I can't wait. Hopefully Gerry is more moral than Claire.
"Did you think I forgot about you?
Sometimes there are things that are too important to let yourself get distracted by trivialities. But now...well, they say you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Things are finally falling into place. You would like to know, don't you?
Well, you'll find out soon enough."
Trailblazing to Victory: The Ramifications of America's First Woman President
- Thread starter Sombergen
- Start date
Well, it's hard not to be more moral than a murderous manipultive lier like Claire Underwood.
More like the semester ended and I now actually have time to write more updates.
I am planning on trying to get one up in the next few days but we’ll see how that goes. Will definitely be one some time this week at the very least.
And we’ll see how Gerry does, got lots more stuff to cover just in 1989 alone.
I am glad to have inspired your character choice in a SW game! We’ll see if it turns out the same way in did ITTL but the opposite.Anyway, it’s great to finally have time to work on this again and look forward to at least getting through 1989 and hopefully into 1990 as there’s a bit more stuff still to cover. We’ll see how it works out.
Chapter 17: The Limits of Power
Chapter 17: The Limits of Power
“President Ferraro has gotten out of hand, trying to impose all of these regulations and big government programs when the American people have made clear since the election of Ronald Reagan that they don’t want no more government intruding into their lives and sucking up their money in wasteful, bureaucratic nonsense. We’ve got a huge deficit to deal with; we can’t afford all of these things she wants. If Ferraro wants to be a one-term president she’s well on her way to making that happen and God willing me and my Republican colleagues won’t shed a tear if it does.”- House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, March 16, 1989
Despite winning by a narrow margin nationally in 1988 Ferraro was determined to push for the agenda she had campaigned on, an effort she had already be working on with the passage of the 1989 Tax Reform package and ongoing work on the 1989 Crime Reduction and Control Act. However, at the same time she was fighting for these bills she was also committed to delivering on environmental protection and education reform as well as a slew of other bills that had been stymied by President Reagan and the Republican controlled Senate during the first six years of his presidency but now had an opportunity to become law because of unified Democratic control of the federal government. In addition, the nation was in the throes of a crisis in the savings and loan industry driven by deregulation in the early ‘80s and attempts by Congress to delay the closures of insolvent S&Ls, leading to a mounting problem by the end of the decade that threatened millions of low and middle income Americans. While there was bipartisan support on many of these issues there was much debate on the scope of changes that were required which necessitated a balancing act by President Ferraro if she wanted to get anything done in these areas, an act she did not always prove successful in.
The first of these to be addressed was the Savings and Loan crisis involving savings and loan associations which had been the source of loans for homeowners since the Great Depression but had increasingly fallen on difficult times in the 1970s and then 1980s due to high interest rates and regulations resulted in them paying out more to depositors than they were receiving from mortgages they gave out. There was bipartisan blame for the depths to which both Congress and President Reagan had gone to keep failing savings and loan associations afloat longer than they should have and to inadequately respond to the mounting number of insolvent S&Ls because of the costs to the taxpayers to pay back depositors. Ferraro worked to address this in her first month in office, criticizing the Reagan administration and Congress for letting this problem get out of hand in a press conference in early February and vowing to increase regulations on savings and loan associations while conducting a painful bailout of insolvent ones that could cost $70-80 billion in total. She immediately faced accusations of hypocrisy, having voted to deregulate savings and loan banks during her time in the House, and opposition from savings and loan lobbyists who hoped to sweep things under the rug and keep the true cost of the S&L crisis from taxpayers. There were also ongoing investigations into Speaker Wright for ethical conflicts over influence peddling schemes by savings and loan operators which eventually contributed to his resignation in June of 1989. Despite these challenges, Ferraro was committed to facing this problem head-on and helping out American homeowners even as she publicly expressed regret for her votes for deregulation, saying at the time it looked like the best way to rescue the savings and loan industry but instead turned out disastrously because of negligence by future Congresses and President Reagan.
The main elements of her plan called for the implementation of new regulations once again separating savings and loan associations from commercial banking activities, restructured the federal deposit insurance system to acknowledge the riskiness of the financial institutions being insured, abolished the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) and moved those functions to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and established a new government corporation and agency to sell-off the assets of insolvent S&Ls and regulate the savings and loan industry respectively. It almost immediately faced resistance from Congress and the banking industry which opposed the reinstitution of strict regulation of the savings and loan industry and especially the restructuring of deposit insurance which threatened to stifle banks from making risky but high yield investments for fear of receiving higher insurance premiums from the federal government as a result. Republicans were especially inflamed by Ferraro’s proposal, declaring it too radical and expensive for the government to undertake and a “gross overextension of government authority over the banking industry” which threatened the American financial sector. She even faced resistance from conservative Democrats hoping to resolve the S&L crisis but opposed to the degree of increased regulations she was proposing. Ferraro dug in, insisting on her plan which would “fix this mess that Congress and my predecessor have gotten us into while returning order to the savings and loan industry.” Congress and Ferraro were at heads and unable to agree on a proposal to deal with the S&L crisis.
This impasse dragged on through the rest of February and into March until finally Ferraro was forced to relent, removing the attempt to fix the federal deposit insurance system while instead imposing increased regulation over savings and loan associations to prevent them from making risky investments rather than completely removing them from commercial banking. Opposition still existed from the savings and loan industry and from congressional Republicans but pressure was mounting to deal with the problem as public anger arose as more reports came out about mismanagement of the entire situation by President Reagan and Congress. With delays because of Democratic leadership turmoil and attempts by lobbyists to slow down the legislative process, the bill (called the Financial Reform and Restructuring Act) finally received a vote by both by the House in July but would yet to be signed into law by the middle of September because of legislative inertia in the Senate even as it was widely expected to be passed in October with bipartisan support and signed by President Ferraro before the end of that month.
The environment proved to be an easier issue for Ferraro to deal with although action on it proved slow because of the bevy of issues that Congress and the Ferraro administration were working to address at the same time. Nevertheless in March Ferraro proposed the creation of a government commission to look into the issue of climate change and provide proposals that her administration could take in order to reduce carbon emissions and promote a transition toward alternative energy sources. This was hailed by Senator Al Gore as a step in the right direction, saying that it showed that the U.S. government “was finally committed to recognizing the threat that Global Warming poses to our planet and taking American leadership on this issue.” More significantly Ferraro proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act in June of 1989 meant to combat acid rain, reduce air pollution in America’s cities, broaden efforts to lower emissions of dozens of toxic chemicals, address the issue of ozone depletion with greater regulation, and create a cap-and-trade system for chemical emissions. The latter proved to be the most controversial part of her proposal with, again, opposition from conservative Republicans over this proposal which they criticized as being an undue burden on business that would lead to even greater relocation of manufacturing overseas while undermining the competitive advantage of American industry. However, there proved to be support from moderate and liberal Republicans in the Senate such as Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield and Connecticut Senator Lowell Weicker which would prove crucial when opposition emerged not just from conservative Democrats but from Midwestern Democrats concerned about the impact of increased environmental regulations on jobs in their own states.
This opposition, combined with Congress’s already busy legislative schedule, led to her proposals being stuck in committee over the course of the summer and through the end of September with ongoing efforts to water down some proposals under pressure from business and industry lobbyists. Despite this setback, Ferraro did have the EPA more aggressively enforce existing environmental regulations that successfully managed to expedite assessments for cleaning up polluted waterways and dealing with toxic chemical sites. She also worked to have Congress establish a system of environmental grants to states which presented plans to more effectively and efficiently improve environmental quality, successfully inserted measures into the 1990 budget to boost money into research on alternative energy sources, and pushed Congress to encourage the use of “cleaner” fuel sources like natural gas and clean coal in place of more traditional fossil fuels. Proposals to boost energy and fuel efficiency as part of her national energy policy, however, got stuck in committee and would likely not be addressed until 1990 as they wound their way through the legislative process and faced pressure from powerful interests in the energy and automobile industries to limit them as much as possible.
Education was an issue that mattered deeply to Ferraro, having credited her own success to her mother’s insistence on getting a good education and going to college, and she was committed to delivering on education reform after having campaigned on it in 1988. Thus Ferraro convened an education summit at the White House in May of 1989 involving all of the nation’s governors to hash out plans to address the tepid state of America’s education system that so far was falling behind that of almost every other developed country in the world. The result, Educational Goals for America (EGA), emphasized a turn toward a federal-state partnership on standardized curricula and testing that was hoped would be able to boost test scores and provide America’s children with the knowledge and skills they would need to deal with an increasingly technological and skills driven economy. There was concern, however, over the role of the federal government in the implementation of standards-based education which ignited into a firestorm when Ferraro stated in a press conference days after the summit that it was “the responsibility of the federal government to push states to improve educational outcomes and to hold them accountable… if they fail to do so.” Immediately there was pushback from governors saying that states could handle the issue on their own and that while they appreciated leadership from the federal government in pushing for standards-based education reform they didn’t think it was its responsibility to police the education policies of states. Republicans were especially critical, with House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich accusing Ferraro of attempting to federalize public education and saying that it was time to devolve even more power to the states, “rather than centralizing it in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington.” Ferraro stood her ground even as she came under intense scrutiny, working to establish a National Education Task Force (NETF) to come up with proposals for what standards-based education reform would look like.
While comprehensive education reform was not yet possible, Ferraro did attempt to push other efforts to improve access to education and make it for affordable. These, however, ran into issues with the ongoing budget crunch that made increasing spending a difficult task. Even with this challenge, Ferraro pushed through with attempts to expand funding for Head Start, boost college grants, establish job training and vocational education programs, and implement educational tax credits. Many of these ideas languished in Congress, though, with Ferraro only able to win very modest boosts in Head Start and college grant funding and failing to implement any sort of tax credits for education in the face of budget constraints. Even her attempts at job training and vocational education programs ran into problems with a Democratic Congress that was, nevertheless, resistant to establishing more government programs for fear of backlash from voters who were skeptical toward the expansion of the federal government. Thus while she secured some progress on education it was far short of what she hoped to achieve.
One of the most high profile failures for the Ferraro administration in its first eight months was on the issue of equal pay. It was no secret that women continued to be paid less than men for the same job and even though the Equal Pay Act of 1963 mandated that employers not discriminate against a person on the basis of sex by paying them lower wages it carved out many exceptions and loopholes that had been exploited by employers allowing a gender pay gap to continue to persist. Ferraro, well aware of the difficulties faced by working women, was committed to rectifying this issue and presented it in a press conference in February of 1989 as an opportunity “to boost the incomes of working families across the country.” She proposed a new Equal Pay Act at the beginning of March which included provisions to remove loopholes in the original EPA that undermined its effectiveness, to impose fines for businesses found to be paying their female employees less for the same job as they would for a male employee with the same qualifications, and to make it easier for women to pursue lawsuits against their employees for wage discrimination based on their gender. It immediately ignited a firestorm on Capitol Hill, with Republicans (almost exclusively men) decrying it as an excuse to regulate businesses more, with many denying that a gender pay gap even existed. Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina called it an attempt to impose a “radical feminist agenda on America” meant to “police every man in the country” and said that President Ferraro should “stop making up issues to justify her big government, liberal agenda that will crush American businesses and intrude on the liberty of the people.” Ferraro shot back with evidence that a gender pay gap existed, saying that it was real and that it would be a boon to American families if women could recover the money they have lost because of gender biases by employers.
Women rallied to her side, with the National Organization for Women saying that President Ferraro was right to push for equal pay for women and shamed lawmakers who opposed the bill, saying that this is a “surefire way to offend tens of millions of working women across the country who have to deal with wage discrimination all of the time.” Ferraro also found support from both Republican and Democratic women in the House, although their numbers proved to be too small to make much of a difference if a vote on the bill ever came up. However, conservative anti-feminist activists including Phyllis Schlafly mobilized against the new EPA and partnered with business groups to pressure conservative and moderate Democrats to come out against the bill or face their wrath come 1990. Their efforts proved successful, with numerous southern Democrats coming out against Ferraro’s Equal Pay Act, saying it was unnecessary and a distraction from more pressing issues that the nation was facing. With support eroding in Congress by the middle of April, Ferraro attempted a last ditch effort to save the bill by meeting with concerned Democrats to rally their support behind the new EPA and leaning on her connections with women in the House to have them pressure their colleagues to support the bill. In the end these efforts proved futile and by the beginning of May it was clear the bill was dead and Ferraro was forced to abandon it and move on to other issues. Feminists, still reeling from the defeat of the ERA, faced another stinging setback even as many women were energized by the emergence of equal pay as an issue on the political agenda and women’s groups began to work for equal pay at the state level if Congress refused to act on the issue. For Ferraro, however, it only emphasized her social liberalism and energized social conservatives who were looking for an issue to mobilize around after having strongly supported Pat Robertson’s campaign for president and then vice president. They were now committed more than ever in stopping Ferraro’s agenda on social issues and making sure she was only a one-term president.
Even as Ferraro faced difficulties in addressing some of her main priorities she did have success in passing several bills Democrats had been working on passing for some time. The first was the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1989 which was a bill Ferraro was especially eager to pass considering the impact it would have not just for working mothers but for working parents in general. However, the bill’s passage was imperiled when Ferraro blew up the careful consensus that congressional Democrats had been working toward with Republicans to ensure bipartisan support for the bill by pushing for 16 weeks of leave instead of 12 and reducing the size of businesses that would be obligated to provide leave from 50 employees to 35 employees. While she succeeded in getting 16 weeks of leave her efforts to have the bill cover more businesses failed to move the needle. Nevertheless, the FMLA proved to be milestone in efforts to fight for family leave and was the first national legislation to mandate that employers allow their employees to take time off to care for family, newborn children, and themselves should they be sick without fear of losing their jobs. Ferraro also signed the National Voter Registration Act of 1989 after it passed both houses of Congress with bipartisan support, a “motor voter” law mandating that states allow citizens the option to register to vote whenever they apply for or renew their driver’s license, allowing for states to use a federal voter registration form, and ensuring states maintained accurate voter rolls by limiting the practice of purging to only cases of death, criminal conviction, mental incapacity, and change of residence. At a press conference afterward Ferraro hailed the bill as a “step forward for democracy” and expressed hope that it would help boost turnout in elections after the abysmal turnout that characterized most national elections in the 1980s.
Two issues that President Ferraro failed to push in her first eight months in office were healthcare reform and campaign finance reform. While she had promised to work toward establishing a universal healthcare system on the campaign trail she faced significant opposition from business groups, the health insurance agency, and the American Medical Association to any changes in healthcare laws. This translated into opposition in Congress from the usual suspects: Republicans and conservative Democrats. Not only did she face strong opposition but she was also stretched thin having to deal with major fights over her deficit reduction package, other domestic policies (especially the new EPA), and foreign turmoil that left the Ferraro administration with scant resources to devote to an ambitious healthcare reform effort. On campaign finance reform she did present a plan at the end of August to impose stricter limits on spending by campaigns and outside groups as well as allowing for the partial public funding of campaigns but these plans soon became DOA as Republicans threatened to filibuster them in the Senate and she received tepid support from congressional Democrats, many of whom benefitted from the current campaign financing system and were loath to change it. Thus the issue went back under the table as the Ferraro administration turned its focus to other issues of greater importance.
Ferraro could claim that she had been working toward fulfilling the promises she made to the American people on domestic issues as October 1st rolled around but her record was, at best, a mixed bag and proved the limits of what a unified Democratic government could achieve in the post-Reagan era. With her approval rating dropping to 47% by the end of September and many issues left on the table to address Ferraro had her work cut out for her for the next year or so until the midterm elections which would be the first opportunity for the American people to pass judgement on her presidency. In addition there were great changes going on in the rest of the world that the Ferraro administration was forced to address as the old Cold War order seemed to be crumbling away to be replaced with something radically different and foes new and old emerged to challenge President Ferraro’s approach to foreign policy and prove to the American people that she could represent them on the international stage.
Last edited:
Yup folks after a fourth month hiatus TtV is now officially back. For how long I don't know, need to see what my workload is for next semester. At the very least there should be a few more updates before the end of January when I become busy again. Things will definitely get more interesting from here on out, though, as we get past some of the boring legislative stuff and see what's going on in the rest of the world as well as some "fun" things happening with the Ferraro administration.
Bookmark1995
Banned
Poor Ferraro. You have become a victim of GOP obstruction.
It is possible Ferraro might end up a one term President, if she gets the blame for the bad economy.
It is possible Ferraro might end up a one term President, if she gets the blame for the bad economy.
That's funny because they don't even have power in Congress right now, except filibustering bills in the Senate of course although a lot of the stuff Gerry wants to do has got bipartisan support since the GOP was less conservative at this point in time than it is now and still has liberal Republicans as well as a sizable number of moderates. She's more a victim of conservative obstruction than anything seeing as she's trying to do some liberal stuff that would be difficult to pass immediately after Reagan's presidency. Whether she'll be a one-term president or not, though, remains to be seen.
While a mixed bag domestically, there's enough happening on the foreign stage to soon be felt, no doubt. With Ferraro lacking Bush's foreign policy chops though, might be interesting to see how it turns out. I also note that it seems as if Robertson's impact hasn't quite left us and could lead to effects further down the road, with a Liberal President to rally against.
The Conservative Coalition still exists and it’s a bitch if you’re a liberal Democrat, especially when there was no southerner on the Democratic ticket so you have no one to persuade them to back you.
Oh Pat Robertson is just the beginning, safe to say the GOP is turning even further to the right a few years earlier than it did OTL. What this means for Gerry I can’t say right now but we’ll see come 1990 and beyond.
And yeah, Gerry’s foreign policy will be interesting to see and definitely going to lead to more divergences than on domestic issues for sure. Very important period this is so her presence could alter things quite a bit.
Much as I enjoy your TL, speaking as a professor, I'd urge you to keep up with work. Excellent and realistic update btw.
Schoolwork will always come before this TL of course but I’m glad you enjoyed the update! If I disappear for four months again though you all will know why.
Chapter 18: The End of History
Chapter 18: The End of History
1989 has come to be defined as the most significant year in recent history and one does not have to look far to see why. No other year since has marked such a pivotal change in world affairs and throughout the year there was a growing sense that one order was giving way to another one. The very foundations of the Cold War order appeared to be crumbling as a wave of democracy and economic liberalization swept across the globe, touching Asia and Eastern Europe before spreading elsewhere in the years that followed as popular protests and movements for reform led to the toppling of various governments, in most cases peacefully with a few exceptions. Some were calling it the final triumph of liberal democracy while others expressed worry that old conflicts would re-emerge to fill the void left by the fall of communism as a global force. Whatever the case, the world that a generation had lived through was quickly coming to an end and nobody knew what lay ahead. While President Ferraro’s involvement in most of these foreign developments was minimal their effects would nevertheless shape foreign policy for the rest of her presidency and beyond.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China was in a precarious situation going into 1989. Years of economic liberalization had led to high inflation and widespread corruption by members of the Communist Party of China (CPC) while political liberalization including reductions in press censorship had alarmed hardliners within the party keen on maintaining the CPC’s power and keeping Western influence out of China. The reformers, led by General Secretary Zhao Ziyang, had been put on the defensive since the sacking of Hu Yaobang as General Secretary in 1987 over his perceived mishandling of student demonstrations the previous year and concerns that he was too liberal to hold such a powerful position. Despite this, however, China had been more open than ever before under Zhao even as his own position was in danger because he was viewed as too close to students and overly influenced by Western ideas. However, his efforts to avoid confrontation with the hardliners led by Premier Li Peng would end up coming to an end as China was rocked by the death of Hu Yaobang on May 2, 1989 from a heart attack.
Hu was greatly beloved by students, intellectuals, and political reformers who attributed his death to the stress caused by his resignation from office and humiliation by others within the Party when they forced him to publicly criticize many of the political positions he had held as being opposed to the party’s principle of collective leadership. A wave of mourning engulfed university campuses across China as memorials to Hu were held and students began putting up posters discussing important political issues such as freedom of assembly and freedom of the press that Hu Yaobang had advocated during his time as General Secretary. Pressure mounted for a state funeral to be held to honor his memory as small demonstrations popped up across China and a larger one gathered in Tiananmen Square in Beijing in the days following Hu’s death, which the government eventually relented to holding on May 12. On May 11 nearly 100,000 students descended on Tiananmen Square despite the warnings of municipal authorities and held a candlelight vigil to honor the memory of Hu Yaobang. The funeral the next day was a subdued affair attended by CPC leadership and held in the Great Hall of the People that flanked Tiananmen Square. It lasted only 50 minutes, with emotions running high among the students assembled outside. Later that day small scale riots broke out in Shanghai and Xi’an, alarming many in party leadership who felt that things were starting to spiral out of control. General Secretary Zhao called a series of emergency meetings of the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) during this time, constituting the top leadership of the CPC, and stressed the need to encourage students to go back to class, combat rioting, and open up dialogue with students to alleviate tension. He was opposed by Premier Li, who wanted Zhao to condemn the protestors and take more serious action in recognition of the serious threat he believed they posed to the Party. His concerns were dismissed and the PSC remained without consensus as the protests continued, with students in Tiananmen Square calling for an end to government corruption, democratic reforms, and the recognition of the independent student organization they had formed on May 14.
On May 16 a meeting took place between the PSC and Deng Xiaoping to decide how to respond to the demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. Deng still held considerable influence and sway over the Chinese political scene as a “paramount leader” of the nation and as Chairman of the Central Military Commission, having the ultimate say over any decisions the government made and being the man to break any deadlocks within the PSC. General Secretary Zhao had allies of his give a presentation painting the protests as patriotic demonstrations representing frustration with the current functioning of the CPC as opposed to seeking an end to one-party rule and challenging the power of the “old men” such as Deng Xiaoping who still held considerable sway over the party. While Deng was opposed to student demonstrations in principle he nevertheless was open to any solution so long as it led to the students leaving Tiananmen Square and returning to class. Despite opposition from Premier Li and First Vice Premier Yao Yilin, Deng agreed with General Secretary Zhao’s desire to pursue a conciliatory approach with the students in the hopes of seeking a peaceful solution to the situation. In a surprising move Zhao Ziyang, flanked by a reluctant Li Peng, addressed the gathering in Tiananmen Square on May 18 and announced that the government recognized the patriotic nature of the demonstrations and had received the message that change was needed within government to address its flaws. Zhao promised to establish a special commission to investigate corruption within the CPC and to hold official dialogue sessions with students to hear their concerns. He did, however, mention that the government would not recognize the independent student organization that had been formed and urged the students to go through the official student organization instead. While many were dissatisfied with this the protests lost momentum and most students returned to class believing they had made a difference and that the government would fulfill its promise of dialogue that would, hopefully, result in further reform.
Hardliners in the CPC were burned by what they saw as a caving in to Western-influenced student demonstrations that they thought would lead the country on the path toward capitalism and multiparty democracy. Many including most of the other “old men” who held great influence over decisions by the Chinese government, however, fell in line behind Deng Xiaoping and Zhao Ziyang out of respect for Deng’s authority and the recognition he still held considerable sway with officials within the CPC. While the resulting student-government dialogue in the weeks that followed the Tiananmen Square protests were fraught with disputes over procedure and the reluctance of government officials to answer student’s questions they have been widely acknowledged as marking a turning point in China toward greater economic and political reform even as such efforts were hamstrung by continued resistance from conservative hardliners attempting to delay them for as long as possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 marked the official end of the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and a rapid transition in the region away from communism and totalitarianism toward free market capitalism and multiparty democracy. This dramatic end to the Eastern Bloc had been preceded by years of economic stagnation and decline within Eastern Europe and a diminished commitment by the Soviet Union to defend the communist regimes that had for so long acted as a buffer between it and Western Europe. While some states, such as Hungary, attempted limited economic reforms the dissatisfaction with the diminishing quality of life under communism could not be abated and by the end of the 1980s it had reached the breaking point in most of Eastern Europe.
Poland was the first Warsaw Pact state to see the fall of communism as protests and strikes over the course of 1988 initiated by Solidarity had pushed the government headed by General Wojciech Jaruzelski, First Secretary of the United Workers’ Party, to seek talks with Solidarity and its leader, Lech Wałęsa, in order to prevent further unrest. In January 1989, after forcing the party to back negotiations with Solidarity or see the resignation of the its entire leadership, Jaruzelski met with Wałęsa and other members of Solidarity’s leadership to determine the future direction of Poland. This resulted in the famous Round Table Agreement signed on April 9, 1989, which saw the legalization of Solidarity, the creation of the office of President and of the Senate, and stipulated the holding of partially free elections for the Sejm on June 11 and completely free elections for the Senate. The resulting campaign was the first one in Poland since the 1920s and resulted in the astounding and unexpected success of Solidarity, which swept all of the seats available to it in the Sejm and all of the seats in the Senate. It was the beginning of the end of communist rule within Poland and was celebrated by many in the West, with President Ferraro taking a widely circulated photo with Wałęsa as part of a trip through Poland and Hungary in late-July 1989.
Despite the appointment of the communist Czesław Kiszczak as Prime Minister on August 6, within a week Solidarity had managed to cause the defections of the longtime coalition partners of the United Workers’ Party, the United People’s Party and the Democratic Party, resulting in the rejection of Kiszczak’s proposed government. This left President Jaruzelski with no choice but to appoint a Solidarity member as Prime Minister of Poland. After delaying for a few days, Jaruzelski finally agreed to appoint Wałęsa’s chosen candidate and trusted ally, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, as Prime Minister-designate. He won a vote of confidence on September 1, officially becoming the first non-Communist Prime Minister of Poland in over 40 years. After this point the pace of reform picked up, with various reforms passed enshrining civil freedoms, multiparty democracy, and bringing an end to the centrally-planned economy. By the end of the year Poland’s name would be officially changed from the People’s Republic of Poland to the Republic of Poland, marking the formal end of its status as communist state as elections for president were planned for the next year.
The next communist state to fall was Hungary, which despite limited economic and political reforms earlier in the 1980s found the pace of reform accelerated after the replacement of long-time General Secretary János Kádár with the moderate reformer Károly Grósz in the spring of 1988 and the appointment of Miklós Németh as Prime Minister in December of that year. In January 1989 the Hungarian Parliament adopted a package of democratic reforms that provided for freedoms of assembly, speech, and the press; allowed for trade union pluralism; and permitted the creation of non-communist political parties among many other reforms. Pressure began to build on the government over the course of the next few months to engage in dialogue with the emerging political opposition, which it finally agreed to do so on May 19 following mass demonstrations in March and April as it followed the lead of Poland in holding round table talks with non-Communist forces. At the same time the government also began dismantling its border fence with Austria, creating a hole in the Iron Curtain that destabilized East Germany and Czechoslovakia as thousands of their citizens crossed the border illegally to the West.
Talks continued until the end of September when both sides signed the Round Table agreement, overhauling the Hungarian political system through various measures that separated the Communist Party from the apparatus of the state, provided for multi-party elections to Parliament, reformed the penal code, and created a Constitutional Court. These were passed into law by the Hungarian Parliament in a historic session from October 17-21 which officially changed the name from the People’s Republic to the Republic of Hungary and provided for multiparty elections to the National Assembly and the direct election of the president the following year, guaranteed human and civil rights for all Hungarians, and established the separation of powers between three branches of government. On October 23, 1989, the 33rd anniversary of the Revolution of 1956, communist rule in Hungary was formally abolished once-and-for-all. October 1989 also saw the end of the Hungarian Socialist Worker’ Party (the country’s communist party) as it renamed itself the Hungarian Socialist Party and took up the banner of social democracy. The march of democracy across Eastern Europe continued unabated.
The domino effects of the transitions in Poland and Hungary, as well as the dismantling of the Iron Curtain, soon hit East Germany as nearly 35,000 East Germans fled through Czechoslovakia to Hungary by the beginning of September. The East German government would close its border with Czechoslovakia on September 1, provoking a series of demonstrations in Leipzig that grew over the course of the month. On October 2 the border with Poland was also closed, completely isolating East Germany from its neighbors and closing off the last route of escape for East German refugees. The next day General Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party (SED) Erich Honecker issued a shoot and kill order to the military as protestors became increasingly defiant of the government, with a large demonstration being planned for that Friday. Over 80,000 protestors showed up in Leipzig to demonstrate as authorities refused to open fire on protestors, however in a tragic turn a gun misfire by one of the soldiers resulted in mass confusion as authorities, believing themselves to be under attack, fired on protestors gathered in the center of Leipzig. Nearly 200 were killed and another 800 were injured in what became known in the international press as the Leipzig Massacre. Mikhail Gorbachev, who was in East Germany to celebrate the 40th anniversary of its founding and had called for the East German government to accept reform the previous day, cut his visit short upon learning of news of the massacre and returned to Moscow. Although the government tried to suppress news of the incident it quickly spread across East Germany, provoking outrage by citizens all across the country, and earned condemnation from Western nations who vowed to take swift action if the crackdown continued further.
On Monday, October 9, demonstrations broke out in cities all across East Germany. 200,000 gathered in East Berlin as protests also broke out in Dresden, Karl-Marx-Stadt (formally Chemnitz), Magdeburg, and Rostock. Honecker vowed to disperse the protests as “counter-revolutionary actions meant to overthrow socialism” and urged the Soviets to intervene and stabilize the situation. Help did not come, however, as the newly enacted policy of Soviet non-intervention in the internal affairs of its satellite states in Eastern Europe meant Soviet troops remained in their barracks as demonstrations continued to grow in size. Two days later, on October 11, Honecker attempted to enact martial law in order to mobilize the National People’s Army to bring an end to the unrest as over half a million gathered in East Berlin and protests in other cities continued to grow in size. In a dramatic vote he was unanimously rebuffed by the Politburo of the SED, who promptly sacked him and replaced him as General Secretary with Egon Krenz in the hope of avoiding further bloodshed and defusing the situation. The government immediately reopened the border with Czechoslovakia, which was overwhelmed with a wave of thousands of East Germans attempting to flee to the West. By that Friday, October 14, the Czechoslovak government had no choice but to remove any bureaucratic barriers to travel to the West, essentially allow free passage between East and West Germany and lifting its section of the Iron Curtain. Meanwhile protests in East Germany continued as citizens began to expand their demands beyond simply reopening the borders to pushing for democratic reforms and the granting freedoms they had been previously denied.
On October 20, following several days of protests and a massive flow of refugees into Czechoslovakia (some say numbering up to 40,000), the government announced it would be opening the borders with West Berlin and West Germany. However, confusion emerged when the government spokesman said these changes would be taking effect “immediately and without delay” prompting hundreds of thousands of East Germans to move on the Berlin Wall, demanding to be let into West Berlin. Border guards, overwhelmed by the crowds and receiving no word from their superiors, had no choice but to open the gates to West Berlin. Soon thousands of East Germans, hammer and chisel in hand, began dismantling the wall in what would become iconic images marking the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. New checkpoints were opened up as tens of thousands of East Germans streamed into West Berlin for the first time in nearly 40 years. Four days later Willi Stoph, Chairman of the East German Council of Ministers, would resign with the rest of his government to be replaced by the more liberal Hans Modrow. Over the next month the SED would be stripped of its leading role in the East German constitution, Egon Krenz would resign as General Secretary of the SED with no replacement, and Round Table talks would be opened up between the SED and other political parties. On December 1 the SED officially reformed itself as the Democratic Socialist Party, abandoning Marxist-Lenism in favor of democratic socialism, as free and democratic elections were called for February 1990. Communism in East Germany was all but dead by the end of 1989 as yet another Eastern Bloc state fell to the forces of democracy and reform.
The last two months of 1989 would see peaceful, popular uprisings bring an end to communist rule in both Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria as pro-democracy leaders took power in both countries and free and fair elections were scheduled for the spring of 1990. Romania, however, would not prove as lucky as long-time leader Nicolae Ceaușescu hoped to weather the fall of communism in the rest of Eastern Europe and remain in power. This situation did not last for long, however, as a failed attempt to arrest an opponent of the regime in early December 1989 sparked an uprising in the city of Constanța that would soon spread to the rest of the country. Ceaușescu, in an attempt to address the situation, gave an ill-fated speech on December 13 at the Central Committee building of the Romanian Communist Party denouncing the uprising in Constanța and vowing to restore order. This was met by boos from the crowd and cheers of “Remember Constanța!” as the speech was abruptly ended and it became clear how little popular support Ceaușescu had. Riots broke out in Bucharest and soon spread to other cities in Romania as martial law was declared and security forces opened fire on rioters. They would soon turn on Ceaușescu, however, after the suspicious death of Defense Minister Vasile Milea on December 14 (who had refused to fire on protestors in Bucharest the previous day) whom many soldiers believe had been murdered by Ceaușescu. Commanders gave up on trying to maintain the loyalty of their soldiers to the regime and Ceaușescu and his wife, as well as several close allies, were forced to flee Bucharest. They were subsequently captured in Snagov and given a show trial before being executed on December 19. By Christmas the National Salvation Front had taken over power from communist authorities and single-party rule was formally abolished, paving the way for free elections and marking the end of communist rule in Eastern Europe.
In a Christmas address to the nation on December 21, 1989 President Ferraro mentioned the recent developments in Europe, celebrating the “triumph of freedom and democracy over totalitarianism and communist rule” and saying that the New Year would mark “not just the passage into a new decade but also into a new era of world history.” What that would hold was anyone’s guess but there was no doubt in the minds of most Americans that the world was headed in the right direction even if there was much that was still uncertain. For Ferraro, it would mean navigating an emerging post-Cold War world order that was still in the process of being formed. One chapter of history was coming to an end and Ferraro would get to play a decisive role in how the next one was written.
Last edited:
I was going to try to write alternate lyrics for "We Didn't Start the Fire" but couldn't figure out a way to reflect the divergence ITTL for the relevant lines (last two of the last verse) and I didn't want it to stop me from getting this update out. If anyone who knows 1980s pop culture better than me or is good at songwriting or both would like to contribute suggestions for alternative lines I would appreciate it. Really wanted to put this in the update so if anyone wants to help out I'll add the best suggestion into the update.
The lines in question:
"Hypodermics on the shores, China's under martial law
Rock and roller cola wars, I can't take it anymore"
Hope you guys enjoyed the update and I know for a fact that the next one is going to be particularly eventful.
The lines in question:
"Hypodermics on the shores, China's under martial law
Rock and roller cola wars, I can't take it anymore"
Hope you guys enjoyed the update and I know for a fact that the next one is going to be particularly eventful.
Bookmark1995
Banned
I wonder how Ferraro will influence the fall of the Iron Curtain, as well as the ITTL fate of Soviet Russia.
Yay the Tiananmen square massacre is everted and China seems willing to reforms (to a point they would still be an authoritarian state) but boo you had a massacre in Germany instead. Oh well at least this will look good on Ferro's record (she seems a bit more willing to tour the newly liberated Europe than Bush).
It looks like things are going to be hunky dory in Europe...just ignore Yugoslavia, it's not itself.
It looks like things are going to be hunky dory in Europe...just ignore Yugoslavia, it's not itself.
Bush actually toured Poland and Hungary as well so it's not much different tbh. Also the hardliners in China won't give up this easily so who knows what they might try to do to prevent the further liberalization of China. I guess we'll have to see when the time comes.