WI: President Pat Robertson

POD would be, that George H.W. Bush chooses Pat Robertson as his running mate, and somehow manages to win the 1992 election. Then, Bush is assasinated in 1993 (Which happened IOTL, but failed.), and Robertson is POTUS. Will Robertson go on a rampage in the mid-east (Since the Iraq was rumoured to be responsible for the assasination attempt on Bush), or is he trying to implement his conservative policies (Like a ban of pornography)?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The PODs necessary for Bush to win in 1992 with Robertson as his running mate would have to be huge, but considering that this would have happened at a time when the Religious Right was on the ascendant, it's not entirely impossible. And that's pretty fucking scary.

Of course, the Democrats would still control Congress (barring the POD that got Bush reelected), so Robertson would be able to implement a large chunk of his batshit crazy agenda. But the country would still be in big trouble.

We would likely see all gays and lesbians fired from all federal agencies, as I don't think there were any laws against this at the time (if I'm wrong, someone please correct me), and there would be borderline illegal harassment of non-Christians and non-evangelical Christians within federal agencies. All federal appointees that don't require congressional approval would be filled with evangelical Christians. In any way where executive orders can be utilized, Robertson would push his hard Christian right agenda.

If Bush had been assassinated by Iraqi agents, we would clearly see massive attacks on the country, and likely a full-scale invasion.

The good news is that the people would be so horrified by what was happening that they would turn obertson out heavily in 1996, assuming, of course, that the Constitution is still in force by then.
 
Well, with a war against Iraq, and maybe a war against Iran, Robertson might get a narrow victory in '96. After all, George W. Bush was also reelected :p
 
The PODs necessary for Bush to win in 1992 with Robertson as his running mate would have to be huge, but considering that this would have happened at a time when the Religious Right was on the ascendant, it's not entirely impossible. And that's pretty fucking scary.

We would likely see all gays and lesbians fired from all federal agencies, as I don't think there were any laws against this at the time (if I'm wrong, someone please correct me), and there would be borderline illegal harassment of non-Christians and non-evangelical Christians within federal agencies. All federal appointees that don't require congressional approval would be filled with evangelical Christians. In any way where executive orders can be utilized, Robertson would push his hard Christian right agenda.

If Bush had been assassinated by Iraqi agents, we would clearly see massive attacks on the country, and likely a full-scale invasion.

Political realities have a way of moderating the most extreme agendas. People were saying much the same when Reagan was elected in 1980. I recall gay friends declaring they were moving to a new city and going back into the closet out of fear for what would happen to them under Reagan. While many Reaganistas found homes in the federal government, his administration did not turn into the repressive regime many liberals feared.

Something of the same would likely happen under Robertson. He would push hard for a ban on abortions or at least an end to federal funding for them. He might institute a "faith-based initiative" earlier than Bush II. And following the first World Trade Center attack and the Bush assassination, it's likely that both domestic and foreign policy would be far more anti-Muslim, to the extent that it could well seriously damage relations with such moderate Muslim nations as Turkey and Egypt -- barring, of course, the influence of advisers and Cabinet members with a more pragmatic sense of real politik.

The only way a Robertson administration could have truly damaging consequences IMHO would be defining control of Congress and the opportunity to appoint enough like-minded Supreme Court justices. Neither seems likely and getting both would be close to impossible.

ETA: This all presumes, of course, that Robertson's lack of political experience doesn't see his administration dissolve into irrelevance within the first year.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Political realities have a way of moderating the most extreme agendas. People were saying much the same when Reagan was elected in 1980.

Compared to Robertson, Reagan was a pinko leftie tree-hugging liberal.

And while you're correct that political realities can moderate extreme agendas, that applies to rational politicians pursuing pragmatic aims. Robertson was and is no politician, but a religious fanatic. There is no room for moderation in the mind of a religious fanatic- the very thought never occurs to them. You don't see political realities moderating Osama bin Laden's agenda, do you?

This all presumes, of course, that Robertson's lack of political experience doesn't see his administration dissolve into irrelevance within the first year.

Which is hopefully what would happen.
 

Jasen777

Donor
Bush Sr. would hate getting stuck with Robertson, but then he did get stuck with Quayle (who was a political pick and not someone he would have wanted to pick). So it may just be possible.

It's hard to see Robertson accomplishing much with a Democrat congress. He is likely to initiate a backlash against the religious right, which really wasn't fully manifest until last year, OTL. This could change the political landscape alot for '96.
 
I think in an environment like a Pat Robertson presidency I and a large number of others would have had a much harder time coming to grips with their bisexuality and/or homosexuality. (I know I've had a tough time as it is even with perfectly supportive parents and such, mostly due to getting past my own inhibitions about the idea. By that I mean not any sort of bigoted beliefs--I've always been accepting of homosexuals and such and would never think otherwise--but more a bunch of wedged in beliefs in my own head about the right thing to do(i. e., marry your True Love and have kids) and stuff like that. And again, not anything I necessarily consciously think about, but more unconscious stuff.)

We also probably would see a number of things take a much longer time to develop, including the currently better-than-ever-before tolerant atmosphere towards those of us with alternate sexualities from the heterosexual.

Frankly, I'm just as glad this didn't happen.
 
I think in an environment like a Pat Robertson presidency I and a large number of others would have had a much harder time coming to grips with their bisexuality and/or homosexuality. (I know I've had a tough time as it is even with perfectly supportive parents and such, mostly due to getting past my own inhibitions about the idea. By that I mean not any sort of bigoted beliefs--I've always been accepting of homosexuals and such and would never think otherwise--but more a bunch of wedged in beliefs in my own head about the right thing to do(i. e., marry your True Love and have kids) and stuff like that. And again, not anything I necessarily consciously think about, but more unconscious stuff.)

We also probably would see a number of things take a much longer time to develop, including the currently better-than-ever-before tolerant atmosphere towards those of us with alternate sexualities from the heterosexual.

Frankly, I'm just as glad this didn't happen.

To be honest, I think the opposite may be the case. Someone else brought up the prospect that a Robertson presidency might cause an earlier and stronger backlash against the Christian Right. It would be a lot easier to build opposition to the fundamentalist agenda when you have a ready example of a delusional religious fanatic who tried to force that agenda down America's throat. And again, he's not likely to moderate his agenda while in office -- this is Pat Robertson we're talking about, the Christian version of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is especially so if he gets into office through the Vice Presidency, as the OP suggested. (Not like there's any other way for him to get into the White House. If he were to actually get elected, then I would seriously have to question the sanity of the American voters, and investigate the possibility of ASB interference.)
 
A Robertson presidency in 1993 would mean an almost certain Democratic victory in 1996. If it is Clinton-Gore, then the administrations are pushed four years into the future, ending after the 2004 election.

What happens in the 1997-2005 administrations will be critical. Could a backlash against Robertson fire support for health care reform? Would there be a 9/11 in a cautious Clinton administration?

Sentiment against the religious right could easily butterfly away Missouri Governor John Ashcroft's win to the senate in 1994.

EDIT:

Suppose in 2004, GW Bush defeats Gore. Also suppose the political climate in 2008 is similar to OTL. The people would demand much better discretion in selection of running mates, citing the issues with Robertson. As a result, McCain would pick Romney over Palin and Obama would pick Hillary Clinton over Biden. The voting public would be much more in tune over the qualifications of the "second pick." They would also cite the historical impact of Theodore Roosevelt's presidency.
 
Last edited:
Top