This is exactly why I think Reagan in 1968, if he lost would be seen as a Goldwater-type failure. That said, if he won due to different timing making the Movement Conservatives 1) lack a champion in 1980 2) be seen as tried but failing would lead to a weaker conservative movement 3) get nowhere near as much accomplished.Plus, I don't think Reagan would have been distanced enough from his "A Time for Choosing" speech in favor of Goldwater '64, nor distanced enough from Goldwater's anti-social security views.
![]()
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_for_Choosing
I mean, Shit. He just looks like an angry, pissed off type.
As a liberal, my personal wish list might include:. . . 2) be seen as tried but failing would lead to a weaker conservative movement . . .
As a liberal, my personal wish list might include:
1) someone more seasoned than Carter de-regulates communications, trucking, airlines,
This is exactly why I think Reagan in 1968, if he lost would be seen as a Goldwater-type failure. That said, if he won due to different timing making the Movement Conservatives 1) lack a champion in 1980 2) be seen as tried but failing would lead to a weaker conservative movement 3) get nowhere near as much accomplished.
Agree 100%. This sort of thing is why I didn't buy the assumption that there'd be a *Reaganite era, whether delayed 12/16/20 years in the "democratic revolution in 1980s", doubly so here since TTL wouldn't have had OTL's watergate-era discrediting of liberal/moderate reps. Sure, it wouldn't be "all liberal all the time", and there'd be an eventual GOP era in the 80s democratic revolution TL it's just we'd be talking a center-right GOP with movement conservatives as a wing and not the party core/leadership.Yeah, it's hard not to see the failures of the movement creating a narrative. Here's the popular narrative of the trajectory of American conservatism in the 20th century for both TTL and OTL:
- Doing fine through the 1920s.
- Oops! Depression! Conservatives get all the blame.
- When in the political wilderness, they tried to keep us out of the war.
- Their standard bearers in the 1950s were boogie men. Taft was so bad Ike agreed to run. McCarthy is...not their best look.
- Oh wait! Here comes Goldwat-oh nm.
Then things diverge. IOTL:
- Let's let the pressure build for another 15 years, then try again.
- Yay! We did it!
ITTL:
- Let's try again IMMEDIATELY!
- Wow, we still suck and can't be trusted to run national campaigns and also haven't been in power since we derailed the entire nation in 1929.
While facetious, this is the back-of-the-cereal-box interpretation most Americans will have of the conservative movement. Do they just go away? That seems unlikely. Do they lose the support of the partisan heart of the GOP, who really don't care what the policy directives are as long as they win? (Not to single out Republicans, I think at heart this is the nature of American partisan politics.)
It has to have some effect on the movement. The American conservative monolith is not a law of nature, it cannot inevitably sustain itself through defeat after defeat.
I tend to view this as more of a human trait.The biggest obstacle to a UBI or even just giving the united states first world-style labor protections/universal healthcare is what I like to call "white male syndrome": the essentially forced meme of making people identify with their jobs as being the norm instead of something that's a rare symptom of workaholism.
. . . his natural charisma would likely make up for it, . . .
Congress deregulated those and did the work on it. Kennedy was furious about the outcome of airline deregulation, as its effects were nothing like what Congress had been told. Indeed Stephen Breyer comes out of the whole thing looking real bad in my opinion.
A question I have, why was there an upsurge of right-wing anger starting around 1989 and 1990 when Bush, Sr., was president?. . . it wouldn't be "all liberal all the time", and there'd be an eventual GOP era in the 80s democratic revolution TL it's just we'd be talking a center-right GOP with movement conservatives as a wing and not the party core/leadership. . .
A question I have, why was there an upsurge of right-wing anger starting around 1989 and 1990 when Bush, Sr., was president?
Effects of reaganism taking hold on the economy, combined with Bush I's rhetoric/policy not being reaganite enough for them. Make Kemp or some other conservative instead of a moderate like Bush SR. and imo we would have seen reaganism at least partially burn out, with the positive side effect of getting Cuomo or someone else who at least isn't Bill "I'll actually do what Reagan talked about but get called a leftwinger" Clinton.A question I have, why was there an upsurge of right-wing anger starting around 1989 and 1990 when Bush, Sr., was president?
"Read my lips: no new taxes!"
Definitely part of it, but I think there was a lot more
This is something Pres. Bush, Sr., wrote in his diary. Some of the fallout from a Sunday evening, May 6, 1990, meeting with a bipartisan Congressional leaders, and following statements and news stories.https://books.google.com/books?id=0...ded, and the right wing is the worst"&f=false
"We’re getting pounded, and the right wing is the worse, much more so than the left wing, it seems to me.”