WI Nixon picks Reagan instead of Ford

What if Nixon had chosen Ronald Reagan to be his new VP after Agnew rather than Gerald Ford? Connally gets talked about a lot and was Nixon's preferred choice, but he had issues and enemies on both sides of the aisle. So Nixon decides to go with the lame-duck governor of California instead (apparently Reagoan was one of the names being considered). Nixon still ends up resigning in August of '74 as in OTL and Reagan becomes President about six years earlier than in OTL. How would things be better or worse going forward from here? How does Reagan fare in the '76 election? How different is the political landscape in the late '70s and early '80s?
 
How would things be better or worse going forward from here? How does Reagan fare in the '76 election? How different is the political landscape in the late '70s and early '80s?
RR still ends up with a staggering economy and a very hostile D controlled House and slightly less hostile D controlled Senate.

It's unlikely that RR does that goofy WIN program, but has to do something. He would do Executive Orders to get rid of Nixon's Wage and Price Controls, and Deregulation to reduce Government's role in things.

I really don't know what he could do about South Vietnam, he wouldn't be able to get Congress to get any more aid thru to them.

Would he try ordering air power over the North's breach of the Paris Agreement, and then fight with Congress over the War Powers Act, Probably.
 
Three old posts of mine on why I think this unlikely (sorry for links that may no longer work):

***

Even leaving aside the greater confirmation difficulties Reagan would have compared with Ford, Nixon just didn't like Reagan, saying that "Reagan on a personal basis is terrible", and calling him "strange" and not "pleasant to be around" (Yeah, I know--pot, kettle...) http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3678121/#.VFe51MJ0yJA


***

President Nixon: What’s your evaluation or Reagan after meeting him several times now.
Kissinger: Well, I think he’s a—actually I think he’s a pretty decent guy.
President Nixon: Oh, decent, no question, but his brains?
Kissinger: Well, his brains, are negligible. I—
President Nixon: He’s really pretty shallow, Henry.



President Nixon: Back to Reagan though. It shows you how a man of limited mental capacity simply doesn’t know what the Christ is going on in the foreign area. He’s got to know that on defense—doesn’t he know these battles we fight and fight and fight? Goddamn it, Henry, we’ve been at—
Kissinger: And I told him—he said, “Why don’t you fire the bureaucracy?” I said, “Because there are only so many battles we can fight. We take on the bureaucracy now, they’re going to leak us to death. Name me one thing that we have done that the bureaucracy made us do.”
President Nixon: The bureaucracy has had nothing to do with anything.
Kissinger: No, no. They’ve made our lives harder. They’ve driven us crazy. But that doesn’t affect him.

http://whitehousetapes.net/transcript/nixon/620-008


So Nixon regarded Reagan as "pretty shallow," lacking "brains," and with "limited mental capacity." In a previous post, I noted that Nixon said that "Reagan on a personal basis is terrible", and called him "strange" and not "pleasant to be around." Is it too much to suggest that maybe Nixon's actual opinion of Reagan should be taken into account in considering how likely he was to name him as vice-president?

***



Stolengood said: ↑


...and, yet, there's that draft letter, up there. Take that into account, why don't you?


It is hardly unknown for presidents to pretend to be considering more than one applicant for a job when they have actually settled on one. And especially not unknown for Nixon. Ford himself said "Making up his mind and then pretending that his options were still open--that was a Nixon trait that I'd have occasion to witness again." (referring to 1960 when Nixon had already decided on Henry Cabot Lodge but pretended to be considering Ford--just as he was to do in 1968) http://books.google.com/books?id=AaJQJ1BLQ2MC&pg=PT341 Conservatives were lobbying for Reagan as Agnew's successor, and Nixon wanted to give them the impression he might choose him. But the fact is that Nixon really wanted Connally as his successor, but knew that Congress would not confirm Connally. If he couldn't get Connally, he wanted someone who he thought would not be a candidate in 1976, so that Connally might still have a chance then. Ford seemed to fit that bill; Reagan, like Rockefeller, obviously did not. As I already noted, in 1972 Nixon wanted Agnew to resign so that Nixon could appoint Connally as vice-president under the newly ratified 25th Amendment. He thought that it would not be enough for Agnew to simply announce he would not be a candidate again, precisely because that might lead to the GOP convention turning to Reagan for vice-president, which Nixon did not want. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-05-18/news/1994138132_1_agnew-nixon-haldeman

Incidentally, years later, after Reagan had become above criticism to most Republicans, Nixon was still not exactly a fan: "Later, Nixon said Reagan’s economic policies were unduly harsh and cautioned against giving him too much credit for winning the Cold War. 'Communism would have collapsed anyway,' he told Monica Crowley, a Nixon aide in his last years, according to her 1996 book, 'Nixon Off the Record.'" http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3678121/ns/politics/t/nixonthought-reagan-wasstrange/#.VFyXJMJ0yJB
 
Three old posts of mine on why I think this unlikely (sorry for links that may no longer work):

***

Even leaving aside the greater confirmation difficulties Reagan would have compared with Ford, Nixon just didn't like Reagan, saying that "Reagan on a personal basis is terrible", and calling him "strange" and not "pleasant to be around" (Yeah, I know--pot, kettle...) http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3678121/#.VFe51MJ0yJA


***

President Nixon: What’s your evaluation or Reagan after meeting him several times now.
Kissinger: Well, I think he’s a—actually I think he’s a pretty decent guy.
President Nixon: Oh, decent, no question, but his brains?
Kissinger: Well, his brains, are negligible. I—
President Nixon: He’s really pretty shallow, Henry.



President Nixon: Back to Reagan though. It shows you how a man of limited mental capacity simply doesn’t know what the Christ is going on in the foreign area. He’s got to know that on defense—doesn’t he know these battles we fight and fight and fight? Goddamn it, Henry, we’ve been at—
Kissinger: And I told him—he said, “Why don’t you fire the bureaucracy?” I said, “Because there are only so many battles we can fight. We take on the bureaucracy now, they’re going to leak us to death. Name me one thing that we have done that the bureaucracy made us do.”
President Nixon: The bureaucracy has had nothing to do with anything.
Kissinger: No, no. They’ve made our lives harder. They’ve driven us crazy. But that doesn’t affect him.

http://whitehousetapes.net/transcript/nixon/620-008


So Nixon regarded Reagan as "pretty shallow," lacking "brains," and with "limited mental capacity." In a previous post, I noted that Nixon said that "Reagan on a personal basis is terrible", and called him "strange" and not "pleasant to be around." Is it too much to suggest that maybe Nixon's actual opinion of Reagan should be taken into account in considering how likely he was to name him as vice-president?

***



Stolengood said: ↑


...and, yet, there's that draft letter, up there. Take that into account, why don't you?


It is hardly unknown for presidents to pretend to be considering more than one applicant for a job when they have actually settled on one. And especially not unknown for Nixon. Ford himself said "Making up his mind and then pretending that his options were still open--that was a Nixon trait that I'd have occasion to witness again." (referring to 1960 when Nixon had already decided on Henry Cabot Lodge but pretended to be considering Ford--just as he was to do in 1968) http://books.google.com/books?id=AaJQJ1BLQ2MC&pg=PT341 Conservatives were lobbying for Reagan as Agnew's successor, and Nixon wanted to give them the impression he might choose him. But the fact is that Nixon really wanted Connally as his successor, but knew that Congress would not confirm Connally. If he couldn't get Connally, he wanted someone who he thought would not be a candidate in 1976, so that Connally might still have a chance then. Ford seemed to fit that bill; Reagan, like Rockefeller, obviously did not. As I already noted, in 1972 Nixon wanted Agnew to resign so that Nixon could appoint Connally as vice-president under the newly ratified 25th Amendment. He thought that it would not be enough for Agnew to simply announce he would not be a candidate again, precisely because that might lead to the GOP convention turning to Reagan for vice-president, which Nixon did not want. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-05-18/news/1994138132_1_agnew-nixon-haldeman

Incidentally, years later, after Reagan had become above criticism to most Republicans, Nixon was still not exactly a fan: "Later, Nixon said Reagan’s economic policies were unduly harsh and cautioned against giving him too much credit for winning the Cold War. 'Communism would have collapsed anyway,' he told Monica Crowley, a Nixon aide in his last years, according to her 1996 book, 'Nixon Off the Record.'" http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3678121/ns/politics/t/nixonthought-reagan-wasstrange/#.VFyXJMJ0yJB

A great synopsis of this point is found in Bill O'Riley's Killing Regan, a great read. But if he had, I see Nixon win in 60' (Regan would be just the push needed), Bay of Pigs has a chance of succeeding, and South Vietnam gets propped up longer due to more effective early support. When Nixon gets killed in 63' (there is no way Oswald, a trained marine sharpshooter misses), Regan takes the reigns and wins in 64 and 68. His policies would be quite similar to OTL, as by that time he had firmed up his beliefs.
 
RR gets reelected in 1976, we end up with US shifting hard to the social democratic left and conservatism dying to be replaced with an earlier rise of national populism*. Call it 16-24 years of socdem rule 1980-96 or at maximum 1980-04.

* Bigger welfare to worry about immigration(note earlier rise of such movements in more generous europe), reaganism failed hard
 
A great synopsis of this point is found in Bill O'Riley's Killing Regan, a great read. But if he had, I see Nixon win in 60' (Regan would be just the push needed), Bay of Pigs has a chance of succeeding, and South Vietnam gets propped up longer due to more effective early support. When Nixon gets killed in 63' (there is no way Oswald, a trained marine sharpshooter misses), Regan takes the reigns and wins in 64 and 68. His policies would be quite similar to OTL, as by that time he had firmed up his beliefs.

Why would Reagan, the President of the Screen Actors Guild be any more of a draw than Lodge, a well known senator and ambassador with a famous name, who also happens to be from the same state as Nixon’s opponent?

Also, all of this ignores the issue of having both prez and VP from the same state, especially a large state like California, if Reagan is a running mate (rather than a replacement). The California Electors are going to have to figure out some clever way to split their votes - and 1960 was a close election, so that is not a good idea.
 
Why would Reagan, the President of the Screen Actors Guild be any more of a draw than Lodge, a well known senator and ambassador with a famous name, who also happens to be from the same state as Nixon’s opponent?

Also, all of this ignores the issue of having both prez and VP from the same state, especially a large state like California, if Reagan is a running mate (rather than a replacement). The California Electors are going to have to figure out some clever way to split their votes - and 1960 was a close election, so that is not a good idea.

Don't get me wrong, it is extremely unlikely that Regan become the VP. Regan made it clear that he would not accept the position before the primary even began. But that isn't the point of this thread, its IF he had.
 
Don't get me wrong, it is extremely unlikely that Regan become the VP. Regan made it clear that he would not accept the position before the primary even began. But that isn't the point of this thread, its IF he had.
The point of the thread is what if Reagan replaces Agnew, rather than Ford. Positing Reagan as Nixon’s running mate in ‘60 is a totally different scenario, and one that is unlikely for constitutional reasons. If Reagan is Nixon’s running mate, its more likely that Nixon’s VP is Johnson.

Which would be hilarious.
 
The point of the thread is what if Reagan replaces Agnew, rather than Ford. Positing Reagan as Nixon’s running mate in ‘60 is a totally different scenario, and one that is unlikely for constitutional reasons. If Reagan is Nixon’s running mate, its more likely that Nixon’s VP is Johnson.

Which would be hilarious.

I completely misread that prompt, so sorry.
 
RR gets reelected in 1976, we end up with US shifting hard to the social democratic left and conservatism dying to be replaced with an earlier rise of national populism*. Call it 16-24 years of socdem rule 1980-96 or at maximum 1980-04.

* Bigger welfare to worry about immigration(note earlier rise of such movements in more generous europe), reaganism failed hard

Yeah, but Reagonomics and the neoliberal economic system contributed to the national populism we see. Not having either of those would cause a large divergence.

I could see the US getting a national single payer health system and some other large reforms that could dent the rise of populism as much.
 
It'd boost populism on the right with things like singlepayer/a basic income making the economic costs of immigration more immediately apparent to middle/upper middle class taxpayers. Loek at what I said re: europe and it's own populist parties as an analogy of the kind of thinking i'm talking about.

Also note that Reaganism OTL stifled a potential (temporary*) union revival, so that'd mean quite a shift on immigration dialogue within the US left. This isn't even factoring in more awareness of limits to growth/resource issues sticking around without a "morning in america" to buy a few decades of ignoring environmental/resource realities. Think a US left with a 3-way split between anti-immigration bc labor unions, anti-immigration bc environment and some moderates.

Between the populist shift on the right and the altered development of the left, I see immigration in this scenario being drastically cut sometime between the early 80s to early 90s. Net result is a US that's visibly whiter than OTL with the nonwhite population being more black and latin than OTL. GOP would be the party of the white vote, likely gains white working class votes faster than OTL without the religious right yuppies. Democrats? Think more 80s to 90s dems of OTL but significantly less neoliberal.

* Changing tech, globalization, communism declining so capitalists are less scared
 
It'd boost populism on the right with things like singlepayer/a basic income making the economic costs of immigration more immediately apparent to middle/upper middle class taxpayers. Loek at what I said re: europe and it's own populist parties as an analogy of the kind of thinking i'm talking about.

Also note that Reaganism OTL stifled a potential (temporary*) union revival, so that'd mean quite a shift on immigration dialogue within the US left. This isn't even factoring in more awareness of limits to growth/resource issues sticking around without a "morning in america" to buy a few decades of ignoring environmental/resource realities. Think a US left with a 3-way split between anti-immigration bc labor unions, anti-immigration bc environment and some moderates.

Between the populist shift on the right and the altered development of the left, I see immigration in this scenario being drastically cut sometime between the early 80s to early 90s. Net result is a US that's visibly whiter than OTL with the nonwhite population being more black and latin than OTL. GOP would be the party of the white vote, likely gains white working class votes faster than OTL without the religious right yuppies. Democrats? Think more 80s to 90s dems of OTL but significantly less neoliberal.

* Changing tech, globalization, communism declining so capitalists are less scared

Except the USA has a differing approach to immigration and the taxes and whatnot would affect more the super rich. Like, not as much the upper middle, but the 1% being targeted.

Labor unions would be split on immigration since immigrants could join unions and thus bolster their numbers while with environmentalism, it would not be that big an issue. Plus, with a social democratic US, they may be less involved in doing stuff with other nations that would lead to them heading to the US. If the Drug War was ended and the firearm laws were tightened, that’s gonna lessen immigration from the Americas.
 
If he couldn't get Connally, he wanted someone who he thought would not be a candidate in 1976, so that Connally might still have a chance then.

Or thinking longer term, knowing that any VP would be inheriting the mess that he made, make the VP RR as a Poisoned Chalice, that he would get primaried in 1976 by one of the Rs that Tricky Dick actually liked, and it buries RRs political dreams
 
Except the USA has a differing approach to immigration and the taxes and whatnot would affect more the super rich. Like, not as much the upper middle, but the 1% being targeted.

Labor unions would be split on immigration since immigrants could join unions and thus bolster their numbers while with environmentalism, it would not be that big an issue. Plus, with a social democratic US, they may be less involved in doing stuff with other nations that would lead to them heading to the US. If the Drug War was ended and the firearm laws were tightened, that’s gonna lessen immigration from the Americas.
You're applying OTL assumptions in a different world.

For starters in an ATL where you had say a long social democratic majority from 1980 to sometime between 1996-2004, likely followed by a populist right era corporate power gets toned down. Well, that and the differing coalitions labor/socdem democrats ruling, followed by an era of populist republicans focusing on the midwest-rustbelt instead of OTL's sunelt reps would have differing incentives than our timeline.

Another big shift would be singlepayer healthcare being a thing, which 1) reduces employer incentives to outsource 2) reduces incentives to use temps/other dodges to avoid having to hire people as 'normal' employers(forget H1-B visas in ttl on the employer side.

Environmentalism not making a big deal of it? Well sure, as a response to "morning in america" stuff in our timeline but do remember in the 70s lots of zero population growth type movement. In an ATL where you see certain 70s trends continued instead of Reaganism, well? Things look different.

This isnt' even getting into the OTL catholic-evangelical linkage being butterflied without Carter, so OTL's late 70s till around the mid 2010s OTL pattern of a Right's approach to non-economic issues being almost exclusively moral traditionalism, and thus incentivized to be more tolerant of immigration*. This is imo BIG

* They could point to latin americans/africans being christian, or for non-christian third worlders either attempting coalition-building(GOP and muslims OTL pre-9/11) or hoping for potential conversions.
 
You're applying OTL assumptions in a different world.

For starters in an ATL where you had say a long social democratic majority from 1980 to sometime between 1996-2004, likely followed by a populist right era corporate power gets toned down. Well, that and the differing coalitions labor/socdem democrats ruling, followed by an era of populist republicans focusing on the midwest-rustbelt instead of OTL's sunelt reps would have differing incentives than our timeline.

Another big shift would be singlepayer healthcare being a thing, which 1) reduces employer incentives to outsource 2) reduces incentives to use temps/other dodges to avoid having to hire people as 'normal' employers(forget H1-B visas in ttl on the employer side.

Environmentalism not making a big deal of it? Well sure, as a response to "morning in america" stuff in our timeline but do remember in the 70s lots of zero population growth type movement. In an ATL where you see certain 70s trends continued instead of Reaganism, well? Things look different.

This isnt' even getting into the OTL catholic-evangelical linkage being butterflied without Carter, so OTL's late 70s till around the mid 2010s OTL pattern of a Right's approach to non-economic issues being almost exclusively moral traditionalism, and thus incentivized to be more tolerant of immigration*. This is imo BIG

* They could point to latin americans/africans being christian, or for non-christian third worlders either attempting coalition-building(GOP and muslims OTL pre-9/11) or hoping for potential conversions.

I could say the same to you regarding OTL assumptions though. You are trying to impose that the USA would go down the route of certain European nations with the reforms and so on, but that ignores how much of a different beast the USA along with the pop culture and influence. The 80s will be this large era of good tides and feelings ridden by the Dems and alot of fondness being granted to the reformers. Alot of illegal immigration reforms came in the 80s and 90s and the reforms would be different under progressive adminsitrations rather than neocon or neolib administration.

You're assuming the rustbelt would be as OTL rather than the fact that progressive adminsitration would also likely push for climate change reforms and thus more into renewable energy getting into the sector. And further more, the right wing approach to moral traditionalism will have to take economics into account or else they're gonna run into problems. Alternately, they move left and the new left becomes dominant by more radical and socialist elements or something.
 
Top