The Economy under George HW Bush if Reagan dies in '81?

If Reagan had died in March of 1981, what would Bush do with the struggling economy? Bush wouldn't cut taxes on the wealthy as much as Reagan did, but what else would Bush have done differently? And would the economy be booming as it was in the late eighties?
 
Reagan did something intangibly good for the economy other then taxes and increased defense spending... he did what FDR was able to do and gave hope to a people who believed the economy was never going to get any better.

Bush didn't have it in him to be able to do that.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
It is possible that he loses patience with Volcker before Reagan does. I'm not sure about this, though.

I don't think that there would be too much of a difference. There might be less ideological types in the bureaucracy; we might see better reaction to the AIDs crisis. But Bush was not the type to rock the boat, and he didn't really see the boat as needing rocking.
 
Hmm.... Bush would probably still cut taxes like Reagan did so that doesn't change. The biggest question is though is how does Bush deal with and work with Paul Volcker? Does he go along and let Volcker do what he needed to do to get inflation under control, or does he can him in favor of someone else? Bush is probably going to spend less than Reagan did to.

Another thing to consider, as jmc247 said, is that Reagan "did what FDR was able to do and gave hope to a people who believed the economy was never going to get any better." Bush had a very mild recession happen during his Presidency OTL from 1990-91 and did very little to spur confidence and convince people that things were going to get better and this played a key role in his loss in 1992. If he handles the economy of the early '80s, which was much worse the same way, the only thing he has going for him in 1984 is the Democratic party being the utter cluster f*ck that it was in the 1970's and 1980's.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Hmm.... Bush would probably still cut taxes like Reagan did so that doesn't change. The biggest question is though is how does Bush deal with and work with Paul Volcker? Does he go along and let Volcker do what he needed to do to get inflation under control, or does he can him in favor of someone else? Bush is probably going to spend less than Reagan did to.

Another thing to consider, as jmc247 said, is that Reagan "did what FDR was able to do and gave hope to a people who believed the economy was never going to get any better." Bush had a very mild recession happen during his Presidency OTL from 1990-91 and did very little to spur confidence and convince people that things were going to get better and this played a key role in his loss in 1992. If he handles the economy of the early '80s, which was much worse the same way, the only thing he has going for him in 1984 is the Democratic party being the utter cluster f*ck that it was in the 1970's and 1980's.

In my view, this was enough for him to win. Bush may not have won as badly, nor would he have inspired as much crossover vote, but if the Democrats are on the same path on the Presidential level that they were in '84, it does not matter at all.

tumblr_nblf7txHTb1qdrojco1_500.jpg


This convention sign is all that needs to be said for the Dems in '84. This was not going to win much of anything. It put Democrat voters firmly in Reagan's camp.
 
Last edited:
In my view, this was enough for him to win. Bush may not have won as badly, nor would he have inspired as much crossover vote, but if the Democrats are on the same path on the Presidential level that they were in '84, it does not matter at all.

tumblr_nblf7txHTb1qdrojco1_500.jpg


This convention sign is all that needs to be said for the Dems in '84. This was not going to win much of anything. It put Democrat voters firmly in Reagan's camp.

Yea, that's kind of what I was trying to get at. The Democrats at that time were like the GOP of the last 6.5 years. They were just too divided to win the top prize and the fringe scared moderate voters.
 
If anything, Bush's first term will be less flexible than Reagan on tax cuts, as he won't feel he has the political capital to compromise on them, at least prior to winning a term in his own right.
 
Top