The Bush Revolution

Of course, we all know that Bush lost to Bill Clinton, but suppose somebody besides Clinton had been nominated, Lee Atwater (whose death has been cited as one of the reasons for Bush the Elder's disorganized campaign) survives, and Bush is in his second term when the Contract with America is passed? Or is there still a Republican victory in '94 that would have allowed that to happen?
 
Of course, we all know that Bush lost to Bill Clinton, but suppose somebody besides Clinton had been nominated, Lee Atwater (whose death has been cited as one of the reasons for Bush the Elder's disorganized campaign) survives, and Bush is in his second term when the Contract with America is passed? Or is there still a Republican victory in '94 that would have allowed that to happen?

If Bush is given a second term, he's not going to get a Republican Congress. Remember, aside from 1934 and 2002, the incumbent's party almost never gains seat in midterm elections, and if the economy is as bad as it was OTL in 1994, the Republicans will lose even more seats to the Democrats. No time that I can recall has a President with an opposition Congress seen that Congress flip to his party's control in the midterms.

If anything, a second term for George H.W. Bush means a greater focus on 'deficit reduction' with the aid of Congressional Democrats, which in turn means less spending and slight tax increases, which also means higher unemployment for the time being. Democrats will make gains in 1994 and will probably win in a landslide in 1996, and with the deficit issue out of the way, might actually be able to govern like Democrats.
 
Also, no prominence of Gingrich, which means a saner right-wing, which can only be good for democracy.

It also butterflies away a good portion of the Republican 'Class of '94', which interestingly enough, includes:

- Joe Scarborough
- Saxby Chambliss
- Bob Barr
- Tom Coburn
- J.C. Watts
- Lindsey Graham
- Jon Kyl
- Olympia Snowe
- Jim Inhofe
- Rick Santorum
- Fred Thompson
- Bill Frist
- Mark Sanford
- Gary Johnson*
- Tom Ridge*
- George W. Bush*

(*) = denotes Governors elected in 1994

Probably not the lot of them, but it will ensure that many of them never get into public office.
 
No time that I can recall has a President with an opposition Congress seen that Congress flip to his party's control in the midterms.
The Senate in 2002 is all I can think of... The House, no way...

Of course, many of the seats gained by the GOP during the Conservative revolution in 1994 were in a way past due, as they had been held in Southern districts with an electorate more conservative than the Democratic party leadership supported by their representatives.

Those seats would likely head Republican eventually, the only question would be when... If Democrats do win in 1996 and "govern like Democrats" then that could see the conservative revolution and the Contract with America come in 1998, and include many of those individuals in the above list.

Although I'm not certain of the premise that Bush Sr. would govern like that. Deficit reduction, probably, but that would probably be focused on spending cuts, not tax increases. In 1996 the dot com boom was gearing up and the economy may have been good enough to see Republicans hold on to the Presidency yet again.

They would have needed a credible candidate though. Quayle would have been clobbered... McCain possibly? Dole could win if the Democrats put up a weak candidate.

If that happens then twenty years plus of Republican President/Democrat Congress could grow to be considered the norm for our country, with anything else seeming almost weird. In that case the Gingrich revolution probably doesn't happen any time soon... but you don't see as much partisanship. Republicans never get as much of a focus on social conservatism. Blue Dog Democrats would remain an important force in Congress.

In that case those seats in the South would still trickle away, but far more slowly, and balanced elsewhere in the country. People such as Ben Nighthorse Campbell would have remained moderate Democrats.
 
Clinton appointed two. Byron White was waiting for a Democrat to enter the White House before he retired. Harry Blackmun retired when a President supportive of his Row vs Wade decision was in office before he retired. So if they stay in good health until 1997, Bush Sr. gets no more appointments to the Supreme Court.
 
Would a Clinton/Gore defeat mean a turn away from the DLC style and towards a more openly liberal Democratic policy?
Also importantly: Not long before the 1992 election, Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh released indictments against a number of Iran-Contra figures. After his defeat, George H. W. Bush pardoned them. What would Bush do in this situation? (If Iran-Contra becomes an issue, it could set up John Kerry for a big shot in 1996...)
 
If so, he probably pardons them in early-mid 1993. By 1996, there won't be a whole lot of discussion about Iran-Contra and it won't resonate with very many voters. As it was, conservatives have never considered it more than partisan politics, and independents weren't bothered enough by it to keep from electing Bush in 1988 when it was more relevant.

By this time Ronald Reagan has openly revealed his Alzheimer's disease, he is no longer making public appearances (IIRC, his last was Nixon's funeral?), and the reality is starting to give way a bit to the legend. Most by this time will consider Reagan a good President, and bringing up Iran-Contra would maybe get some liberal hardliners revved up, but otherwise it would probably just make Democrats look like they are out of ideas.

Kerry could be a potential candidate in 1996... although maybe some would fear that going back to Massachusetts that soon would remind too many of the second coming of Dukakis.
 
Top