WI: Bush in '80

So, say in 1976 Reagan beats out Ford for the Republican nomination (maybe winning the NH primary and damaging Ford's campaign right off the bat, giving himself a delegate lead). He loses to Carter in the general election, perhaps by a wider margin than Ford, and Carter's term goes about the same as in OTL. In 1980, Reagan perhaps throws his hat into the ring again, but faces opposition in the party after losing the previous election. Republicans choose Bush, who defeats Carter, though not as handily as Reagan did. Bush takes his opponent's place in the White House. What would have become of the hostage crisis in Iran? Of Soviet relations? Of economic policy?
Another thing to consider: John Hinckley, Jr. could still make an attempt on the President's life. What if Bush was assassinated months into his term, giving his running mate a full term (Dole? Connally?). What effect would a failed attempt have on his presidency?
 
though not as handily as Reagan did

I disagree. Bush wouldn't be perceived as a reactionary, so he'd hold a consistent lead after the rally-round-the-flag thing faded, plus he'd have a moderate image, so he'd gain quite a few Anderson voters. So he'd win by >10 points. But he wouldn't have Reagan's coattails, as without the initially close race, senators and congressmen would disassociate themselves from the failed Carter ticket. So, the Senate probably is under narrow Democratic control, but Bush would still try to build consensus.

Bush was never a supply-sider, but in 1980, he was more moderate than in '88. So, expect him to (perhaps successfully) attempt to balance the budget. So a shallower tax cut, and defence spending that never goes up, perhaps, plus a bit of reining in of social spending. Either way, the economy is going to rebound.

Bush would also be less likely to increase tensions with the USSR so early, so with a calmer situation, Gorbachev may ascend to the Secretary-ship in 1982 (he declined IOTL) and successfully reform the Soviet system. The hostage crisis is ending either way; I don't believe Reagan was conspiring with the Iranians. It was just hatred of Carter that really made them free the hostages on January 20.
 
the economy rebounds more slowly in my view. Reagan was a Keynesian, which was exactly the medicine needed. I realize people often disagree about this.

I do agree the Iranians kept the hostages because they hated Carter for supporting the Shah and then letting him into the United States (send the medical equipment to Mexico where the Shah was camped out! under the guise we were going to do it anyway)

Whoever's elected president, the Iranian students backed by their government probably release the hostages Jan. 20.
 
let's say Bush is injured about as severely as Reagan.

Ronnie Reagan took about 6 weeks to fully recover, maybe more. In OTL, he did not invoke the 25th. The executive branch was run by a troika of three senior administration officials. They visited Ronnie every morning, but I suspect a lot was delegated. In an ATL, maybe Bush does invoke the 25th.

And just maybe, events pan out differently and butterfly away Hinckley's assassination attempt. His psychiatrist sounds really incompetent as well as maybe violating John's right to be first person considered and to know what was going on. The psychiatrist told his parents to stop giving him money. To adopt a sink or swim strategy.

whereas in fact, a person with schizophrenia needs to find the right medication to better balance their neurotransmitters, needs some winnables and positives right now, needs the matter-of-fact support of family and friends, and all the standard good stuff.

Here's an article from almost two years later in '83 in which Washington D.C. police officer Thomas Delahanty, Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy, and Press Secretary James Brady were all three suing this damn psychiatrist.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=944DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2916,6793446&hl=en

And Hinckley, Sr., said that one of his biggest regrets was that he had listener to this guy and followed his advice.
 
Why would the Politburo put Gorbachev in charge as early as 1982? I doubt he would be appointed in Andropov's stead unless Andropov is dead too given he was Andropov's protégé.

He has a slightly better chance of taking Chernenko's place in 1984 but there's no guarantee. He'd have to have more support from the surviving members of the Gerontocracy to skip over Chernenko. Indeed Gorbachev came to power in 1985 for at least two reasons. He was Chernenko's second Secretary-and therefore a natural successor. He had Andrei Gromyko's support.

The first will not be true when Andropov dies since Chernenko was his Second Secretary. The second may not matter.

Even if Gromyko backs him there's an issue with Tikhonov. Historically, he made every effort he could to prevent Gorbachev from being in a position to become General Secretary. He wouldn't let that happen in 1984 without a fight.

Therefore even if Gorbachev has Gromyko's support somehow they have to fight the combined weight of Tikhonov and Chernenko. Could that happen? Perhaps-the Kremlin is a strange place-but there would be more of an internal struggle to achieve that outcome.


US-Soviet relations were already bad in 1980. The Politburo hated Jimmy Carter. As such by definition the relationship between the superpowers won't be great in 1981 even under George Bush.

As I explained in another thread the Soviet leadership would meet Bush's victory with a sigh of relief-believing he would approach foreign policy the way Nixon and Ford had.

Bush also wouldn't use the incendiary rhetoric Reagan did. As such U.S.-Soviet relations improve gradually to some extent.

As I've said before I'm not sure Bush will be able to reduce the deficit in his first term. Some tax cut will pass and Bush will increase defense spending. Even if Bush wants to compensate and actually reduce the deficit by dramatically cutting discretionary spending-I'm not sure Congress will support him.

Under Bush the Carter era deficit expands at least in 1981-this will be followed by a tax increase in the 1982-1983 period along with some effort on Bush's part to slow down the rate of defense spending growth.

It's really hard to balance the budget in the middle of a recession. Bush may try in that 1982/1983 period with predictably bad results. But Bush will support Volcker-which means the recovery will still happen in some form in my view.

One big question is what Bush's appointment policy looks like and whether he pursues anti-labor policies to the extent Reagan did. Without Reagan the Judiciary and Bureacracy is likely to look different and make a host of different decisions on the administrative level.
 
How does cutting spending during a recession speed recovery? I don't think it does.

I'm a conventional Keynesian. I realize a lot of people are deficit hawks or inflation hawks. But I'd ask you to think about being a Keynesian, too.

I really think the single most important economic number is quarterly GDP growth rate.
 
How does cutting spending during a recession speed recovery? I don't think it does.

I'm a conventional Keynesian. I realize a lot of people are deficit hawks or inflation hawks. But I'd ask you to think about being a Keynesian, too.

I really think the single most important economic number is quarterly GDP growth rate.

The 1982 recession was a deliberate policy on Volcker's part which was designed to end the inflation crisis that had ocurred under Ford and Carter. When interest rates are eased down the recession will end.

I don't think Bush will be able to be a deficit hawk in 1981. He may be better positioned in 1982.

From a Keynesian perspective I think that a smaller increase in defense spending may have more of an impact than a lack of a dramatic cut on the income tax paid by the highest income brackets.

In any event there would be some Keynesian stimulus in 1981 under Bush. There will be a tax cut and he will increase defense spending beyond the Carter level.

He'll probably feel as inclined as Reagan was to raise taxes. A lot here would depend on the nature of his 1981 cut. Bush probably won't outright repeal his earlier act-but some increase is likely. The expansion of the deficit will not be anywhere as extreme as under Reagan but Bush will still feel political and personal pressure to bring the deficit under control.

He'll face a Congress that will not be thrilled with a discretionary spending cut that's greater than what Reagan pushed through in 1981 historically. Indeed achieving that in 1982 or 1983 is probably impossible from a political perspective for Bush.

In short I can see some sort of tax increase in 1982 and 1983-which-depending on how the increase is constructed could deepen the recession along with the relative lack of military spending stimulus. But the countervailing impact of normalized interest rates, the definitive end of the inflation crisis, and economic cycles in general all seem to point to a recovery in 1983/1984 and thus a second term for Bush.
 
The 1982 recession was a deliberate policy on Volcker's part which was designed to end the inflation crisis that had ocurred under Ford and Carter.
Volcker's a colorful character, but I think he's just flat-out wrong. Maybe he gets points for being determined and staying the course, but I still think he's wrong.

As another example of what not to do, during the latest serious downtown of 2008 and 2009, I think think the state of New Jersey cut schoolteacher jobs and firefighter jobs. Wow. But I think they did.
 
Top