WI: Reagan In Carter's Shoes

First in terms of the economy: If Reagan pushes for a supply-side type of stimulus, he'll probably get it passed. At that time, most Republicans were Bob Dole/Pete Domenici-esque in that they favored balanced budgets over tax cuts. Democrats were more prone to supporting big cuts, even folks like Ted Kennedy. So he can get that passed, but won't get the spending cuts to balance the budget. In fact, you probably have a much greater deficit.

On other domestic issues, Reagan is consistently blocked by Congress. Imagine Carter's predicament, but worse. The only advantage is that it's not partisan infighting, and is more just an ideological struggle.

On foreign policy, he's probably worse off than Carter only because detente will totally break down and much faster. In terms of Iran, maybe intervention can lead to a military regime, but that's not a whole lot better long term than the Ayatollah.
 
Who would the Democrats run against Reagan in 1980 in such a TL? Ted Kennedy? Lloyd Bentsen? Jerry Brown? Maybe Scoop Jackson would have made another run? Would Walter Mondale ever have become a national figure without serving as VP first?
 
(remember, in the early days there were actually diplomatic exchanges)
I remember one bizarre incident where we sent Iran a tanker full of heating oil, since apparently, the chaos in Iran had screwed up their refining processes. At the time, I thought it was a lot like if Iran had sent us a ship full of food...
 
That, in turn, might have changed things a lot and not all in a good way. It seems quite plausible to me that without the immense drain of resources from the Soviet Union into Afghanistan and into general military expeditures as a response to the US buildup, the Soviet Union might have held up longer or even been able to stem the decline that led to its collapse. While I think the former far more likely than the latter, it isn't inconceivable to imagine the USSR lasting another decade or two and the collapse of Warsaw Pact states taking place in a completely different way.

What immense drain of resources? Between the mid-seventies and mid-eighties, Soviet military spending grew at a constant rate of about one percent per year. The American arms buildup had virtually no impact on the Soviet economy, which collapsed for largely internal reasons.
 
I doubt that Reagan would have prevented the Shah's downfall. What he might have done is get the Shah to abdicate in favour of his son.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
I remember one bizarre incident where we sent Iran a tanker full of heating oil, since apparently, the chaos in Iran had screwed up their refining processes. At the time, I thought it was a lot like if Iran had sent us a ship full of food...
Not all that well known, but Iran's refining capacity has been in the shitter for a long time. They import petrolium distillates to this day.

The present President was initially elected on his promise to fix the Iranian economy. He failed to deliver. That is why he has acted as he has with his rhetoric. Fortunately the present Iranian senior clergy aren't as suicidal as this wack job.


 
As for the economy, I think anyone in office at the time was pretty much out of luck. Ending stagflation took 2-3 years and it took a staggering rise in interest rates and throwing the economy into deep recession to do it. In order for it to have worked by the 1980 election, you would have had to start in 1977 or 1978. It would have, at the time, seemed like madness and anyone pursuing those policies would have been wildly unpopular, as Reagan was in OTL at the time of the 1982 midterm elections.

Actually, the economy was quite good during the first half of Carter's term. Even inflation, though high, dropped from the double-digit rates of '73-'76.

What pretty much killed the economy was, in fact, Iran blowing up. The collapse of the Shah's regime caused a plunge in oil production, instigating an oil shock, which re-ignited inflation. Then Volcker was sent to the Fed to jack up interest rates in order to end the inflationary spiral, resulting in 20% interest rates and a sharp rise in unemployment.

If the Iranian Revolution had just been delayed a few years, the recession of 1980 would not have happened and even Carter would probably have been reelected comfortably as most incumbents are.

If the butterfly effects of a Ford or Reagan victory in 1976 result in the Shah remaining in power for a few more years, then the economy might actually be quite sound in ATL 1980.
 
Look up some of Carter's policies, and you'll find that they weren't all of that different from Reagan's. All of the trademark policies of movement conservatism (social issues politics, union-busting, foreign policy based on 'morality' rather than realism, supply-side economics, balanced budgets, etc) came not from Reagan, but Carter following his election as President in 1976.

Reagan will be pretty much Carter, but weaker. Most of the Congress (which had HUGE Democratic majorities) was at this point in favor of tax reform. Reagan can get his supply-side cuts, most likely, but they'll probably be more structured and less' supply-side' in nature. So probably the middle class tax cut that Clinton campaigned on but never enacted in the 1990s. Other than that, his agenda will be blocked at every turn by a hostile Congress. Reagan won't push anything like the Panama Canal treaty, nor will he try and stimulate the economy. Volcker or Greenspan goes to the Fed, and monetarism begins. Crippling recession (the natural result of monetaristic anti-inflation politics) + an oil shock in 1979 will pretty well doom Reagan as the second coming of Herbert Hoover in 1980.

Foreign policy too, will be probably worse under President Reagan in 1977-81. Hawkishness over Iran will likely not play well, and the hostage crisis might make the Gipper look impotent if nothing can be done about the damn thing. No Camp David accords and no Panama Canal treaty will have some interesting butterflies as well.

By 1980, Reagan is pretty much toast. The Democratic primary field will be divided as usual in that era, but all signs point to Walter Mondale or Ted Kennedy (should he run, though I have big doubts about that) getting the Democratic nod for the White House. In an ironic turn of events, Mondale obliterates Reagan on election night, carrying most of the country and getting himself a solidly liberal Congress as a result. The Republicans regroup in the 1982 midterms with the recession still raging, but the economy recovers in 1983 with the return of New Deal-style Keynesian politics and by 1984, they lose in a landslide with former Vice President Schweiker as their nominee.
 
What immense drain of resources? Between the mid-seventies and mid-eighties, Soviet military spending grew at a constant rate of about one percent per year. The American arms buildup had virtually no impact on the Soviet economy, which collapsed for largely internal reasons.

A good point; I should have been clearer in my post. The Soviets were already vastly overextended in military spending; the only way for them to possibly salvage their economy was to make deep cuts in what they were spending. Their involvement in Afghanistan and the US buildup prevented that. Some background here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm
 
Actually, the economy was quite good during the first half of Carter's term. Even inflation, though high, dropped from the double-digit rates of '73-'76.

What pretty much killed the economy was, in fact, Iran blowing up. The collapse of the Shah's regime caused a plunge in oil production, instigating an oil shock, which re-ignited inflation. Then Volcker was sent to the Fed to jack up interest rates in order to end the inflationary spiral, resulting in 20% interest rates and a sharp rise in unemployment.

If the Iranian Revolution had just been delayed a few years, the recession of 1980 would not have happened and even Carter would probably have been reelected comfortably as most incumbents are.

If the butterfly effects of a Ford or Reagan victory in 1976 result in the Shah remaining in power for a few more years, then the economy might actually be quite sound in ATL 1980.

I had a rather long response to this that I deleted by mistake, so I'll try to recap briefly. You have a point that Iran pushed things over a cliff, but overstate the health of the US economy during the Carter years. Inflation was high -- over 5.6% per year and unemployment was also consistently high -- over 5%. The cycle of 1970s stagflation, while lessened in intensity, was never broken. By February 1979, long before the worst economic effects of Iran began to be felt, Carter was already in deep political trouble; the right track/wrong track poll data was running 26/69. While things prior to 1979 weren't the utter disaster they became in 1979/80, they weren't great, either and people weren't happy about it. I don't know that you can assert with certitude that a recession would not have occurred absent Iran. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Even without a technical recession, it seems likely that the economy would have remained stuck in the same rut of relatively high unemployment and inflation.
 
Had Reagan attracted his cloud of competent advisors he had in 1980 as early as 1976? Could he have tamed those loyal to the Prescott and GHW dynasty as he did in 1980? Would the Baker family have come aboard? Would the Bakers defect to a Bentsen run in 1980. I can easily see the Bush and Baker clans defecting to a conservative Democrat org akin to the DNC,

Reagan would be without allies. Some Evangalicals would still be loyal to Carter, and Carter may start a leftist Christian movement that hunts down voter restriction in the southeast. Bush and Baker use their influence in Texas to prevent voter supression and gerrymandering that dilutes the liberal influence of Houston, Austin, and DFW. Texas continues on in the tradition of "strange demise of Jim Crow" from Houston and becomes a strange mix of quite a few social liberal policies and much supply side economics.
 
I had a rather long response to this that I deleted by mistake, so I'll try to recap briefly. You have a point that Iran pushed things over a cliff, but overstate the health of the US economy during the Carter years. Inflation was high -- over 5.6% per year and unemployment was also consistently high -- over 5%. The cycle of 1970s stagflation, while lessened in intensity, was never broken. By February 1979, long before the worst economic effects of Iran began to be felt, Carter was already in deep political trouble; the right track/wrong track poll data was running 26/69. While things prior to 1979 weren't the utter disaster they became in 1979/80, they weren't great, either and people weren't happy about it. I don't know that you can assert with certitude that a recession would not have occurred absent Iran. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Even without a technical recession, it seems likely that the economy would have remained stuck in the same rut of relatively high unemployment and inflation.

It was actually 6% unemployment, but that was a postwar norm, and unemployment came down considerably between 1976 and 1978 - from over 8% in 1976 to just under 6% by the second half of 1978.

Carter was still fairly unpopular it's true. And yes, inflation was high even if it was down from the highs of 1973-1975. However, Carter's numbers were also low because of low approval among Democrats, and he would have had reasonably high chances for reelection had the economy not fallen off a cliff as it did in the wake of the Iranian Revolution. Most presidents after all win reelection, particularly if it's their party's first term in the WH.

But you're right that nobody knows. And if Volcker had still been appointed to the Fed and had he decided to jack up interest rates you probably would have still had a recession, albeit a somewhat milder one.
 
1. Nothing, I was just making a comparison to something more modern.

2. Gave women the right to vote, generally did more for women's rights in Iran in a way reminescent of old Persia, modernized the country, etc.
1. That was a question to the board in general. I read somewhere that Carter was essential to detente with Egypt but other places don't say that at all so I doubt it.

2. But in a dictatorship there is a de facto universal lack of suffrage ;) And he was a modernizer, but a failure because his harsh rule led to a revolution that undid all of his work

TNF and Dvaldron hit this one right on the nail. Reagan's optimism won't help in 1980 either - like Hoover, he will look out of touch.
 
I think 1976 is a poisoned chalice. I'm actually most curious about seeing who Republicans would turn to in 1984 if Reagan had lost 4 years previously.

Dole or Bush?

*woops I originally had Perot or Bush
 
Last edited:
1. That was a question to the board in general. I read somewhere that Carter was essential to detente with Egypt but other places don't say that at all so I doubt it.

2. But in a dictatorship there is a de facto universal lack of suffrage ;) And he was a modernizer, but a failure because his harsh rule led to a revolution that undid all of his work

TNF and Dvaldron hit this one right on the nail. Reagan's optimism won't help in 1980 either - like Hoover, he will look out of touch.

1. Detente wasn't supposed to be a point I was making at all, that's the thing, you're completely giving it an intent it wasn't supposed to have, my point was supposed to be more demonstrative that Carter, at the time of the revolution, really could not have done anything to stop it, my point was that Obama would have had just as good (or well, as crappy) a chance of stopping the Egyptian ouster of Mubarak.

2. Fine, but at least we can agree at the better treatment of women by the Shah than the current lot in charge of Iran? That really was the take-home point, I don't really care about the specifics otherwise, as long as we're willing to agree that the Shah's Iran had more opportunities and more choices for Iranian women than the current Islamic Republic.
 
1. Detente wasn't supposed to be a point I was making at all, that's the thing, you're completely giving it an intent it wasn't supposed to have, my point was supposed to be more demonstrative that Carter, at the time of the revolution, really could not have done anything to stop it, my point was that Obama would have had just as good (or well, as crappy) a chance of stopping the Egyptian ouster of Mubarak.

2. Fine, but at least we can agree at the better treatment of women by the Shah than the current lot in charge of Iran? That really was the take-home point, I don't really care about the specifics otherwise, as long as we're willing to agree that the Shah's Iran had more opportunities and more choices for Iranian women than the current Islamic Republic.

Yes and no. Mostly yes, but the Islamic Republic actually has a surprisingly good record when it comes to women's education and family planning - far better than the Shah even, despite his talk.
 
Last edited:
1. Detente wasn't supposed to be a point I was making at all, that's the thing, you're completely giving it an intent it wasn't supposed to have, my point was supposed to be more demonstrative that Carter, at the time of the revolution, really could not have done anything to stop it, my point was that Obama would have had just as good (or well, as crappy) a chance of stopping the Egyptian ouster of Mubarak.

Fine, but at least we can agree at the better treatment of women by the Shah than the current lot in charge of Iran? That really was the take-home point, I don't really care about the specifics otherwise, as long as we're willing to agree that the Shah's Iran had more opportunities and more choices for Iranian women than the current Islamic Republic.
1. I don't think you understand. I agree with you 100% about how no POTUS could stop the Shah/Mubarak from falling without a lot of butterflies/luck/handwavium. Me asking if Carter had anything to do with detente with Egypt was changing the subject.

2. Yes, I agreed already! Just because we don't see eye-to-eye on Wilson... ;):p
SlideAway is correct as well, but I don't think he accounts how socially the Islamic Republic is at 2011 and the Shah's regime was in the '70s. Had the Shah survived, women would most likely be much better off in Iran than today.
 
1. I don't think you understand. I agree with you 100% about how no POTUS could stop the Shah/Mubarak from falling without a lot of butterflies/luck/handwavium. Me asking if Carter had anything to do with detente with Egypt was changing the subject.

2. Yes, I agreed already! Just because we don't see eye-to-eye on Wilson... ;):p
SlideAway is correct as well, but I don't think he accounts how socially the Islamic Republic is at 2011 and the Shah's regime was in the '70s. Had the Shah survived, women would most likely be much better off in Iran than today.

We have reached a consensus! Also for number one I think the Egyptians and Israelis set up the background for Carter to shine.

And one of these days I shall convince you of the merits of dear Mr. Wilson... but first you're going to jail with Debs for violating the Sedition Act :p.
 
Top