WI: Carter vs Reagan in 1976

What if Reagan had defeated Ford for the nomination, and competed against Carter in 1976? Both would be Washington outsiders who appealed to the suspicions and concerns of the post Watergate era. On the whole, it would be a clean slate election with neither person as an incumbent.
 
Reagan wouldn't have the "rational moderate" image of Ford, nor would Reagan be as good at minority outreach than Ford. Plus, Reagan does not seem as honest as Ford.

The result is that Carter wins by a larger margin, I'm guessing, and a moderate Republican like Bush winning in 1980.
 
Carter would probably win. Reagan might be more competive with Carter in the South than Ford was but that will be offset nationally.

In the event that I'm wrong I'm not sure what Reagan's signature policies would be if he won. Even if Reagan wins the idea of him having in a massive 1980 style landslide with giant coatails is off the table.

The 1977 Congress was heavily Democratic and leaned liberal. That was a big enough problem for Carter. For Reagan the 1977 Congress would have been a nightmare. He'd want a tax cut. 1976 predates supply-siderism-but being anti-tax was always a core portion of Reagan's philosophy. The shale and scope of his proposal will be different from 1981-and probably still won't pass. What can Reagan accomplish with a Congress in which Senator Kennedy is the dominant force? Reagan wouldn't have had more success than Ford. He might be better equipped than Carter in that he'll have a much better staff and Congress will know where he stands more than they did Carter. But he'll have little political capital and be ideologically far removed from Congress.

Then there's foreign policy. SALT II just blows up-even more so than under Carter. No agreement will be reached or informally abided by the superpowers. US-Soviet relations were bad under Carter and would have been worse under Reagan. Reagan was stridently opposed to the Panama Canal Treaties. Reagan winning in 1976 kills any prospect that those treaties might be ratified. In turn that could lead to some horrific consequences in Latin America. On the other hand this would mean Howard Baker is more popular with Conservatives because the treaties would be killed before Baker expresses his position on the issue.

The economy will be awful. The one part of policy where Reagan will have a free hand is in his appointments-which means Reagan will be able to pursue his anti-labor preferences. He would also be able to appoint a Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Reagan couldn't have turned 1977 into 1981 if he won-arguably he'd actually do worse than Carter. His relationship with the USSR and Congress would have been even worse. Abandoning the Panama Canal Treaties invites chaos in Latin America.

However to be fair-despite his image as a war monger Reagan probably wouldn't lead the country to war with Iran.

Jimmy Carter was not good at being President. But in the context of 1977-1980 Reagan would have been even worse. Everything that allowed him to be effective domestically in 1981 would have been absent in 1977 except for his charisma. His foreign policy extincts would have replicated Carter's failures but avoided his successes.

There's a strong retrospective argument that of the three people who had a chance of winning the Presidency in 1976 Gerald Ford was the best choice-though with him the Israel-Egypt treaty would not have happened.

With all that said about how awful Reagan in 1977 would have been Carter probably wins-which should make 1980 interesting.
 
Either Reagan loses and can't be President because the Republicans will not renominate him-or he wins and becomes a failed President with a sub-Carter reputation.

Not only was 1976 a good election to lose-Reagan was particularly illsuited for the years between 1977 and 1980.
 
Top