WI: Carter as the embodiment of 1980s Conservatism

Jimmy Carter was, in many respects, pretty conservative. He was a deficit-hawk, increased military spending, initiated deregulation (trucking, beer, finance, and airlines being the big ones), and appointed Paul Volcker, who would end the stagflation crisis with his tight-money policies, Federal Reserve Chairman. He also was the first evangelical president.

Here's an interesting 1977 Washington Post piece in which liberal democrats are complaining about the president being to the right of Nixon economically: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...b90-a3fe-f954c2986b30/?utm_term=.a729828d2eb3


So what if Carter narrowly lost the electoral vote in 1976 while winning the popular vote but came back in 1980 as the "rightful winner" with a Conservative (in one area or another) or Pro-Business running mate. It'd only take ~13,000 votes in Mississippi and Ohio in 1976 for this to happen, meaning Carter would win the PV by 1.9%.

For running mates
Henry Jackson helps with cultural/social conservatives and foreign policy hawks
Lloyd Bentsen helps to double down on fiscal conservatism
Gary Hart is an economic shift to the right while also being fairly refreshing and young
Tom Bradley would diversify the ticket and was supported by the Los Angeles business community


Could Carter end up being the champion of the emerging evangelical movement, deregulators, fiscal conservatives, foreign policy hawks, and monetarists in the 1980s?
 
Last edited:
I can see the case for it. In my opinion, Carter was president at quite literally the worst time to be president and actually did some decent things all things considered. But if he comes back in 1980, he has all his strengths but can build upon it and maybe improve on his legacy. I think he could be seen as a model president. But one question. Does the playboy interview still happen? Who else is running in 1980?
 
We could theoretically have this occur in a Ford wins in '76 scenario. It was close enough OTL that if Ford avoids his "no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe" gaffe he might be able to win. And if he does, his full term is going to be a mess. I don't know if Ford would embrace deregulation the way Carter or Reagan did, but even if he took those steps he could still easily be regarded the way Carter is (not doing enough to solve the problems). Ford might not appoint Volcker which would be another major issue as Volcker did get inflation under control. As far as running mates go, Bentsen would be the most conservative option, but the fact he's from the south as well would be a drawback (though, as Clinton/Gore demonstrated, not by any means a dealbreaker). Jackson could work, but assuming his death isn't butterflied he'd have to be replaced. Could William Proxmire be an option? He was fairly fiscally conservative and provides regional balance as a Senator from the Midwest.
 
Does the playboy interview still happen?

In that interview, he says that he's fine with Roe V. Wade being the perimeters for any abortion law being passed. As things take shape in the late '70s, I think he'd have to either reverse that position, or forfeit the conservative mantle in the culture wars.

Oh, and back to the OP, why would Scoop Jackson be a hit with social conservatives? I thought he was mostly liberal on social issues.
 
Proxmire could work as a midwestern balance to the Southern Jimmy Carter.

Carter could flip on Roe v Wade (as HW did IIRC) or support stricter law within the confines of Roe v Wade (18 or 20 weeks for example).

Jackson was pro-life, opposed to busing, and a foreign policy hawk (seen as a godfather of neoconservatism).

I'm not sure Ford would embrace deregulation the way Carter did - he didn't seem to do too much of it while he was President.

Carter may not cut taxes but he was pretty into keeping the growth of spending below the growth of GDP - in effect reducing the overall tax burden.
 
I think Carter would have to do an outright flip on Roe, rather than adhere to restrictive policies within the ruling. Hardcore anti-Roe quickly became the conservative position, once the issue gained national prominence.

And he'd also have to retract his support for the ERA, since that position would cancel out being anti-Roe.
 
The biggest issue is that if Carter loses 1976, even with a popular vote win, he's going to be seen as the man who blew it. 1976 really should not have been close. This in turn makes nomination for 1980 a tough ask.
 
The biggest issue is that if Carter loses 1976, even with a popular vote win, he's going to be seen as the man who blew it. 1976 really should not have been close. This in turn makes nomination for 1980 a tough ask.

Good point. The Democrats had swept the midterms two years prior and had no reason to lose in '76 - or to win by anything less than a landslide. Carter entered the general election campaign with a 33% lead over Ford, yet he quickly blew it with his ridiculous Playboy interview and an inferior performance in the first debate. It's actually quite possible that Ford would have beaten Carter if not for his case of foot-in-mouth disease during the second debate. Carter was an awful candidate right from the start; given that his superhuman incompetence was already showing in his lackluster campaign it's no surprise that he royally sucked as President. So it's fair to say that even if Carter wins the popular vote Democrats will be furious with him for losing an easy election to a candidate many Americans saw as a corrupt enabler of Watergate and a bumbling idiot.
 
Here's an interesting 1977 Washington Post piece in which liberal democrats are complaining about the president being to the right of Nixon economically

Flash: Liberal Democrats are always complaining that the incumbent Democratic president is too conservative. Usually this is done by contrasting him with FDR, but they complained about FDR, too...
 
. . . and appointed Paul Volcker, who would end the stagflation crisis with his tight-money policies, Federal Reserve Chairman. . .

GDP growth rate

View attachment 386750

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RO1Q156NBEA

If Volcker’s tight-money policies worked so well, why did we have the second dip of the recession, with 1982 being at the time the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s?

The third quarter of 1982 was negative 2.6 economic growth.

In my universe, Volcker paid too much on the GDP and employment side of the equation.
 
How about Carter switches parties after losing the Georgia Governorship in 1968, wins as a Republican. Scoop Jackson wins in 1976, adn his hike in both domestic and military spending leads to inflation at weimar levels. Reagan lsoes 1976. Carter wins in 1980, cuts both military and domestic spending, and beats inflation.
 
Top