WI No Libertarian-Conservative POTUS in CW

In the early 1950's, writers at the National Review developed the idea of "Fusionist Conservatism" -- roughly, the idea was to combine aggressive anti-communist internationalism, classical liberal economics, and traditionalism (and/or social conservatism), to create a conservative philosophy for the new age. These ideas are also called libertarian-conservative today.

These contentious ideas had some initial trouble coming together, but were bound together successfully soon enough, first and foremost by their shared anti-communism. But that was a magazine -- it really wasn't until the Presidency of Ronald Reagan that the ideology found its way into real federal policy. About a decade after this rise, the Cold War ended, and this brand of conservatism built on this success to become the mainstream of the right and the base of the Republican party.

My question is this: what if neither Ronald Reagan nor any similarly LC candidate wins the high office prior to the end of the Cold War? Could the philosophy still both endure and rise to the top, without the binds of anti-communism?
 
New Right

With no Reagan, then conservatism would once again evolve into something different. Starting with Robert Taft and the Old Right, than changing over with Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley and the New Right, without significant victory electorally than the philosophy always changes.

This would of course mean that the Moderate wing of the GOP remains dominant, so you probably don't have Goldwater win the nomination in 64 (gave Reagan the spotlight with his "Time For Choosing" speech). You'd have to keep the Cold War liberal Consensus going into the 80s, and keep the conservatives in the wilderness in both parties. Kinda hard to do considering the upheaval of the 60s. But you could probably start with having Nixon or Rockefeller win in 60.

Without Reagan or a significant victory for the New Right, than the conservative coalition with the Religious Right probably never occurs. And with the fall of the Soviet Union, then the divisions within the Right (libertarians, neoconservatives, etc.), probably causes whatever thoughts of a "fusionist" ticket to fly out the window. Or they use economic issues, and fiscal conservatism as the new glue to hold them together.
 
Last edited:
First, I want to thank Ike; second, I want to clarify that all I'm talking about here is keeping FC from gaining controlling political power before the Cold War's end -- though, as Ike noted, keeping Reagan out of the WH seems the best way to do that...

You'd have to keep the Cold War liberal Consensus going into the 80s, and keep the conservatives in the wilderness in both parties. Kinda hard to do considering the upheaval of the 60s. But you could probably start with having Nixon or Rockefeller win in 60.

To my mind, it's easier than that -- Ford wins in 1976, then Democrats have the energy to take the WH in 1980; assuming he's a two-termer, that takes us up to 1989 without the Modern Conservative Movement of OTL rising to prominence.

With no Reagan, then conservatism would once again evolve into something different. Starting with Robert Taft and the Old Right, than changing over with Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley and the New Right... the philosophy always changes... without significant victory electorally.

It'd be interesting to imagine what they would be today... :rolleyes:
 
"then Democrats have the energy to take the WH in 1980; assuming he's a two-termer, that takes us up to 1989 without the Modern Conservative Movement of OTL rising to prominence."

I'm curious about this part of it, who do the Democrats have in 80 that could've conceivably kept them in till 1989. I can see Cuomo in 88, maybe Gary Hart in 84?

In the 1990s were probably looking at a movement divided between the populists like Buchanan, and the statesmen like Jack Kemp. Moderates are probably still in the leadership of the GOP (GHWB, Bob Dole, etc.).
 
I'm curious about this part of it, who do the Democrats have in 80 that could've conceivably kept them in till 1989. I can see Cuomo in 88, maybe Gary Hart in 84?

Well, AIUI, it would primarily be a matter of finding a candidate who could take advantage of Republican fatigue in 1980, then manage to do an OK enough job that they're not thrown out in 84. And even if this democrat is beaten in 84, I don't know that it would be Reagan -- OTL, he was having a tough time campaigning around that time as his age started to show.

That said, I'll admit the candidate list isn't exactly overwhelming -- I mean, Ted Kennedy's the most notable name, so make of that what you will...

In the 1990s [we are] probably looking at a movement divided between the populists like Buchanan, and the statesmen like Jack Kemp. Moderates are probably still in the leadership of the GOP (GHWB, Bob Dole, etc.).

Alright-y then :D
 
Top