WI: Moderate Republican Elected in 1980? (Cultural Effects, Economic Effects, Military Effects)

I posted a thread a couple of weeks ago asking what would happen if a moderate Republican was elected in 1980 in place of Ronald Reagan. I was not very specific about what I wanted out of answers and the thread ended up dying quickly. This time, I have more specific points that'll help people give more detailed answers. What if a Moderate Rockefeller Republican became President in 1980 and had the following intentions in office:

* They would continue the policy of detente that Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford espoused. There would be no massive buildup of arms against the Soviet Union, as well as no massive expansion of the military.
** In addition to this, the Rooseveltian philosophy towards military would be practiced. What is this you may ask? Well, remember what President Theodore Roosevelt said; "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Therefore, there would be no macho posturing about the malevolent USSR. We would be on guard, but our policies would emphasize protection and home security, rather then offensive policies.
*** There would be no funding towards dictatorships in Central America that aim to defeat communism. Simply put, there'd be no Iran-Contra-esque scandal.

* There would be no supply-side economics; instead, there would be flat tax-rates and spending cuts across the board.
** Spending would be reduced and conservatively practiced.

* The Drug War would be significantly reduced, with legislation towards legalizing at least medical marijuana being proposed and rehabilitation being emphasized over incarceration.

* Increased emphasis on environmental concerns, with the warnings regarding acid rain being taken more seriously.

* Welfare would be more difficult to achieve, it being reserved only for individuals who make below a certain income and cannot find work in spite of attempts to do so.

* No Moral Majority enforcing strict censorship on entertainment.

* There would be a much quicker response to the AIDS crisis, with relief immediately being sent out to many of the sufferers and televised addresses on the dangers of the disease.

* Abstinence based sex-education would be replaced with education emphasizing protection and proper methods of how to avoid impregnation.

* Tying into the reduced military budget, there would be no Star Wars program.

* No rhetoric such as: "Tear down this wall!" or "Evil Empire".

That's all I can think of for now. So, how do you people picture culture, the economy, the military, foreign relations and our nation's overall state being altered?
 
Last edited:
Some of these points I definitely agree with, but I think that a few of them overestimate the presidency. The president can guide the creation of new laws and he can lead wars, but he can't actually make laws that would also depend on who else is in politics at the time. Also, in OTL Star Wars was never successful. Even if it had had all that it needed it would have been impossible to actually test it short of launching an ICBM.
Who specifically would this be? What would happen to OTL president?
 
*** There would be no funding towards dictatorships in Central America that aim to defeat communism. Simply put, there'd be no Iran-Contra-esque scandal.
This would be a radical change -- WHICH I WOULD VERY MUCH WELCOME. But the sad truth of the matter is that during the entire post-war period, both Democratic and Republican administrations have supported a whole slew of dictators.
 
Nelson Rockefeller himself was very much involved in promoting the war on drugs and backing right-wing dictatorships in Latin America. If you want those policies change, not having Reagan or someone like him in the White House doesn't really help you. You probably wind up with these policies with Ted Kennedy in the White House, for that matter.

I'm actually not sure how much Reagan really brought to the table. He brought in some populism, alot of American exceptionalist rhetoric, and supply side economics. The faction known as "neo-conservatives" were allowed to run amok for a few years but they were forced out, starting in 1982. There was also a big anti-environmentalist and anti-conservationist push that they also started walking back from in 1982. Now a Republican president who took environmental issues and particularly over-population seriously was possible (remember Margaret Thatcher took climate change seriously when it was first noticed) and would have been a big change, but at the time these were not really big issues.
 
Nelson Rockefeller himself was very much involved in promoting the war on drugs and backing right-wing dictatorships in Latin America. If you want those policies change, not having Reagan or someone like him in the White House doesn't really help you. You probably wind up with these policies with Ted Kennedy in the White House, for that matter.

I'm actually not sure how much Reagan really brought to the table. He brought in some populism, alot of American exceptionalist rhetoric, and supply side economics. The faction known as "neo-conservatives" were allowed to run amok for a few years but they were forced out, starting in 1982. There was also a big anti-environmentalist and anti-conservationist push that they also started walking back from in 1982. Now a Republican president who took environmental issues and particularly over-population seriously was possible (remember Margaret Thatcher took climate change seriously when it was first noticed) and would have been a big change, but at the time these were not really big issues.

My point is that because Reagan brought nothing particularly valuable to the table during his Presidency, a more moderate President might have been more welcome.
 
re: abstinenece education not being a thing with a moderate GOP prez...

How much influence over education policy does the POTUS actually have? Isn't that under state or local jurisdiction throughout the USA?

Are you envisioning a situation where the federal Dept. Of Education starts withholding funds from districts that preach abstinence in the classroom? If so, did that start happening when the Democrats took back the White House?
 
I
* No Moral Majority enforcing strict censorship on entertainment.

I guess the same question here as for the sex-ed predicition above. What exactly can the president do about entertainment censorship?

Are you thinking of stuff like de-funding the National Endowment For The Arts(eg. the Piss Christ and Mapplethorpe controversies)? I guess the president could have vetoed the congressional legislation on that, if the numbers were in his favour. Again, were the anti-gay funding policies reversed under Clinton?

And the closest I can think of to an actual attempt at federal regulation in that era, ie. the music-label hearings, were of course pushed by Democrats, ie. Al Gore and his wife Tipper.
 
I'm not so sure detente could be brought back in 1980. With the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Carter approving plans to supply the mujahideen it would require a Soviet withdrawal to even be considered.
 
I'm very open to the view that it was Reagan's military Keynesianism and especially his tax cut Keynesianism which got us out of the 1980 and 1982 double-dip recession.

Not everyone shares this view.
 
I'm very open to the view that it was Reagan's military Keynesianism and especially his tax cut Keynesianism which got us out of the 1980 and 1982 double-dip recession.

Not everyone shares this view.

This is funniest post I've ever seen, considering the GOP adoration of his economic policies.
 
This is funniest post I've ever seen, considering the GOP adoration of his economic policies.

Simply put, his tax cutting without regards to the deficit led to what could be construed as deficit spending, or more accurately, deficit cutting. Even today, the Republicans aren't what I'd call fiscally responsible and just believe in cutting taxes and increasing military spending.
 
Beyond AIDS and the budget, I can't see a different president changing that much in domestic affairs.
 
about AIDS . . .

before that, I think the last president who tried to do something about a public health infectious disease was Ford and swine flu in '76. People criticized Ford for overspending for a threat which didn't materialize.

Reagan's Surgeon General C. Everett Koop did send a 8-page pamphlet on AIDS to every household in American. Yes, really. Although late in the game like in '88.
https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/QQBDRL.pdf

Reagan simply is not a policy generalist.

https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/QQ/p-nid/87

In May of 1988, Koop sent an eight-page, condensed version of his AIDS report to all 107,000,000 households in the United States, the largest mailing in American history and the first time that the federal government provided explicit sex information to the public.
Dr. Koop gets credit as an honest conservative in there trying.

With some other Reagan appointees, well, he rather ran as a populist and then appointed hard doctrinaire conservatives.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to try reviving this thread. I understand that some of these policies probably wouldn't be very accepted in the 1980s, but how do you feel culture would be affected if they did end up getting passed as laws?
 
I can't remember if this has been brought up before, but I do think that if Bush or an ideologically similar Republican were elected in 1980, that the Equal Rights Amendment would have been passed.

IIRC/AFAIK, Bush did support the ERA, and the ERA debate that manifested at the 1980 RNC was part of the larger Bush v. Reagan conflict in that election cycle.

Feel free to correct me on this.
 
I can't remember if this has been brought up before, but I do think that if Bush or an ideologically similar Republican were elected in 1980, that the Equal Rights Amendment would have been passed.

IIRC/AFAIK, Bush did support the ERA, and the ERA debate that manifested at the 1980 RNC was part of the larger Bush v. Reagan conflict in that election cycle.

Feel free to correct me on this.

I think it was too late for gender equality to become part of the Constitution, sadly.
 
Top