WI: Reagan was never elected?

I'm not a criminologist, and I only dabble with readings on the subject, but you're right about the consensus that emerged at the time. I don't think all of the "tough-on-crime" measures resulted in the great crime decline of the 90s, as studies on Canada show similar correlations without resorting to adopting identical policies. The one exception being a slight increase in auto theft while such crimes dropped in the U.S.
Much of the literature I've read has roundly rejected most of those policies as a matter of efficacy, and their long term consequences on society as a whole are thoroughly negative, given the sidelining of the majority of criminal justice academia in the formulation of these policies. Just to give you a sense of the disconnect between the criminal justice scholarship and actual policy:

In 1995, the Alabama Department of Corrections reinstituted the chain gang in its prison system. State officials, riding a wave of “get tough” sentiment and presumably eager for media attention, began chaining inmates together in leg irons and having them crush limestone while being guarded by shotgun-toting officers. One might have thought that U.S. society had evolved to the point where such a practice would be inherently viewed as uncivilized, but apparently not.

In the weeks following the inception of the chain gang, I received numerous calls from reporters and producers. Many were just looking for the best “visuals” for the story, but a few of the more conscientious ones asked if I could aid them by providing research on the “effectiveness” of chain gangs. No such research exists—humiliation and control, not effectiveness, have always been the goal of such policies.

The confusion did not end there. Next came the producers for the network morning shows and talk shows to set up debates on the issue. Typically, they had no shortage of articulate spokespersons ready to castigate the prison officials, but they had tremendous difficulty finding an advocate for chain gangs. Could I help, they inquired, in finding such an individual? While I had little interest in being of assistance in this regard, it also seemed to me that they were missing a more fundamental issue.

The problem here was that there are not two sides to this issue, at least not in any responsible sense. Reasonable people may differ on the value of imprisonment or even the death penalty, but no reputable scholar or criminal justice official would even dignify the concept of chain gangs through such a “debate.”

Mauer, Marc (2006-04-28). Race to Incarcerate (Kindle Locations 2868-2882). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
The fiscal effects of the War on Crime and the War on Drugs has been the burgeoning of the US prison system, and rapid increases in expenditures, particularly in state budgets, at the cost of both debt (see California), and against investments in higher education. Moreover, discriminatory practices over criminal records in employment, and a lack of rehabilitative efforts in prison has essentially created a permanent underclass, which promoting recidivism and the "revolving door". The war on crime and drugs has disproportionately targeted the American poor (disenfranchised as they are, especially after Reagan) and, especially in the case of the War on Drugs, there are extreme disparities in incarceration based on race, unexplainable based on crime rates (which are less different then popularly perceived), and has highly negative effects on poor families, on the opportunities. There is a reason why the US has the lowest rates of social mobility in the developed world. Indeed based on incarceration trends (incarceration rates are dropping in the past few years, largely due to the inability of municipalities, states and the federal government to afford it on top of overcrowding), 1 in 3 young black men will go through the US prison (not just jail) system at one point or another. That's staggering.

If you are interested in this topic, I would recommend Mauer's Race to Incarcerate. It's dry, but the amount of data he covers, and the problems of US criminal justice policy and increased incarceration, are well examined and statistically backed by the overwhelming corpus of criminal justice scholarship.

However, the fact that policies were enacted that made crime as a such a back-burner issue it is today is still an accomplishment in of itself.
I'm not sure I understand, can you clarify? Are you arguing that the policies have made it so criminal justice is no longer front and center in policy debates, or that they have reduced crime to a level where it is no longer a hot-button issue?

If the former, then that's a complete non-sequitur, if the latter, that's been roundly rejected by criminal justice scholars and the criminal justice community. I'll just put this here.

incarceration-vs-violent-crime-rate.jpg

and cite this:
In a 1987 report published by the department, “Making Confinement Decisions,” Zedlewski calculated that incarcerating a single offender saved the taxpayers a staggering $405,000. This finding, if accurate, would have represented a truly remarkable public policy success, one that should have encouraged state policymakers to proceed swiftly to build and fill prisons. Unfortunately, the study was probably one of the most flawed pieces of government-produced research ever published.

Zedlewski’s statistical miscalculations were numerous, but the most significant was his estimate of the crime-reducing potential of incarceration. In order to derive his estimates in this regard, Zedlewski relied upon a survey of prison inmates in three states that had been conducted by the RAND Corporation, a Santa Monica-based research organization. For incarcerated felony offenders, RAND researchers had calculated that the average offender had committed between 187 and 287 crimes in the year prior to his incarceration. This average, though, reflected crimes committed by a small number of very high-rate offenders. The median offending rate was a much more modest total of fifteen crimes per year.

Zedlewski’s estimate of the potential reduction in crime relied upon the average offending rate, and not the median, thereby vastly inflating the potential for lowering crime through incapacitation. Since the high-rate offenders are more likely to have been apprehended and incarcerated in most states, it is far more likely that expanding the prison population will result in the incarceration of offenders whose offending rates are much closer to the median. These and other errors were widely critiqued by a range of leading criminologists, including Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, who described the analysis as a case study of “compound catastrophic error.” Zimring and Hawkins, publishing in Crime and Delinquency, one of the leading journals in the field, demonstrated how, using Zedlewski’s assumptions, the 237,000 increase in the number of prison inmates from 1977 to 1986 should have completely eliminated crime in the United States.

Within a year of its publication, the Zedlewski research had been roundly attacked by a host of leading academics and others. As early as January 1988, The Sentencing Project published a critical briefing paper that was reported on by one of the widely circulated professional newsletters in the field. By the fall of 1988, critiques by highly regarded scholars had appeared in other professional journals that were well known within the Justice Department.

These questioning voices were of little concern to the ideologues in the Justice Department, though. In July 1988, the Justice Department formally released the study to the news media, contending that “prisons appear to be good investments for reducing crime."

Mauer, Marc (2006-04-28). Race to Incarcerate (Kindle Locations 1035-1057). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
 
Last edited:

Robert

Banned
The "New Jim Crow" phrase was invented by Liberals who attempted to confuse History with Geography.

Reagan won in the South by appealing to voters who were overtaxed, and concerned about the weakening of our national defense. The Democrats said that this was "Racist", but it was their policies that kept the South racially divided for decades after the Civil War. Their Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd was a high ranking member of the KKK, and when he was Governor Jimmy Carter was known for his hardcore attitudes on race, moderately only when he became a National Candidate.

Reagan believed in the individual, and the people voted for that. The Democrats never got over that, and have attempted to blame him for their sins.
 
The two major American political parties the Republican and Democratic party have developed and changed since they started competing against one another in 1856. In a nutshell the Republican party was the liberal party until 1912. Yes, it did have its conservative business side then like now. The Democrats were the conservative side of America. 1912 was a watershed year for American politics . Wilson was no liberal on the question of race, but in many other major areas he was a progressive. FDR being a member of his cabinet and the cousin of the most famous progressive TR benefited from that and changed the party more than anyone else. By 1968 with Nixon's southern strategy, the reversal was way on its way. The Democrats were liberal and the Republicans were conservative and geting more right wing. The Dixiecrats did not change their way of thinking they changed their party. By 1980 when Regean said his famous speech in Philadelphia Mississippi filled with code words to appease the south the reversal was complete. Now you see it in National politics today with the Republican party getting very few votes from woman, afro-americans, or hispanics. Obama and Biden were the first Northern Democrats team to win the Presidency with out needing a single southern electoral vote. Pretty much in American history the south votes in a bloc dominated by racial politics. In many regards that is still true today. They like to hide those thoughts wiith states rights and get government off our backs statements. But in many respects the average southern republican does not sound much different then John C Calhoun the southern democrat of the 18th century. The big story will the south still have their domination of american electoral politics with bloc voting?
 
The only way he could win is if all those things didn't happen. Reagan won mainly because he projected a strong and positive image, and said that things could be better. He won't win if things are already better.

Forgive me, if this is off-topic and all, but I'm new to the AH scene here.

Here's the thing that confuses me about the 1980 Election... was it Carter's unpopularity that was an issue, or was it Reagan's charisma? Was Carter just so awful a baked potato could win against him, or was Reagan so wonderful he could beat a Democrat of equal charisma? Or was it really the absolute best of the Republican Party against the absolute worst of the Democratic Party?

I've always found this confusing as someone who wasn't around for it. It's generally treated as an inevitable Reagan wins any race he runs in any TL, and that Carter is all but un-electable...
 
Re: Tolkien

I very much agree though I see room for Reagan's contributions...the effect Communism and the party aristocracy had on the "middle class" and workers was paramount...but the economy in people terms (consumer) was atrocious particularly when compared to other industrial countries. Very balanced answer. The debt incurred in the military build up and the inability of Washington to cut butter for guns for a short time (and vice versa)...or as we see now the inability to take any real fiscal responsibility would lead us where we are with or without the Reagan build up. Our problem is we are controlled by bankers through attorneys...and this is all but universal.
 
JVM I am new here also, but my coming of age was wrapped around RR and I think my opinion would be shared by many. Carter was a failure (micro managed and believed the rest of the world would behave well if we did), the trajectory of the American economy was downward at a rapid rate...both interest rates and inflation were very high by any American 20th ca measures (called stagflation) the loss of manufacturing was driving unemployment into double digits (the loss was EPA, labor, and lack of imagination/hubris on management's part driven).
We were watching the Soviets gain ground in the Americas and themselves in the middle of a large rearmament that began in 69. Carter, as Ford before him believed detente with the Soviets would yield a balance of power...then the Shah fell and inspite of Carter's hands off approach (which in the big way was correct) our embassy was seized...in short order (Dec 79) the Soviets invaded Astan which was a strategic threat to the Staits of Hormuz...if they pacified Astan and then put pressure on Pakistan.
Reagan had always been (since the aftermath of WW2) staunchly anti-communist. Though he would not name names to the HUAC etc, he did work to weaken the Communist involvement in the Hollywood unions and then became a spokesman for anti-communism. He gave one of the greatest speaches in American history in favor of Goldwater's failed 64 run. He pulled CA from the brink of economic disaster in the late 60's and 70's and continued to say about the foriegn situation what the "Joe 6-Pack" of the day thought was common sense in a very charismatic way.
Circumstances, Carter's malaise (a phrase from one of the worst speaches in American history) and Reagan being so charismatic and voicing what many thought equaled an unexpected big win...strangely the 3d candidate was a moderate Republican...It may have been a bigger win if Anderson didn't run and the Republican at any price in his supporters voted for Reagan strictly on party and the others simply didn't vote. In many ways it was the perfect storm...I still wonder what things would have been like if the RR of A Time For Changing (the 64 speach) would have been a bigger part of the President RR. Drug War not so big, rearmenment done a bit slower, budget problems seen as just as great a threat as Soviet threats. Maybe that would be a good timeline...WI?
 
Robert...I agree with most of your post. But Carter was rather Progressive on Race (not a bad thing at all until you get to quotas) his whole personal and public life. Being in public life in GA in the 50's-70's meant you had to get along with the old segregationist also to get along in the Democrat party. I watched the change in SC. Segregationism just sort of fell out over a 15 year time...I now have a very conservative, Repulican senator who was my congressman...and an Afro-American of my age. And nearly all of the 1st District of SC is very happy.
 
Last edited:
Robert...I agree with most of your post. But Carter was rather Progressive on Race (not a bad thing at all until you get to quotas) his whole personal and public life. Being in public life in GA in the 50's-70's meant you had to get along with the old segregationist also to get along in the Democrat party. I watched the change in SC. Segregationism just sort of fell out over a 15 year time...I now have a very conservative, Repulican senator who was my congressman...and an Afro-American of my age. And nearly all of the 1st District of SC is very happy.

And to top it off he's of Tea Party persuasion.
 
JVM...I'm an old fart and watched with shock, but not overly shocked, dismay as my old TV came on soon after I returned from voting in '80 and heard that the networks were calling the election for Reagan..it was only about 6:30 Central time. Carter had his problems..poor speaker, appeared weak..but Reagan was a fraud and won because he lied, appealed to the lowest common denominator and was a great actor (well, as far as politicians go). He couldn't win a debate on facts, but could on cute one liners (which is what debaters now practice and aim for) like "Well, there you go again". In '84 when Mondale told the American public the truth..that the only way we would control the deficit and debt would be through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, Ronnie said, Ohno, we can have our cake and eat it, too"..we can "out-grow the debt. Yeah, that worked just swell..and any one with any sense could see that it was BS..but the American electorate has never been accused of seeing through BS. Our problem in the last several elections..hell, every election since poor Fritz got trounced is that we aren't given a choice between a BS'er and a Truth Teller..we're given a choice between 2 BS'ers. Lucky us..Reagan killed off the chance for us to have a choice at someone who might tell us the truth..of course, Pogo was probably right.."We have met the enemy, and he is us".
 
Forgive me, if this is off-topic and all, but I'm new to the AH scene here.

Here's the thing that confuses me about the 1980 Election... was it Carter's unpopularity that was an issue, or was it Reagan's charisma? Was Carter just so awful a baked potato could win against him, or was Reagan so wonderful he could beat a Democrat of equal charisma? Or was it really the absolute best of the Republican Party against the absolute worst of the Democratic Party?

I've always found this confusing as someone who wasn't around for it. It's generally treated as an inevitable Reagan wins any race he runs in any TL, and that Carter is all but un-electable...

Carter was bad, and Reagan was pretty good. But it was closer than people remember. People's memories are colored by his incredible reelection landslide.

There were a number of places were Carter could have won. Especially if he had managed to rescue the hostages.

Also, the Soviets on the march. Hell, even Carter realized he had been playing to much softball with them. He was starting to build up the military himself, but to late to have any credibility on the issue.
 
W/o Reagan...a pacified Astan. $5 a gallon gas. No funds for the information explosion. No reason for Gorbachev to even work his way to the top.as the old hardliners would have been more successful. The thaw working largely to our and Eastern Europes advantage was not possible without showing the USSR they could not succeed either militarily or economically.
With a new Carter admin or a moderate Republican, It would be a bleak 80's. The 90's would look like the late 2010's and 2020's.

I'll tackle one thing: Reagan pushed the hardliners into greater power, not removed them from it. There is a narrative among Conservatives, and frankly Americans as a whole, that the US intimidated the USSR into collapsing. Not so. When Reagan came to power, all that talk about military build up and the evil empire and nukes made the Soviets think this was a man who legitimately had a likelihood to start World War III. That fact didn't remove hardliners from power, it pushed them into greater positions of power and legitimacy, where they were until Gorbachev came and he came because of the stroke of luck that the leaders kept dying.
 
The "New Jim Crow" phrase was invented by Liberals who attempted to confuse History with Geography.

Reagan won in the South by appealing to voters who were overtaxed, and concerned about the weakening of our national defense. The Democrats said that this was "Racist", but it was their policies that kept the South racially divided for decades after the Civil War. Their Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd was a high ranking member of the KKK, and when he was Governor Jimmy Carter was known for his hardcore attitudes on race, moderately only when he became a National Candidate.

Reagan believed in the individual, and the people voted for that. The Democrats never got over that, and have attempted to blame him for their sins.
There is a little more to that there were many Democrats that were willing to help the USSR because it matched many of their ideological beliefs: a small oligarchy can run the "little people" lives better then they can, they supported the USSR for many years after WWII by shielding Russian spies in the FDR and Truman administrations and the rhetoric of the "evil empire" really got under the skin of both soviet leader and democrats that it was a "godless society".
 
I'll tackle one thing: Reagan pushed the hardliners into greater power, not removed them from it. There is a narrative among Conservatives, and frankly Americans as a whole, that the US intimidated the USSR into collapsing. Not so. When Reagan came to power, all that talk about military build up and the evil empire and nukes made the Soviets think this was a man who legitimately had a likelihood to start World War III. That fact didn't remove hardliners from power, it pushed them into greater positions of power and legitimacy, where they were until Gorbachev came and he came because of the stroke of luck that the leaders kept dying.

you might try to get a picture of NK in night time and compare it to ROK. It would be very similar to what the USSR looked like in the 80’s next to Western Europe. Reagan setup three attacks on the communist system: 1. The deregulation of oil and working with allies in the middle east that that dropped the spot price of oil that put a crimp on the hard currency that Russia needed. 2. Opposing every expansion in the world that the communist were pushing at, supporting Afghan Mujahideen, Nicaraguan Contras and Solidarity, with the help of the pope, and taking back the island nation of Grenada. 3. The military buildup with SDI that would make all their nukes useless. At best the USSR was a third world nation with nukes.
 
JVM...I'm an old fart and watched with shock, but not overly shocked, dismay as my old TV came on soon after I returned from voting in '80 and heard that the networks were calling the election for Reagan..it was only about 6:30 Central time. Carter had his problems..poor speaker, appeared weak..but Reagan was a fraud and won because he lied, appealed to the lowest common denominator and was a great actor (well, as far as politicians go). He couldn't win a debate on facts, but could on cute one liners (which is what debaters now practice and aim for) like "Well, there you go again". In '84 when Mondale told the American public the truth..that the only way we would control the deficit and debt would be through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, Ronnie said, Ohno, we can have our cake and eat it, too"..we can "out-grow the debt. Yeah, that worked just swell..and any one with any sense could see that it was BS..but the American electorate has never been accused of seeing through BS. Our problem in the last several elections..hell, every election since poor Fritz got trounced is that we aren't given a choice between a BS'er and a Truth Teller..we're given a choice between 2 BS'ers. Lucky us..Reagan killed off the chance for us to have a choice at someone who might tell us the truth..of course, Pogo was probably right.."We have met the enemy, and he is us".
It's... actually quite nice to hear a story from a Carter voter for once. The way a lot of people tell the story, it makes you wonder why Carter was re-nominated against Ted Kennedy in the first place. Carter and Mondale are always my go-to to explain why the honest politician isn't elected and why the "politicians lie" argument is true yet also irrelevant. On a funny note though, I was talking with a conspiracy theorist once who told me he'd liked Carter because he felt like the last honest politician.

Whether Reagan's a liar or not, I doubt most politicians intentionally lie. They say what they intend to achieve but don't achieve it in the same way most people do every day. It's not that they genuinely know they won't do these things, it's that they underestimate the powers of Congress to prevent them from achieving it. Or they do nothing and they end up like rotten ol' James Buchanan.

Yeah, the Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwhich argument's a favorite of mine to use. That and "if every cynical non-voter banned together to vote for one candidate, he'd win".

Carter was bad, and Reagan was pretty good. But it was closer than people remember. People's memories are colored by his incredible reelection landslide.

There were a number of places were Carter could have won. Especially if he had managed to rescue the hostages.

Also, the Soviets on the march. Hell, even Carter realized he had been playing to much softball with them. He was starting to build up the military himself, but to late to have any credibility on the issue.
That's what I've always figured. I've always seen Reagan as a conservative version of Kennedy in terms of cult following. Both had absolutely fantastic charisma, and are remembered as guaranteed victors, but Kennedy won a close election and Reagan was up against a weak president.

That's why I tend to scoff when I see TL's that make Reagan this definite landslide victor no matter the circumstances.
 
Top