Needless to say, by October every poll favored Winter, and by election day he won with a landslide margin.
THE AP, December 9th, 1979
Last edited:
Wait and see. Right now we just have a pack of wild donkeys trampling each other to be in front of the pack, so who knows what will happen? After all, would it be an American presidential election if the Democrats didn’t hit clown-car levels of attendance, trip over themselves, and repeatedly self-immolate in the name of defeating a vulnerable Republican?
Last edited: