For a TL i'm writing, which involves butterflying away Reagan's election in 1980 (ITTL, he never even sought the nomination that election cycle), I'm hoping to get some insight on a few things about a potential Jack Kemp Presidency. Who would be a likely VP choice for Kemp? What would his Presidency look like?
 
For a TL i'm writing, which involves butterflying away Reagan's election in 1980 (ITTL, he never even sought the nomination that election cycle), I'm hoping to get some insight on a few things about a potential Jack Kemp Presidency. Who would be a likely VP choice for Kemp? What would his Presidency look like?
On a Kemp vice-presidential choice, I wonder if he would have gone for more gravitas with perhaps Howard Baker as his running mate.
 
To achieve this, have Carter win re election in 1980 (no hostage crisis is a minimum to pull this off) or have Ford win in 76 and have a failed democratic presidency from 81-85 after Ford's elected term. Kemp picks someone like Baker to be VP to balance the ticket. As for his presidency, I think it's Reagan's without all the social conservatism (though there's still be some "tough on crime" laws). A Democrat would still be elected in 92 if the early 90s recession still happens.
 
To take Reagan off the playing field of presidential politics, you could assume no Watergate which would have put Richard Nixon in the White House until 1977. Assuming that Agnew had not been caught up in his own bribery scandal, I think that Vice-President Agnew would have been the Republican nominee in 1976. So I would propose...
 
1976 Spiro Agnew of Maryland/Bob Dole of Kansas (R)
Henry M. Jackson of Washington/John Glenn of Ohio (D)

Remembering that a Vice President had never been elected to succeed to two term President until Bush in 1988, I would suggest that the fortune would have favored the Democrats in 1976. Imagine if Scoop Jackson had recognized the divisions of 1972 and run a kind of Democratic unity campaign crafting an alliance of urban Democrats, Southern Democrats and the Humphrey wing of the Party. Ted Kennedy would have been thrilled with Kennedy ally Glenn as a running mate. The Jackson-Glenn presidency would have been more successful than Carter-Mondale and then in 1980...

1980 George H.W. Bush of Texas/Richard Thornburgh of Pennsylvania(R)
Henry M. Jackson of Washington/John Glenn of Ohio (D)

I would see Bush as being easily beat by President Jackson with John Glenn emerging as the heir apparent for the 1984 Democratic nomination and the eventual opponent of Jack Kemp.
 
. . . What would his Presidency look like?
Jack was a proponent of across-the-board, "supply side" tax cuts early on, and then Ronald Reagan joined in and supported this (I think in 1979, with Jack probably a year or two earlier). Jack also supported enterprise zones and was not willing to write any off place in America to poverty. So, what you might get is a pretty activist type of person from the conservative perspective.

A Democratic Congress might be unwilling to finance large projects and changes. But if they settle at medium-scale experiments with quick enough feedback, you might actually get the best of all possible worlds, at least in some ways for a while. :)
 
Last edited:
Maybe President Jack Kemp succeeds in placing the slow erosion of middle-class jobs front and center as THE major political issue of the times.
 
Perhaps a stretch, but it reminds me of something Richard Dawkins said about evolution. He said, it's almost like the human brain evolved so that it's very difficult for us to understand evolution. We keep wanting to interject purpose and intention. We keep wanting to say that the parent of a particular animal used its hind legs more. No, the parent just happened to have a mutation which luckily gave slightly better attachment of the ligaments in the hind legs. And because of this, the parent was somewhat more likely to give birth to offspring who would themselves live long enough to reproduce, find a mate, successfully acquire food for offspring, etc.

And so with jobs, we don't focus on the macro questions such as, there are middle-class and above jobs for what percentage of the older teen and adult population? Instead, we immediately jump to questions of meritocracy, because as social monkeys we have very highly attuned cheat detectors. And the macro questions leave us rather dry.

It is interesting to ask, what if a successful presidential administration and/or some popular members of Congress succeeded in placing them front and center? :p
 
Last edited:
I wonder how President Kemp would have dealt with the emerging Religious Right in the Republican Party. Remember in 1988, Pat Robertson ran for the Republican presidential nomination and did not do that badly. Kemp grew up a Christian Scientist and converted to Presbyterianism upon his marriage.
 
In order for Carter to win 1980, you need a few things. No Iran Hostage Crisis or a successful Operation Eagle Claw, or perhaps even the deaths of the hostages. Horrible as the latter is from a moral perspective, removing the matter as a lingering issue and being able to answer it through something blunt as a result, such as air strikes, may be enough. In addition, no Saturday Night Massacre, wherein Carter essentially fired his cabinet. The "malaise speech", as it was so called, was actually well received for its honesty. However, those firings threw Americans back into a mood that the country was out of control. Therefore, addressing those issues, you give Carter a competitive shot at 1980. You do not need a POD of Watergate or anything else like that. You literally simply need a competitive Carter who wins 1980.
 
In order for Carter to win 1980, . . . In addition, no Saturday Night Massacre, wherein Carter essentially fired his cabinet. The "malaise speech", as it was so called, was actually well received for its honesty. However, those firings threw Americans back into a mood that the country was out of control. . .
And he mildly scolded his cabinet during his speech, and then fired them two days later. That was perceived as uncool. Kind of, if you have to fire someone, go ahead and fire them. There's no need to humiliate them, too.

And I think that's kind of the feeling it partially conjured up.
 
Last edited:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jimmycartercrisisofconfidence.htm

.

.

.


First of all, I got a lot of personal advice. Let me quote a few of the typical comments that I wrote down.

This from a southern governor: “Mr. President, you are not leading this nation -- you’re just managing the government.”

“You don’t see the people enough anymore.”

“Some of your Cabinet members don’t seem loyal. There is not enough discipline among your disciples.” [Emphasis added.]

.

.

.
And it was partially planned. One person had already given their resignation to Carter something like weeks ago.

If Bert Lance or some other senior statesman or woman was in the administration, they could have picked up that the speech was well-received. Let's stand pat. We don't need to also fire these people. That might be a mistake.

==============

And, the public needs to see some movement forward, especially on energy policy and overall economic growth.
 
https://books.google.com/books?id=r...tory, it meant less than met the eye"&f=false

This book by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., says Attorney General Griffin Bell was already scheduled to leave, Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger had already offered to resign twice, and another guy was willing to go on good terms. Only the firing of HEW Secretary Joe Califano would have caused a stir.

======

Not so sure I agree on this last point. If Carter had fired only three people in the week after his Sunday night speech, I think it would have caught people's attention. And I wonder if Arthur is James' dad!
 
Top