What Richard Gephardt were elected POTUS in 1988 or 1992?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if Dick Gephardt, who ran for the Democratic nomination as protectionist in 1988, won the nomination and somehow won the general election that year?

Alternatively, if you want to give him a year with somewhat better odds, have him skip 1988, run and get nominated in 1992, and win.

Consequences that follow?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
....bump....

If Gephardt governed at all in the manner in which he campaigned, his approach to international trade would have been different from Clinton's. That creates a drastic change in the 1990s global economic order, which was the application of neoliberalism.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
....bump....

If Gephardt governed at all in the manner in which he campaigned, his approach to international trade would have been different from Clinton's. That creates a drastic change in the 1990s global economic order, which was the application of neoliberalism.
Was he a protectionist?
 
Gephardt would have much greater legislative skill than Clinton, and could maybe get a healthcare bill passed where Clinton's floundered and died. A more successful legislative program could maybe delay the Republican Revolution, or at least reduce it.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Gephardt would have much greater legislative skill than Clinton, and could maybe get a healthcare bill passed where Clinton's floundered and died. A more successful legislative program could maybe delay the Republican Revolution, or at least reduce it.

Why would he do that much better? Because he was from Congress, not a Governor?

Also, was he also in favor of a large welfare state?

Yes, at least in the classic new deal sense. He was an early member of the DLC, so he did moderate on some social issues. I would not rule out him being amenable to welfare reform or a version of it.
 
Why would he do that much better? Because he was from Congress, not a Governor?



Yes, at least in the classic new deal sense. He was an early member of the DLC, so he did moderate on some social issues. I would not rule out him being amenable to welfare reform or a version of it.

Perhaps I think if Democrats had more than 60 Senators can get UHC. At the time, Democrats had a 57-43 majority.

Or... Perhaps they get the individual mandate proposal championed by conservatives back then... but when Obama proposed it, they then turned against it...
 
Why would he do that much better? Because he was from Congress, not a Governor?
Not only that, he had House leadership experience (two-term Democratic Caucus Chair, and if elected in 1992, two-term Majority Leader). He knew where the levers were and how to push them.
 
Gephardt being elected would have stanched the exodus of blue collar Democrats from the party, at least temporarily. He was culturally a reflection of his House district in South St. Louis: pretty conservative and traditional with a blue collar background. It would have been hard for Republicans to paint him as some wild-eyed liberal type; he was through and through a product of the US Midwest, right down to his education at Northwestern and Michigan Law. On policy, I suspect he would have not been that far from Clinton, though he would have talked a tougher line on trade and probably done something more for the labor movement, which Clinton mainly blew off. But in the main, the difference would have been more one of tone than substance.

I can't recommend the Richard Ben Cramer classic "What It Takes" enough for a pretty accurate and detailed look at Gephardt and what made him tick.
 
Top