Bomster

Banned
Let’s say that Reagan does not name his running mate, and wins the nomination in 1976, but loses to Carter. George Bush wins the nomination in 1980 and defeats Carter. Who would be his running mate? And what would an early eighties Bush Presidency look like? How does this impact the 80’s and recent American history?
 
Perhaps Angola would receive more attention. I see Bush senior greater awareness of the third world. Lower taxes perhaps less in Afghanistan. A real long term approach. Perhaps Phil crane as running mate.
 
This has been done quite a few times on this site, but an earlier Bush Presidency is one of my favorite scenarios so I can't resist. For one, just to get this out of the way quickly, it's worth mentioning that it's not a given Bush will survive Hinckley's assassination attempt. Hinckley wanted to assassinate the President, not Reagan specifically, to impress Jodie Foster. Hinckley just barely missed Reagan's heart and if he tried in another time or place or tried to kill a different man, it's possible he would have succeeded. A pretty scary thought, but provided that Bush (hopefully) survives here is how his Presidency would play out:

  • Economic Policy: limited tax cuts a la Nixon or Ford, no "voodoo economics." A contractionary monetary policy is used to combat stagflation. Some deregulation here and there, but no sweeping changes. Bush focuses on balancing the budget and creating a federal surplus. Today, America remains the world's largest creditor and is not saddled by a massive deficit or an even larger debt.
  • Social Policy: The GOP doesn't absorb the Religious Right, remains the party of the ERA, and is pro-choice.
  • Foreign Policy Part I: Earlier INF in 1981, Bush continues Carter's limited aid to the Mujahidden, no support for the Contras (at least none past 1982, therefore no Iran-Contra). There might be some difference vis-a-vis Iraq and Iran; one reason the war continued for so long was because Reagan was giving aid to both sides (he wanted Hussein to win, but also wanted to profit from arms-for-hostages deals) and early in the war he funneled crucial military aid to Iran which allowed them to stop Hussein's advance in Southern Iran. With Bush in power, it's possible that a ceasefire agreement could be reached earlier than 1988, perhaps in 1982 when Hussein offered an olive branch but Tehran refused.
  • Foreign Policy Part II: Bush will meet with Gorbachev in 1985, but given his diplomatic skill and experience I could see talks becoming much more productive than with Reagan at the helm. (Reagan is vastly overrated as a Cold War President, he benefited from the positive press afforded by Geneva but none of his summits ever actually resulted in concrete agreements; Reykjavik in particular was a fiasco). The INF is already enacted by this point, so I could see something similar to START I being agreed upon in 1985/86. Some have said that with Bush the Diplomat in power, the Cold War would have actually ended earlier than 1989. That could possibly have happened, in which case Bush takes the credit for turning around the economy and ending the Cold War; he goes down in history as one of America's Top 10 Presidents.
 
Trouble is, Papa Bush had already caved to social conservatives by 1980.

That was to become Reagan's running mate. If he beats Reagan in NH (which easily could have happened), then he is nominated and beats Carter on a moderate platform. Bush would win by a smaller margin in the electoral college because Carter would carry more of the South, but by a larger margin in the popular vote because Anderson would not run as a third party candidate.

Who would be his running mate?

Probably Howard Baker. The two were close enough that Baker managed Bush's delegates at the 1980 Convention. Bush could go with Crane or Kemp if he wants to appease the hardliners, but the far right would be so demoralized and humiliated by two consecutive primary defeats (in which 1980 would actually be worse than '76) they wouldn't be able to exert that much influence over Bush's decision.
 
I'm lolling hard at the idea that Bush, a hardbitten member of the foreign policy establishment, who put an immediate freeze on Reagan's radical arms reduction strategy as soon as he became president because he felt it was miles too radical, would immediately go deep on arms reduction from day one.

It would help if people examined the historical record rather than relying on clichés like 'Daddy Bush was teh l33t at foreign policy, so Cold War ends as soon as he gets into office'.
 
I'm lolling hard at the idea that Bush, a hardbitten member of the foreign policy establishment, who put an immediate freeze on Reagan's radical arms reduction strategy as soon as he became president because he felt it was miles too radical, would immediately go deep on arms reduction from day one.

It would help if people examined the historical record rather than relying on clichés like 'Daddy Bush was the l33t at foreign policy, Cold War ends as soon as he gets into office'.

Okay then, why don't we go ahead and compare Reagan and Bush 41 on arms policy? Let's see...first of all, Bush's START I Treaty went further than anything Reagan ever achieved in terms of arms reductions. Secondly, Reagan proposed INF in 1981 but the Soviets said no because thanks to the Gipper's ferocious anti-USSR rhetoric they did not trust him. Bush was a serious diplomat who is likely to be very influenced by Kissinger, the architect of detente, so it is very plausible to think that 41 would have succeeded where Reagan failed.

Thirdly, in his Second Inagural Address Reagan gave lip service to the Peace Movement by endorsing the "radical" policy of nuclear abolition, but he rejected Gorby's offer to do just that at Rekjavik because he would have to give up Star Wars. Fourthly, not only did Reagan oversee a massive military build up that included an expansion of America's already vast nuclear arsenal, but this is the very reason that his admirers argue he was a great President. (The argument goes that Reagan broke the USSR by outspending them, which isn't historically accurate and doesn't even make logical sense).
 
Okay then, why don't we go ahead and compare Reagan and Bush 41 on arms policy? Let's see...first of all, Bush's START I Treaty went further than anything Reagan ever achieved in terms of arms reductions. Secondly, Reagan proposed INF in 1981 but the Soviets said no because thanks to the Gipper's ferocious anti-USSR rhetoric they did not trust him. Bush was a serious diplomat who is likely to be very influenced by Kissinger, the architect of detente, so it is very plausible to think that 41 would have succeeded where Reagan failed.

Thirdly, in his Second Inagural Address Reagan gave lip service to the Peace Movement by endorsing the "radical" policy of nuclear abolition, but he rejected Gorby's offer to do just that at Rekjavik because he would have to give up Star Wars. Fourthly, not only did Reagan oversee a massive military build up that included an expansion of America's already vast nuclear arsenal, but this is the very reason that his admirers argue he was a great President. (The argument goes that Reagan broke the USSR by outspending them, which isn't historically accurate and doesn't even make logical sense).

As I'm sure you would be able to see from as much as a Wikipedia article on the subject, negotiating START was a Reagan-era process. It and INF grew out of an about-turn on Reagan's part from about 1983 onwards, when he re-started the negotiation process, and then things sped pretty quickly once Gorbachev was in power and the lack of clear Soviet leadership in the 1980s period ceased. Reagan spent about 3/4ths of his presidency pushing détente rather than 'the Evil Empire', popular perceptions aside. Bush signed START, he didn't make it. Initially as soon as he got into office, Bush put a freeze on pushing that process further along.

That's Bush putting a freeze for the whole of the first year of his term in 1989, with the Soviet empire fraying, and the détente process already well underway, and with four years of highest-level relationship-building with Gorbachev. Now try to imagine that inhibited, cautious Bush of 1989 in 1981, with no Gorbachev, no steady pre-existing process, and with Gerry Ford's huge troubles from the right over SALT, and Carter's troubles over the Canal Treaty, only a few years away; in a post-Afghanistan intervention environment, and with a buildup already begun under the apparently weak Carter. And bearing in mind the blowback from the right that Reagan got when he signed INF, which earned him the customary comparisons to Chamberlain. That's for someone the right trusted.

With all that in mind, the idea that Bush, in an even fraught environment than that of his 1989 stay, plunges into immediate, big-scale détente is absolutely ludicrous.

But if you want to continue with a wikibox understanding of Bush as an invincible muscular moderate who would end the Cold War on a silver penny, then who are we to stop you?

(And if you're not aware of the fact that no-other US president than one as irregular, radical and of such peculiarly, idiosyncratically anti-nuke views as Reagan would even think about giving away the house like Reagan did at Rekjavik...)
 
With all that in mind, the idea that Bush, in an even fraught environment than that of his 1989 stay, plunges into immediate, big-scale détente is absolutely ludicrous.

But if you want to continue with a wikibox understanding of Bush as an invincible muscular moderate who would end the Cold War on a silver penny, then who are we to stop you?

INF was not "big-scale detente", it was mild compared to the discussions that Reagan and Gorbachev had been having for two years. Reagan first proposed START I sure, but Bush negotiated and implemented it so he deserves credit, not Reagan. Besides INF in 1987 - a genuine accomplishment - his efforts to establish concrete agreements almost always ended in failure. Specifically, I am referring to his entire first term and the majority of his second term which featured the notorious Reykjavik disaster.

Also, despite your condescending trolling I've read extensively not just on Bush and Reagan but also on nuclear policy. (And no, I don't use Wikipedia and neither should you. I read thoroughly sourced books, papers, and primary sources and I use those when writing AH). And every source I've read supports what I wrote while contradicting what you wrote. Take that into account next time you want to get up on your arrogant pedestal and preach down from on high about why I am apprently some ignorant tool.
 
INF was not "big-scale detente", it was mild compared to the discussions that Reagan and Gorbachev had been having for two years.

It's almost universally cited at the most significant arms agreement of the Cold War, indeed as the beginning of the end of the Cold War. I'm sure your many, many sources say as much.

Ah, but Reagan should have agreed to the total abolition of nukes at Rekjavik, which no other US president would have even had on the table, certainly not a FP establishmantarian such as Bush, right?

Reagan first proposed START I sure, but Bush negotiated and implemented it so he deserves credit, not Reagan.

The START process began in the first term, and by the time he left office, Reagan had already agreed a roughly 50% cut in ICBMs and bombers. Bush then backed away, and eventually came back to the process. You should be aware of that from your extensive sources.

Specifically, I am referring to his entire first term and the majority of his second term which featured the notorious Reykjavik disaster.

There was no agreement directly out of Reykjavik, but Rekjavik as a disaster? I mean it facilitated both INF and START and sealed Reagan and Gorbachev's working relationship. ("I bet hardliners in both our countries are bleeding when we shake hands.")

Given how well-informed you are, I'm sure you know the background on both INF and START, and how those stretch into Reagan's first term.

But that would involve admitting that there are big daddy structural factors at play, and that Bush wasn't a moderate superman who would have the Cold War winding down by the '82 midterms, convert the right to being pro-choice, and sweep floors and clean dishes in his spare time.

Fanboiism, not analysis.
 
Last edited:
Given how well-informed you are, I'm sure you know the background on both INF and START, and how those stretch into Reagan's first term.

Since you apparently paid little attention to watch I actually wrote, I have to point out that it was I who first mentioned that Reagan first proposed INF in 1981 in his first term. Also I love how your toxic arrogance continues to ooze through your posts.

Ah, but Reagan should have agreed to the total abolition of nukes at Rekjavik, which no other US president would have even had on the table, certainly not a FP establishmantarian such as Bush, right?

No one on this thread has argued that Reagan should have done this or actually could have implemented it had he tried. Also, Reagan's post-1984 foreign policy was highly influenced by "establishment" figures like Schultz and Thatcher. And his advisers - all of them well-connected players in the "establishment" as you keep calling it - played a leading role during policy talks with the Soviets at Geneva in 1985 and they were the ones who rigorously trained and prepared Reagan before the Summit. So this idea you keep citing, that Reagan's successful diplomacy with Gorbachev was the result of some unique skill or vision that he and he alone had, has no basis in fact. It is true that Reagan had certain unique Cold War beliefs, namely that the end times were coming and he was personally chosen by God to stop it. But the notion that his oddball worldview - and not the influence of his foreign policy experts - formed the basis of the leadership that ended the Cold War is, to use your own words, "ludicrous."

But that would involve admitting that there are big daddy structural factors at play, and that Bush wasn't a moderate superman who would have the Cold War winding down by the '82 midterms, convert the right to being pro-choice, and sweep floors and clean dishes in his spare time.

Fanboiism, not analysis

This is wonderful to read. In my original post - which by the way was an extensive analysis containing four bullet points and two sections on foreign affairs - I highlighted the differences between Reagan and Bush and how the latter might have done things alternatively. I never stated or implied that Bush would be a "superman" in office. There is a difference between being a successful President, which I argued Bush would be, and a perfect President which we have never had and will never have because human beings are far from perfect. If you would like me to discuss the problems Bush would have as President, then very well: much like Reagan, Bush wouldn't exactly be very popular for most of his first term since the economy will still be rather poor until 1984. There will still be a stock market crash in 1987. Bush wouldn't rush to jump on the AIDS crisis either given how controversial it would be. The American middle-class still declines due to broader socioeconomic forces that were already underway by the 1970's. I am under no circumstances a Bush "fanboy" since neither do I agree with his policies, nor do I like him personally following the many credible sexual harassment allegations against him. I was considering the AH scenario that Bomster posted and I wrote an opinion based off years of historical research. If anything, your idolatrous portrayal of Reagan is the only thing so far on this thread any where near "fanboy" territory.

The fact that you actually got such a bizarre misinterpretation from what I wrote just makes me smile.
 
Last edited:
convert the right to being pro-choice

This is important, post LBJ/Nixon party shake up one of the parties was going to become socially conservative, when 40% of the population have a certain set of views in a two-party system one of those parties is going to reflect that and for lots of structural reasons it is more likely to be the Republicans than the Democrats that is going to appeal to those who disagree with the social changes of the 60s and 70s. Swapping one president from over isn't going to change that.
 
Top