WI: No Far-Right Rise

What if Reagan wins the '76 Republican nomination and loses to Carter. Let's say in '80 the Republicans nominate GHWBush, blaming Reagan and the far-right for their loss in the general, who goes on to win the election. What happens to the far-right of the Republican Party if they are prevented from having their icon - Reagan - who moved the Party considerably rightward? Do they fade into oblivion - a forever ignored minority? Do they soon form a third party away from the Republican Party? Do they swap to the Democrats? Do they eventually get their rise, just not with Reagan?
 
Do they eventually get their rise, just not with Reagan?

I'd say yes. I suppose I'm enough of a determinist to believe that whatever Reagan was doing to solidify his coalition, GHW Bush would have to do also. So, if Reagan had to appeal to the far-right, Bush would as well, even if wasn't the latter's natural inclination.

Most offbeat scenario, you MIGHT see GHWB a little less beholden to the Religious Right. Maybe. But even in OTL, he was willing to embrace the "pro-life" position to get the second-place on the 1980 ticket, so I'm pretty sure he'd be happy to do the same to get first place, assuming that's where the pollsters told him the ducks were.

Sure, he'd be a little inconsistent in his support for "pro-life", just chipping away at funding and access, but never actually outlawing abortion, so as to not alienate the affluent yuppies. But that's basically what Reagan did as well.

And foreign-policy would be about the same, since even conservative Democrats were supporting the contras etc.
 
Reagan getting nominated in '76 and losing to Carter doesn't prevent the rise of the far right. Even if Bush is the nominee in '80 TTL, he'll still have to appeal to Reagan's base, and while I don't think Bush would move the country or the GOP as far to the right as Reagan did, the party would still be to the right of Ike, Nixon, and Ford, and if Bush's two terms (the Dems were a mess in the '70s and '80s, Bush would most likely be re elected) are seen as a success, many in the GOP would see it as an opportunity to shift the party, but not the country, further to the right in the '90s and 2000s.

The only way I can think of preventing or greatly delaying the rise of the far right is to have Ford win the '76 election, which gives us a Democrat in 1980 and probably 84 (if they get their shit together), who governs moderately. No one in the GOP in the 70s, 80s, or 90s could fire up conservatives and move the political landscape the way Reagan did, so you'd have two moderate parties in the '80s and '90s with a possible rise of conservatism in the 2000s at the earliest.
 
The Far Right was a reaction to "far left" social and military policies current in the mid-late 1970's Democratic Party. Abortion Rights, dis-engagement from foreign adventures, pacifism, and other "counter-culture" stuff. They aren't called reactionaries for nothing.

One way to minimize the rise of the far right (and to keep it a fringe group) would be for the Democrats themselves to be more centrist in the 1970's. Keep with the FDR economic legacy but remain aggressively anti-communist and stay away from "fringe" (as in 1975) social issues. Choose people like Scoop Jackson or Sam Nunn to carry the presidential banner and Republicans might be less likely to swing that far to the right in the 1980's.
 
Reagan in '76

Ronald Reagan in 1976 was not as smooth a campaigner as he was in 1980. And he was one hell of a lot luckier in 1980 anyway with all the Iran Hostage business. (Recalling the "backstage" TV coverage of the Republican convention in '76.) Assuming a lot more party discontent with Ford, Reagan could have got the nomination anyway. And have his head handed to him in the General.

Now, a losing "conservative candidate" for the second time would have a tendency to discredit the Right. There was a big surge after Reagan got in the White House, validation and all that. Two big losses, Goldwater and Regan, would send the money men looking elsewhere.

At the same time, Nixon's "Southern Strategy" had already changed the Republican party, so the Big Two would be more equal, and perhaps even more alike. If the Democrats could avoid the trap of the New left they might remain more moderate.

What you could end up with is a Republican Party with lots of conservative, lots more moderates, and a sprinkling of liberals. The Democratic party would have lots of liberals, a good slice of moderates, and a sprinkling of conservatives.

Which dynamic would totally change the elections after 1980.

OTOH, if Reagan DID make it in 1976, he would be the egg-on-face leader who dealt with the Ayatollah's shock troops. (Some may argue the Iranians would not risk a confrontation with Reagan, but at that time he would be an unknown quantity, and presiding over a stagnant economy to boot.) Both of those would virtually guarantee a Democrat in 1980, but just who is problematic.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Have the Democrats not alienate much of what became the far right during the '70s and they will not rise. The Moral Majority and all of that, they were perfectly willing to be Democrats up until some of the culture war stuff caught up with the political scene and the Democrats made their choice. The betrayal of the Carter years, as Carter was seen as their guy, was palpable.

Basically, the less the Democrats move left and the less they coopt some of the more radical views that came out of the 60s, the less severe the reaction will be.

The Church hearings destroyed the public confidence in the CIA, but they also destroyed the Cold Warriors confidence in the Democratic party, many of whom were previously card carrying Democrats and proud of it, seeing McGovern as an aberration.

So what you had were pissed off Cold Warriors, pissed off Religious people, and pissed off Republicans forming what became the Reagan base. Two of the three groups can be saved.
 
Have the Democrats not alienate much of what became the far right during the '70s and they will not rise. The Moral Majority and all of that, they were perfectly willing to be Democrats up until some of the culture war stuff caught up with the political scene and the Democrats made their choice. The betrayal of the Carter years, as Carter was seen as their guy, was palpable.

Basically, the less the Democrats move left and the less they coopt some of the more radical views that came out of the 60s, the less severe the reaction will be.

The Church hearings destroyed the public confidence in the CIA, but they also destroyed the Cold Warriors confidence in the Democratic party, many of whom were previously card carrying Democrats and proud of it, seeing McGovern as an aberration.

So what you had were pissed off Cold Warriors, pissed off Religious people, and pissed off Republicans forming what became the Reagan base. Two of the three groups can be saved.

Though this was a gradual process, of course. I say that you could pretty much turn things around, though it becomes harder, until the mid-90s and Clinton's triangulation strategy, which, in addition to the Democrats embracing neoliberalism, snubbed much of the religious vote (witness his treatment of Casey pere). Basically, the more the DNC embraces the lunchpail vote (plus ethnic minorities) instead of going after the middle class social liberals and the radicals, the less likely the hard right becomes prominent.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Though this was a gradual process, of course. I say that you could pretty much turn things around, though it becomes harder, until the mid-90s and Clinton's triangulation strategy, which, in addition to the Democrats embracing neoliberalism, snubbed much of the religious vote (witness his treatment of Casey pere). Basically, the more the DNC embraces the lunchpail vote (plus ethnic minorities) instead of going after the middle class social liberals and the radicals, the less likely the hard right becomes prominent.

While the treatment of Bob Casey was shameful, it was the right call politically. By the 90s, the Democrats knew they could not try to be Republican-lite, as it failed, and continues to fail even to this day with Democrats who disavow Obama to convince rural whites to vote for them.

However, in the 70s, this was not guaranteed. Many people voted for Republicans only reluctantly, having a deep seated historical dislike for the party of Lincoln and Hoover. If the Democrats had not moved as far as they did, they would have done a lot better at the Presidential level in the 80s.
 
Top