Obviously, Jimmy Carter's economic policies as the 39th President of the United States have been considered to be amongst one of the worst in recent history. Along with his international failures such as the Iran hostage crisis, this has generally left history with a negative opinion on Carter's time in office. However, what if he never became president? The POD for this is that Reagan is able to defeat Ford in the Republican primaries in 1976 and as such gains the nomination from the GOP. He then goes on to win the election against Carter. How would this affect the US? Also how would this affect what happens in Moscow and the Warsaw Pact, as there has not yet been an invasion of Afghanistan for Reagan to criticise. Would he still be as harsh towards the USSR? Could he make the USSR collapse any faster than 1991? Also, how would this affect relations with Iran? Would the regime be as anti-western, assuming Khomeini forces the Shah out as in OTL? If not would Iran be TTL's major US middle-eastern ally alongside Israel, not Saudi Arabia?
WI Carter never became US President?
- Thread starter 18AlexGray
- Start date
RR had thought of the USSR as the Evil Empire for decades at this point. No change.
Well, other than the US Safeguard ABM system had not yet been totally dismantled, RR would fight Congress on that. There would be small numbers of B-1A bombers built, along with the Military upgrades that Peanut started, and RR later took credit for.
For the Economy, he would be doing deregulation, just as Carter started, and that done sooner and in more expansive fashion, should mitigate OTL 'New Oil/Old Oil ' oil shock, if, big if, Iran works out the same way as OTL.
RR wouldn't have ignored the FIRST Embassy takeover like Peanut did.
Well, other than the US Safeguard ABM system had not yet been totally dismantled, RR would fight Congress on that. There would be small numbers of B-1A bombers built, along with the Military upgrades that Peanut started, and RR later took credit for.
For the Economy, he would be doing deregulation, just as Carter started, and that done sooner and in more expansive fashion, should mitigate OTL 'New Oil/Old Oil ' oil shock, if, big if, Iran works out the same way as OTL.
RR wouldn't have ignored the FIRST Embassy takeover like Peanut did.
Firstly you'd need to avoid the split at the 1976 Republican Convention, in other words either Reagan or Ford accept that a split convention will ultimately give Carter the WH.
No awakening of religiouses and no evangelical/catholic linkage over abortion. Weakef moralism in both parties and particularly the GOP: Even if Reagan gets elected in 1980 as OTL think more Goldwater and less OTL Reagan admin.
I suggest that you change the title of the thread here to make it more specific. There are any number of ways Jimmy Carter might not have been elected president in 1976. Gerald Ford might have defeated him, Carter might have lost the primary to Mo Udall, etc. You are interested in only one of the possible ways of stopping Carter--namely have Reagan win the GOP nomination and then the general election. The title of the thread should reflect that. E.g., "Reagan elected in 1976."
As to a possibe Reagan victory in 1976: [1]
One thing to remember: If Reagan is elected at all, it will probably be very narrowly. (The GOP will be much more divided than in 1980--after all, it will just have narrowly repudiated its incumbent president!-- eight years of Republicans in the White House are bound to produce some swing to the Democrats, Watergate will hurt the GOP to some extent under any nominee, Jimmy Carter in 1976 will not have the record to defend that he did in 1980, etc.) Thus, the Congress elected in 1976 will probably look far more like the one elected in OTL's 1976 than that with which Reagan would deal after OTL's 1980 (where Republicans took control of the Senate and with conservative Democrats gained something like de facto control of the House). I don't say that Reagan's 95th Congress will be 61-37 D in the Senate and 291-144 D in the House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/95th_United_States_Congress but if--as I think--Reagan will do only marginally better than Ford (but just enough to win OH and MS and therefore the election) it will be pretty close to that. And if the usual pattern of the party controlling the White House losing seats in a midterm holds, the 96th Congress will be still less favorable to Reagan.
The result is that whether you think 1980s Reaganomics in terms of tax cuts, deregulation, etc. was a good or bad thing, we are not likely to see much of it in 1977-81--at least in so far as it depends on legislation. (Admittedly Reagan could do some deregulatory things by executive action--indeed, Carter did some of that...)
[1] On balance I think it likely that Reagan if nominated will lose narrowly in Novemver for reasons I go into at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-reagan-vs-carter-1976.468970/#post-19035525 but I can't rule a narrow Reagan victory out.
As to a possibe Reagan victory in 1976: [1]
One thing to remember: If Reagan is elected at all, it will probably be very narrowly. (The GOP will be much more divided than in 1980--after all, it will just have narrowly repudiated its incumbent president!-- eight years of Republicans in the White House are bound to produce some swing to the Democrats, Watergate will hurt the GOP to some extent under any nominee, Jimmy Carter in 1976 will not have the record to defend that he did in 1980, etc.) Thus, the Congress elected in 1976 will probably look far more like the one elected in OTL's 1976 than that with which Reagan would deal after OTL's 1980 (where Republicans took control of the Senate and with conservative Democrats gained something like de facto control of the House). I don't say that Reagan's 95th Congress will be 61-37 D in the Senate and 291-144 D in the House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/95th_United_States_Congress but if--as I think--Reagan will do only marginally better than Ford (but just enough to win OH and MS and therefore the election) it will be pretty close to that. And if the usual pattern of the party controlling the White House losing seats in a midterm holds, the 96th Congress will be still less favorable to Reagan.
The result is that whether you think 1980s Reaganomics in terms of tax cuts, deregulation, etc. was a good or bad thing, we are not likely to see much of it in 1977-81--at least in so far as it depends on legislation. (Admittedly Reagan could do some deregulatory things by executive action--indeed, Carter did some of that...)
[1] On balance I think it likely that Reagan if nominated will lose narrowly in Novemver for reasons I go into at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-reagan-vs-carter-1976.468970/#post-19035525 but I can't rule a narrow Reagan victory out.
Last edited:
No, Anita Bryant and Phyllis Schlafly are a driving force in the mid '70s onward, and Falwell was in the wings.
Don't forget that Peanut had evangelical backing, who decided quickly that Peanut wasn't the man they thought he was.
Roe v. Wade was the start of getting the social conservatives motivated.
Yes. The fact that evangelicals switched to Reagan so quickly(*) would seem to indicate that they were rarin' to go with their agenda, hell or high water, and woulda latched onto anyone who made the right promises.
(*) And that's to the extent that they DID need to switch. My guess would be that by 1976 there were a lot of them who had already been won over by the Southern Strategy. Though I suppose there coulda been a number of lingering dixiecrats who were willing to give their old party one last chance for a candidate making the right theological noises.
1976 means Reagan never has Gorbachev as his counterpart, so he doesn't adopt a more conciliatory approach. (Which was 3D chess - the idea was to undermine the hardliners and give Gorby cover to pursue glasnost and perestroika.)
Nah, it was over segregation academies not being tax-exempt anymore. The fact a SOUTHERN democrat did it enraged enough people to get going. They would have been mad with ford/a yankee dem doing it but nowhere near the extent of their reaction to Carter. Remember, they were angry enough to be willing to work with CATHOLICS of all people over abortion in response to Carter.
A Reagan administration in 1976-80 would have been quite interesting. I can see him not signing any Panama Canal treaty. He famously once said "We built it, we paid for it, and we're gonna keep it." Also, I am sure he would even provide recognition and support to Rhodesia under Ian Smith ( No Carter also means no Andrew Young, who was Mugabe's leading American supporter/apologist). As Thatcher did not become PM until 1979, his relationship with her would be more limited.
Think that would have happened regardless of who was President in the US at the time.
As to what caused the rise of the Religious Right, I like to quote Paul Weyrich:
"What galvanized the Christian community was not abortion, school prayer, or the ERA. I am living witness to that because I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed. What changed their minds was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation."--Paul Weyrich https://books.google.com/books?id=Tzi7bIDP3aMC&pg=PA173
I figured that the only way to prevent Carter from becoming President was to have the Republican Party nominate Reagan in 1976 rather than stick with Ford.
It's hardly inconceivable that Ford, who lost OH by 0.27 percentage points and WI by 1.68 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_United_States_presidential_election could have won them both (and therefore the election) with a better campaign.
Last edited:
What about having the Democrats not nominate Carter? POD: Ted Kennedy drunkenly crashes into a road sign instread of driving off the bridge. Or Wilbur Mills doesn't get caught with strippers and decides to run for President again: he doesn't get it, but siphons enough Southern primary votes that Carter doesn't either.
If Ted Kennedy wants to be president in 1976 Doc Brown just needs to make sure he doesn't commit manslaughter.
Though I know that my Beetle tapped out at 68mph, that 88, Doc would need some Nitrous injection to get there
Indeed. While the impact of gaffes is often exaggerated, the "no Soviet domination" line may have cost Ford the election in this case.