Would George H.W Bush winning re-election, result in a GOP that is less extreme in the long term?

Thread has struck contemporary politics! All hands abandon ship!
I'm just pointing out that certain trends were baked in deeper than is the common wisdom here.

Really, if you people want a GOP that's got no room for trump types you're going to have to up the party's focus on religion, free market and military intervention overseas. More Reagan and Dubya GOP than even Ted Cruz.
 
Ok, we remove the reagan/bush/clinton amnesties and we actually enforce the law? The difference is that Trump would use LEGAL immigration's high numbers, combined with outsourcing/free trade to get traction, and do better given a somewhat whiter US.

Ok, he's not inevitable in 2016 you say? Well, the more favorable demographic situation means it's Trump 2012 instead if you want.

Just to keep us out of contemporary politics, let's review the history of insurgent candidacies. They feed off dissatisfaction with the establishment, not any particular issue positions. The last one before 2016 was Perot. He fed off the sluggish 1991-92 economy and the fact that the Democrats weren't seen as politically viable due to three consecutive electoral vote landslides.

In 1968, we had a bad economy, an unpopular war, social unrest, and a lot of people who were appalled by the counterculture. But we also had a region of the country where most voters considered Republican a dirty word.

In 1948, we had an embattled incumbent and an entire region that wouldn't vote for an R-word.

1980 counts to some extent - stagflation, malaise, a foreign policy mess, disco...but a lot of voters were hesitant to try something as outside the mainstream as Reagan. Anderson failed to break the 10% mark.

The common thread is a failed incumbent and the other party not being viewed as a good alternative. In the case of 2016, all Obama-era financial growth went to Goldman Sachs and people hadn't forgotten the disastrous Bush administration, so there was a ton of anti-establishment feeling. Difference was it didn't manifest as a third party; an outsider captured the GOP nomination and a self-proclaimed socialist made a strong showing on the D side. But the root was anti-establishment anger. Less erosion of the manufacturing base would have tamped down that anger among working class whites, but people were still struggling on most of the country and feeling as if there was no economic opportunity.
 
. . . The difference is that Trump would use LEGAL immigration's high numbers, . . .
I'll readily acknowledge that immigration is a big deal in a number of European democracies whom we otherwise think of as quite liberal.

At the same time, I don't think it's unsolvable, if for no other reason than I'm an optimist. :D And Reagan, with his relaxed California attitude toward immigration, might actually be a pretty good person to pull it off. We might even get trade between the U.S. and Mexico that's legitimately win-win.
 
I'll readily acknowledge that immigration is a big deal in a number of European democracies whom we otherwise think of as quite liberal.

At the same time, I don't think it's unsolvable, if for no other reason than I'm an optimist. :D And Reagan, with his relaxed California attitude toward immigration, might actually be a pretty good person to pull it off. We might even get trade between the U.S. and Mexico that's legitimately win-win.

Free trade is a win for both countries - on the macro level. The political problem is that the costs and benefits aren't distributed evenly. If you're employed in an industry in which the other country has a comparative advantage, you pay the cost. The benefits go to executives, rank and file workers who do enjoy a comparative advantage, and people whose jobs are supported by trade (such as dockworkers).

If you lost your job because your factory relocated to Mexico, you're going to have a hard time seeing free trade as a positive. That's what we saw in the Rust Belt.

400px-1992prescountymap2.PNG


That looks like ASB, but it's 1992.

This map + NAFTA + WTO + the TPP which the Democrats abandoned too late (as well as TARP) = a much redder 2016 county map.

countymaprb1024.png
 
I don't think the US and European countries really have directly comprable left-right axes. For example, social welfare spending is a very different issue structurally in the US(in part because it was never baked in the way it was in say Germany or the UK), on the other hand the US has historically had a very strong pro-immigration policy by European standards in part because of high labor demand, a lot of free available land(so if you've got Too Many People you can just go a few states over) and an ideological commitment to civic nationalism focused on ethnic acculturation and absorption of ethnic cultures into a larger framework.
 
Might you please share a link for this '92 map?

(and how much was it affected by H. Ross Perot running?)

Here you go. It's a good bit down the page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

Perot drew more votes from Bush than from Clinton, but a good number of his voters might have stayed home without a serious third party on the ballot, and a lot of the counties are dark blue indicating a significant margin for Clinton.
 
. . . might have stayed home without a serious third party . . .
Thanks for the link. :D

You're aware of the political science study which I sometimes post which shows that Nader voters in the 2000 election in Florida would have split 60-40 in favor of Gore over Bush, or even closer?

Which given a razor thin election was enough to make a difference, but hell, it was a lot closer to fifty-fifty than I would have ever thought. It kind of blew me out of the water. And gives support to the idea that third party voters vary by something other than the left-right number line.
 
Last edited:
Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?

A Ballot-Level Study of Green and Reform Party Voters
in the 2000 Presidential Election


http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf

Michael Herron, Jeffrey Lewis, April 24, 2006.


' . . . We analyze a collection of 2.95 million Florida county general election ballot images maintained by the National Election Study. This NES ballot image archive contains a (nearly) complete records of all ballots cast in ten counties. . . . . . Our ten counties used Votomatic punchcard voting technology in 2000 (none use it now due to changes in Florida state laws), and each ballot image is a sequence of zeroes and ones where a zero reflects a punchcard chad read by an electronic card reader as not having been punched and a one indicates a chad that was read as punched. . . '
And this way, a person can simply look at Nader voters, and just see how they voted down ticket.
 
Last edited:
All the same, if many conservatives believe Perot split the Republican ticket in '92 and thereby gave the election to Clinton, this constitutes yet another reason some conservatives may view Clinton as an illegitimate president.

And thus per OP, with Bush winning re-election, the GOP may be less extreme in the long term.
 
I would argue a Bush win would be unlikely have any major effect on a "less extreme GOP". The majority of the western democracies have seen an increased polarization resulting either in parties moving to less bi-partisanship (extreme is a dreadful word as it implies non-normality and what is normal in politic is indeed a very political question) in the anglo-sphere or new parties emerging as in continental Europa.

Rather I would argue that a number of macro-trends:
  • Digital social media - echo chamber effect driving less dialogue.
  • Globalization - allowing voters to view their political parties in the variance as opposed to its local variety
  • Demographics - increased burden on the welfare state driving deficits, thus creating a need for change
would more relevant drivers for a GOP more interested in talking about as opposed to with its democratic counterpart (and vice versus one might argue).

Of course, there is an interesting discussion here about events versus trends.
 
And the author Justin Murphy doesn't really talk about changing economics over time, particular the slow decline of middle-class jobs which I think is absolutely huge.
 
Well, the big thing to take into account is looking at what his policies and choices would've done. George HW Bush probably would not have implemented what Bill Clinton did to try and fix the economy. This means a longer weak economy as a result of the infamous "voodoo economics." Granted, it all depends on what he would do. If he increased the taxes like he did last time, it would further encourage hard-liners on his side while committing to not doing so would just basically leave the economy weaker for a longer period of time.

Another thing to consider would be the Whitewater controversy and how that would affect the Clintons' standing with the Dems. I'm not sure as how big a deal it would've been; I mean, he was a presidental candidate, but not currently the president. Depending on how things go, it could probably the Dems to further seperate themselves from him if things got bad enough. Though this leaves an opening for 1996. One possible scenario would be the Democrats going for a further left candidate to try and counter the Republicans, who would probably be struggling by this point, either from Bush doing the tax thing again or doing so and being blamed for the economy.

This is my inexperience and lack of knowledge talking, but maybe the Dems would be willing to back Nader up as their candidate. James D. Griffin is hard to tell though he might compromise on economic issues with the Dems as long as he opts out of much with societal issues, though he may be too conservative for them to be a serious presidential candidate. LaRouche would probably also be a dud if due to the past controversies associated with him in the past. Al Gore seems to be the most likely one and he could his prior experience to help. He'd probably do something akin to the Clinton tax reforms and probably sneak in some of his green energy policies there.

Though this leaves Al Gore in how to handle 9/11 though... he'd be an incumbent if he was re-elected and if the Neocons aren't in much position, there could be a quicker capture to Bin Laden if the focus was on Afhganistan instead of Iraq, but I don't know that much on this. It would definitely give a large deal of support and help the Dems out as well. If Bin Laden was captured on in his tenure, he'd leave a pretty accomplished president and this leaves whoever would get would follow him some big shoes to fill.

Now, assuming this is all what happens (for all I know, the Dems could win Nader over and he could win. Reality likes to defy expectations), then it's 2004. Let's say Bin Laden was captured and such, this leaves the nation in a state of what-now. Granted, there are still corporate scandals and economic things to face. Whoever would be in 2004 would have to deal with Katrina (which would make for a hilarious call-back to Gore's mentions of climate change).

The economy is complicated given how it tends to be caused whenever people and corporations go overboard on things (like 2001, the dotcom bubble burst and in 2008, on housing.) Whether it would happen here... I have no idea. It could happen because of the tide of good feelings from Gore's presidency, but his economic policies does seem to have him be the cautious type. He might raise taxes on the rich and try at least put a carbon tax, which could help. Whether what he would put it in would deal with the housing crisis... I don't know.

Let's say the GOP ends up winning the 2004 election. Whoever they put in would have to deal with Katrina and that would affect things. If things remain the same regarding the Housing crisis (I am very unsure if it would, but let's say it does), the GOP would take a blame for it. If it was delayed a bit to where they still won in 2008 and it happened there... not fun for them. 2012-2020 may go to the Dems if the GOP botch it up there.
 
Last edited:
And the author Justin Murphy doesn't really talk about changing economics over time, particular the slow decline of middle-class jobs which I think is absolutely huge.

I don't think deindustrialization had radical effects on economic or social program opinions (Murphy and Ferguson's research both seem to not think so).
 
H.W. Bush winning re-election means that he and the GOP would own NAFTA. IOTL it was Bush who negotiated it and Clinton simply carried it across the finish line of ratification.
 
Top