WI: The Bushes Stay in New England

[Amadeus]

In 1948, a young George HW Bush had just graduated from Yale and he needed a way to make a living. His uncle offered him a job at a prominent Wall St firm, which would've allowed Bush's family to remain in Connecticut while he worked in NYC. But instead Bush decided to relocate Texas and try his hand at the oil business. By the 1950s he was a multimillionaire, and in the 1960s he started getting politically active as a Texas Republican.

But what if Bush had decided to take the Wall St job and stay in Connecticut?

 

[Amadeus]

Bump

 

[jack_donaghy_is_the_shado]

If 41 still decides to enter politics, he'll likely try in new England or perhaps New York.

I'd imagine he'd try running for the house first , or perhaps a state office. Then go for the Senate or governor's office.

His dad worked in New York and was senator from Connecticut while 41 was born in Massachusetts. So those would likely be his options in my opinion. I could also seem him attempt to be a moderate, a bridge between Rocky and Nixon. However, I seem recall some bad blood between rocky and Prescott Bush.

So let's say he follows similar path from otl, but in Massachusetts. Probably a run for the house, highly unlikely he'd run against Ted Kennedy in his first run, but maybe if chappaquiddick or something similar still happens.

As for the next generation, my guess for dunya would be running for the house unless he decides to stay out of politics. Then maybe jeb goes full steam ahead and possibly becomes governor of Massachusetts, Connecticut, or some other state around otl.

 

[BrilliantMistake]

This is a good POD.

So, right off the bat, if George H.W. enters politics (I see no reason why he wouldn’t), he’s gonna be much more of a moderate, even liberal Republican, rather than a conservative. He wouldn’t run in 1964 on a Goldwaterite segregationist platform for one thing.

A non-Texan Poppy Bush is gonna have a very different career trajectory. He could run to replace his father as Connecticut Senator in 1962, beating out Abe Ribicoff. Or he could run in 1964 (he’d lose) or 1968 or 1970. Or for Connecticut Governor around that time, or any of the House seats. He could be very successful there. But he wouldn’t get to know Texas Governor John Connally, who wouldn’t recommend to Nixon that Bush be given a nice appointed position like U.N. Ambassador to reward him for everything he’d done for Texas Republicans. He might still get some kind of appointed position if he wants, but just as likely he doesn’t. If there’s a different U.N. Ambassador to 1971, maybe the American delegation doesn’t fuck up and forget to veto Waldheim, and you get a different U.N. Sec General, though I don’t know who it would be.

Similarly, if someone other than Bush is RNC Chair in 1973, a young Karl Rove might have his election as head of the College Republicans declared illegitimate (crazy story, look it up), which would hinder his career, as he wouldn’t have been introduced to the Bush family, he wouldn’t get a position at the RNC (at least not at this time), and his buddy Lee Atwater might not enter big time politics. Not that the Republican spin doctors are going to vanish and suddenly campaigns are going to be genteel, but there could be some big butterflies there. Especially with Atwater dying young, he might end up dying without ever being more than an obscure minor political op. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

In 1980, if he runs for president he does worse, as he’d almost certainly have a more moderate record. He’ll be too much of a party loyalist to run third party like John Anderson, but he won’t be Reagan’s running mate, too liberal. Reagan already disliked him for being too moderate IOTL, and he was only chosen last minute. I don’t think HW ever gets close to the White House in that case. And Bush campaign manager James Baker won’t end up in Reagan’s orbit either.

If you wanna get really fun, you can have Reagan’s campaign stumble on the primary trail thanks to Atwater not being around in South Carolina. Atwater quietly smeared Connally as “buying the black vote,” to Reagan’s benefit. If Connally had won in SC, he’d continue his campaign, and who knows, maybe even get the nomination? Not extremely likely but it’s AH, you can have fun with it. Maybe you even end up with a ticket balancing conservative Texan Connally and liberal New Englander Bush...

The Bushes, no matter where they live, view political office as their birthright, so George W. and Jeb are still gonna enter politics. I don’t totally know how Jeb wound up in Florida, but Dubya won’t end up in Texas. Moderate Connecticut Governor or Senator George W. Bush? Sounds weird.

They might end up being more like the Chafees than anything, regional and congressional lifers who are mostly unknown to the public at large. Because without that Sun Belt connection, they’re gonna be out of the loop when it comes to the emerging conservative majority.

This will probably lead to Bob Dole ‘88 winning the nomination, or whoever TTL’s Vice President is. That part I can’t answer. George H.W. was only chosen to be Reagan’s running mate after Ford stopped negotiations, and I don’t know who would’ve been third choice (or ITTL, second choice.) You could have fun there. Rumsfeld? Someone crazier? Idk. The ‘88 nominee might start with better numbers than Bush, and not have to run the kind of scorched earth campaign he did. Or they might flounder and even lose to Dukakis (again, no Atwater). Lots of ways that could go.

But you don’t get President George W. Bush, which could have big consequences. A different Republican nominee in 2000 could lose to Gore, or even if they win, could end up with a very different set of advisers and appointees, which could have massive consequences concerning 9/11, terrorism, and Iraq. At this point, you may be in an entirely different world.

 

[Zheng He]

One interesting little butterfly is that this probably affects Mitt Romney's career.

 

[BrilliantMistake]

IOTL Bush ran as a pro-choice, pro-ERA social liberal who blasted Reagan's "voodoo economics". And in spite of all that Reagan chose him anyway because he needed to shore up support from GOP moderates. I don't see how much more liberal Bush could be in this ATL and still be a Republican. And if he's still the runner up in the GOP primaries then he has a good chance of being Reagan's running mate.

Bush was not really that liberal, he was a moderate conservative who seemed liberal compared to Reagan. He was anti-busing, pro-deregulation, pro-death penalty, pro-military buildup, anti-gun control, anti-price controls on oil and gas, pro-welfare cuts, and whatever he said about “voodoo economics,” favored a $20 billion supply side tax cut. He was also not really pro-choice:

“FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTION: I am personally opposed to abortion. I am also opposed to a constitutional amendment which would override the Supreme Court decision by totally prohibiting abortion because there is a need to recognize and provide for exceptional cases -- rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I oppose federal funding for abortion, with the exceptions noted above.”

http://www.4president.org/brochures/1980/georgebush1980brochure.htm

Compare that to John Anderson, who was still able to come in 3rd place in the Republican primaries, and who:

— was for Affirmative Action
— was for busing
— was against draft registration
— was against military buildup
— “marched in the streets for abortion rights”
— said “It’s about time the Republicans had a peace candidate,” and compared himself to Gene McCarthy (!)

The differences between Bush moderation and Anderson liberalism were apparent at the time. Wrote the Atlantic:

“His problem is that Baker and Bush, particularly Bush, have corralled most of the moderate wing of the Republican party. There are strong differences between Anderson and Bush/Baker on such issues as SALT, defense spending, and energy, but Anderson has not been successful at exploiting them.”


http://www.4president.org/brochures/andersonlucey1980brochure.htm

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1980/02/john-anderson-the-nice-guy-syndrome/306028/

And in the Senate, people like Charles Mathias, Chuck Percy, Lowell Weicker, John Chafee, Jacob Javits, and Mark Hatfield represented a kind of Republicanism that was more liberal than Bush’s in this era.

In short, he could be a lot more liberal! He just couldn’t have been more liberal and had much success as a presidential or vice presidential contender.

 

[Amadeus]

One interesting little butterfly is that this probably affects Mitt Romney's career.

It's entirely possible that he'd get started in MA politics at the same time as one of the Bush boys.

 

[BrilliantMistake]

“In a very close race last night, Democratic Lieutenant Governor John Forbes Kerry defeated Congressman George Walker Bush for Massachusetts’s open Senate seat...”

 

[David T]

Why not have GHW Bush run to succeed his father in the Senate from CT in 1962? In OTL, the Democratic candidate Abraham Ribicoff (Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare) only narrowly (51.26-48.75) defeated the Republican candidate (Horace Seely-Brown, Jr.) despite Ribicoff's having been a popular governor. https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=7714

 

[Amadeus]

Why not have GHW Bush run to succeed his father in the Senate from CT in 1962? In OTL, the Democratic candidate Abraham Ribicoff (Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare) only narrowly (51.26-48.75) defeated the Republican candidate (Horace Seely-Brown, Jr.) despite Ribicoff's having been a popular governor. https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=7714

Running to succeed his own father I think would be a bit much even for the Bushes. Perhaps in 1962 or '64 he runs for the House, then goes for the Senate in 1968 or 1970. As weird as it sounds today, Republicans had a much easier time getting elected in New England than in Texas during this period.

 

[Amadeus]

Bush was not really that liberal, he was a moderate conservative who seemed liberal compared to Reagan. He was anti-busing, pro-deregulation, pro-death penalty, pro-military buildup, anti-gun control, anti-price controls on oil and gas, pro-welfare cuts, and whatever he said about “voodoo economics,” favored a $20 billion supply side tax cut. He was also not really pro-choice:

“FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTION: I am personally opposed to abortion. I am also opposed to a constitutional amendment which would override the Supreme Court decision by totally prohibiting abortion because there is a need to recognize and provide for exceptional cases -- rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I oppose federal funding for abortion, with the exceptions noted above.”

http://www.4president.org/brochures/1980/georgebush1980brochure.htm

Compare that to John Anderson, who was still able to come in 3rd place in the Republican primaries, and who:

— was for Affirmative Action
— was for busing
— was against draft registration
— was against military buildup
— “marched in the streets for abortion rights”
— said “It’s about time the Republicans had a peace candidate,” and compared himself to Gene McCarthy (!)

The differences between Bush moderation and Anderson liberalism were apparent at the time. Wrote the Atlantic:

“His problem is that Baker and Bush, particularly Bush, have corralled most of the moderate wing of the Republican party. There are strong differences between Anderson and Bush/Baker on such issues as SALT, defense spending, and energy, but Anderson has not been successful at exploiting them.”


http://www.4president.org/brochures/andersonlucey1980brochure.htm

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1980/02/john-anderson-the-nice-guy-syndrome/306028/

And in the Senate, people like Charles Mathias, Chuck Percy, Lowell Weicker, John Chafee, Jacob Javits, and Mark Hatfield represented a kind of Republicanism that was more liberal than Bush’s in this era.

In short, he could be a lot more liberal! He just couldn’t have been more liberal and had much success as a presidential or vice presidential contender.

"Being from Connecticut" wouldn't necessarily turn Bush into a Jacob Javits liberal Republican. But I do agree that having a record in the Senate could potentially hurt him in 1980. (That's if he's not appointed VP in 1973 or 1974). If not Bush, Reagan might pick Rumsfeld or Baker.

 

[David T]

Running to succeed his own father I think would be a bit much even for the Bushes. Perhaps in 1962 or '64 he runs for the House, then goes for the Senate in 1968 or 1970. As weird as it sounds today, Republicans had a much easier time getting elected in New England than in Texas during this period.

The problem is that if Bush were elected senator from CT, he would probably have too liberal a record to be Reagan's running mate in 1980. Reagan was willing to accept a moderately conservative GHW Bush from Texas; a more liberal GHW Bush from CT would be another matter. I think we would be more likely to see a Reagan-Howard Baker ticket in 1980.

 

[BrilliantMistake]

"Being from Connecticut" wouldn't necessarily turn Bush into a Jacob Javits liberal Republican. But I do agree that having a record in the Senate could potentially hurt him in 1980. (That's if he's not appointed VP in 1973 or 1974). If not Bush, Reagan might pick Rumsfeld or Baker.

Maybe not a Javits, but who knows? Bush was...let’s just say ideologically flexible. In 1964 Texas he’s a states’ rights conservative. In 1970s Washington he’s an establishment internationalist. In 1988, he’s a Reagan stand-in, etc. In 1960s Connecticut, he’d almost certainly be picking up the moderate baton of his father, who was treasurer for Planned Parenthood, a buddy to Nelson Rockefeller, and an endorser of Henry Cabot Lodge in ‘64. If HW Bush was expected to take stances like that, he’d probably take them. And that means on the record with votes, as you point out. And that would hurt him. So probably not a Javits, but more of a liberal than he ever had to be IOTL.

 

[BrilliantMistake]

I also just remembered that in ‘92, he ran ads touting his support of congressional term limits, as if he was trying to (farcically) siphon off some of Perot’s anti-establishment energy. He was a chameleon, that Poppy.

 

[Amadeus]

I also just remembered that in ‘92, he ran ads touting his support of congressional term limits, as if he was trying to (farcically) siphon off some of Perot’s anti-establishment energy. He was a chameleon, that Poppy.

If that's the case, then I wouldn't trust him to defend his entire Senatorial record if/when he runs for President (as few politicians do). It's also worth noting that the Bushes (even after moving to TX) were rivals with CT Senator Lowell Weicker - a moderate to liberal Republican. This was in part because they found Weicker too liberal. HW's brother Prescott Jr ran against Weicker in the 1982 GOP primary, but lost.

If HW Bush were elected to the Senate in 1970 in Weicker's place, I do think that in some ways he'd be more liberal (or at least more moderate) than OTL but I doubt he'd be a Javits Republican. As an ambitious politician in the 1970s he'd understand where the GOP is headed and that running as a Rockefeller liberal won't get him to the White House.

 

[Amadeus]

“In a very close race last night, Democratic Lieutenant Governor John Forbes Kerry defeated Congressman George Walker Bush for Massachusetts’s open Senate seat...”

I love the irony here. W would be better off in CT than in MA due to the Bay State's Democratic lean (with the exception of gubernatorial races, where Jeb could potentially do well). But one thing that might attract Dubya to Boston would be the Red Sox.

Here's an idea: Dubya moves to MA and wins a Congressional seat but loses the Senate election to Kerry. Afterwards he buys the Boston Red Sox and they win the World Series sometime in the 1980s. George W. Bush goes down in history as a baseball legend, with a hit movie made about his life sometime in the 1990s or early 2000s.

 

[David T]

IOTL Bush ran as a pro-choice, pro-ERA social liberal who blasted Reagan's "voodoo economics". And in spite of all that Reagan chose him anyway because he needed to shore up support from GOP moderates. I don't see how much more liberal Bush could be in this ATL and still be a Republican.

The Republican congressmen from CT-04 (Fairfield County--the most likely district for a Connecticut Congressman GHW Bush to represent) from the 1960's to the 2000's--Abner W. Sibal, Lowell Weicker, Stewart McKinney, and Christopher Shays--were all more liberal than GHW Bush, yet all remained Republican (except Weicker who only left the party years later).

By comparison, Bush's voting record as a congressman from Texas was quite conservative:

"Liberated, at least for a time, from pressures on his right political flank, Bush told his wife, "Labels are for cans." With greater insight, Barbara Bush added, "If I had to label George, I would say he was a fiscal conservative and a social liberal." That said, Bush's voting record during his four years in the House of Representatives (eschewing pressures from some Republicans in 1968 to run for governor of Texas, he was instead reelected without opposition to the House) was consistently conservative by contemporary standards. One year it was the most conservative of anyone in the 23- member Texas delegation. The liberal group Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), which focused largely on economic issues, gave Bush an average annual Liberal Quotient (LQ) of 5 percent for the period 1967-70, the four years he served in the House. Bush cast only four liberal votes in the seventy-four roll calls that ADA rated most important during the 90th and 91st Congresses: one for a 1967 bill making it a crime to injure, intimidate, or interfere with civil rights workers (it passed the House 326-93, with most Texas representatives voting for it); one for a 1969 bill forbidding a North Carolina presidential elector pledged to Nixon in the 1968 election to cast his vote for third-party candidate George C. Wallace; and two in 1970 for Nixon administration–backed proposals: the Philadelphia Plan mandating minority hiring in federal construction projects in ways designed to pit two Democratic constituencies, blacks and organized labor, against each other (Bush opposed a bill to kill it) and the Family Assistance Act, which proposed to abolish the federal government's main welfare program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, in favor of a guaranteed income with a strong work requirement—the part of the bill that Bush emphasized as a remedy for "idleness" when defending his vote. Bush's somewhat misleading reputation in later years as a moderate Republican was forged at this stage of his career. The reputation has two main origins, neither of them grounded in his conservative voting record in Congress or in his campaigns for political office in Texas. One was Bush's intense interest in issues related to population control" and the other his vote for the civil rights act of 1968. https://books.google.com/books?id=ogb1AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT448

So, yes, I could see a Connecticut Republican GHW Bush being to the left of Texas Republican GHW Bush. (BTW, the attack on supply-side as "voodoo economics" was more from an old-fashioned conservative "balance the budget" standpoint than from a "progressive" one.)

 

[V-J]

Bush was not really that liberal, he was a moderate conservative who seemed liberal compared to Reagan. He was anti-busing, pro-deregulation, pro-death penalty, pro-military buildup, anti-gun control, anti-price controls on oil and gas, pro-welfare cuts, and whatever he said about “voodoo economics,” favored a $20 billion supply side tax cut. He was also not really pro-choice:

But muh moderate superman!

Indeed, Bush wasn't pro-choice in 1980. I don't know where Amadeus has got that from. He was running a moderate position on that, contra the Gipper's pro-constitutional amendment position - that's what that platform position your cite is implicitly referring to. More moderate than a lot of Republicans and his main opponent, but I mean, wanting to defund abortion federally is, y'know, not the Liberal maximum on the issue, either then or now.

The only consistent thing George Bush believed in was George Bush being in office and doing some public service. In consequence, he wandered all over hell's half acre in terms of actual positions. His background, his upbringing, that kind of upper-class milieu, it's similar to a lot of British Etonian Tories in eschewing anything too rigid, too ideological. Or indeed anything upper-case Political at all; public service is just What You Do. Whatever political environment you put him in at any given time, that's what his politics are going to be.

 

[Zheng He]

I also just remembered that in ‘92, he ran ads touting his support of congressional term limits, as if he was trying to (farcically) siphon off some of Perot’s anti-establishment energy. He was a chameleon, that Poppy.

Most career politicians are chameleons...

 

[Zheng He]

It's entirely possible that he'd get started in MA politics at the same time as one of the Bush boys.

And I could see the Bush family going out of their way to curb stomp him. For all of the genteel persona they looked to present they could be quite nasty when they saw fit and I don't think they would appreciate a challenge from the son of another Republican scion. IMO they would do their best to send Mitt packing to Michigan or even Utah.