WI: Reagan the Moderate Republican

The problem with that is Reagan would still be a Goldwaterite on economic issues and civil rights.
True, but Goldwater supported civil rights they just didn’t like the ideas of forcing it by federal means but after segregation ends that is less of a issue. Goldwater types support gay rights, civil rights, and women’s rights they just don’t want to impose social change in a forceful matter which can be an issue at times. They want complete equality but once it is officially signed into paper they feel like the job is done. If everyone is technically equal on paper and by law they won’t do anything else. This would include stuff like school busing, quotas, diversity programs, women specific health funding, and making sure schools are not trying to find ways around desegregation. For example, they would get rid of all the regulations that individual states put in place to limit plan parenthood but they would not fund it. They would treat it like any other business in the healthcare system. I could see these type of republicans telling women who ask about the wage gap “you should get better at negotiating and finding better places to work. Our system gives everyone a even playing field. Everything else is on you”.
 
Last edited:
Could that lead to the democrats adopting more aspects Christian democracy and becoming more like the Christian parties in Germany and Italy?

The Democrats would probably be more economically left-wing than European Christian Democrats ITTL but retain both socially conservative and socially liberal members, similar in some respects to the UK Labour Party
 
The cheap answer is that if Reagan isn’t a conservative he probably doesn’t run, either because he doesn’t raise his stature by running against Ford in 1976 or because he gets lost in the shuffle between Bush and Baker and someone on the conservative wing (e.g. John Connally, John Danforth, Bob Dole, Paul Laxalt) gets elected in 1980.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
So Rockefeller and Goldwater types of republicans? I could see that happening. But I will say libertarian is often a misused term for the socially liberal wing of the Republican Party. Classical Liberals would probably be more accurate then libertarian. A Republican Party in a situation like this would be fiscal economically and socially liberal. But their social liberalism would be different from the left. It would be more indifferent or business focused then affirmative action in policy. They would be for women productive rights(because they can profit from it and don’t care if women get abortions as long as they pay for it). Same goes for weed and sex. Social liberalism in this context would be more capitalist and universal in mindset and less focused on individual identities and welfare. It would focus on equal opportunity over affirmative action. Social tolerance from right wing groups are usually from capitalist elements in it. As long as they make profit and you don’t get too much out of hand they could care less what you do if it doesn’t effect them. The downside to this is they usually won’t go out of their way to help people when it is the most needed(think depression).

The reason libertarian isn’t a good term to use here is because republicans will still be more hawkish then democrats and have some nationalistic elements. They might not be for spying on Americans but they would have no issue doing it to people overseas. Republicans will still support the industrial complex and the military but them being socially liberal means no “don’t ask don’t tell” and military roles open up for women earlier. Additionally, the republicans would probably take a more active in minority communities by encouraging local business(they will still be opposed to welfare and some public projects). If they do public projects there it will only be education and infrastructure. Republicans would also be more open to immigration but would still push hard for assimilation for people staying. Basically “Mexicans can come here but they better behave, learn English, and act more American if they are going to stay” would be the Republican outlook in a pod like that. Work visas would be much more common and easy to get.

The big wild card with your idea is Jimmy being more socially conservative could mean a more socially conservative and religious Democratic Party. That actually might strengthen democrat support among minorities and the south. If they propose their economic policy as being based off “Christian values” the south might be solid blue again especially since the party already supports the same social policies in this pod. They would have the support of many lower class whites, blacks, and Hispanics. Democratic economic policies can easily appeal to white in the south. A religious Democratic Party won’t alienate that group as much as otl if at all. Democrats have a history as the southern party while Republicans use to be considered a bunch of rich New Englanders. Also minorities in the US are often more religious and socially conservative then most of the population.
Sounds like an American equivalent of German or Swiss FDP, Danish Venstre or Dutch VVD, or the 19th century German National Liberals (a hawkish version of those 3 parties). It is certainly possible for the GOP to become such a party.
 
Last edited:
Ironically, today, on many issues, Reagan WOULD be a moderate Republican.

Abortion? He took a line that it was a states issue - he was literally the Governor who legalized it in California, despite personal objections, because it had popular support.

LGBT rights? For a guy born in 1911, remarkably forward-thinking on gay rights, not too shocking given he worked in Hollywood for decades. A lesbian couple was nannies to his kids, and his best friend was Rock Hudson. He passed a number of very early bills giving the LGBT community rights in California, and vetoed restrictions... he gets a bad rap because he didn't do much as President and the AIDS crisis, but:

A) America in the 1980s was not going to give ground on the issue - not one in the midst of the Moral Majority and the Satanic Panic. If people were foaming at the mouth over daycare and D&D, how do you think they would have taken to gay sex?

B) We were decades away from even the first few major milestones of gay rights, even in Europe.

C) We didn't even know what caused AIDS until the 90s, and we didn't have a way of treating it until the last few years. Doesn't matter who was President, there wasn't jack shit that could be done about AIDS in the 1980s.

D) We kind of overlook it now, but the Democrats were as big on gay-bashing as the Republicans at the time. Remember, it wasn't a Republican President who signed the Defence of Marriage Act or Don't Ask Don't Tell into law, it was Bill Clinton.

Shocking as it is, Reagan is about as progressive as you could hope on gay rights for a national politician in 80s America.

Immigration? He was the President who passed not only immigration reform, but amnesty.

He was a die-hard on free trade, an internationalist on foreign policy, willing to even compromise with the USSR over major issues like the reduction of nuclear warheads. He was a major supporter of government programs like NPR and NASA, a lover of the arts and sciences, and considered his work on education among his best achievements.

As for party loyalty, his partnership with Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O' Neil is legendary.

Reagan may have been a conservative, but not one outside the norm of the time, and he'd be a moderate Republican today.

You want a moderate GOP today, the issue isn't Ronnie Reagan, it's Newt Gingrich.
 
There really would be no point in Reagan challenging George Christopher for the GOP nomination for the governorship in 1966 except for being to Christopher's right. Likewise, why run against Gerald Ford in 1976 if you don't have any serious ideological differences with him? (And while Reagan lost in 1976, his strong showing against an incumbent president that year was important for his victory in 1980.)
 
Top