What if Reagan didn’t survive? What would be the consequences?
I think not much would change in global politics. The pressure would be still applied to the Soviet block, which would still crumble. All the major conflicts would still take place. In short, I don’t see world affairs taking a different route.
Saddam would still do what he did.
ObL would still do what he did.
Bush would still do…
Well, here it gets trickier. The whole US presidential succession would be completely different.
One thing for sure, Bush pere would become POTUS in 1981. Considering his demonstrated political weaknesses, would he survive against Mondale in 1984? Probably, considering how lopsided it was.
But after that, all bets are off. What would happen to Dukakis, Clinton, GW?
PS. No, I didn’t mention Saddam and Osama in the same sentence. I even put them in separate paragraphs. So nobody don’t imply that I implied anything.
I think if GHWB ascended to the Presidency in 1981 the Democrats would have fielded someone other than Mondale as a candidate. Maybe give Kennedy another go. He came close to the nomination in 1980 and was still fresh enough that he might have made it.
I don’t think GHWB (while, IMHO a better person than RR) had anywhere NEAR the leadership ability/charisma/ability to inspire that RR had. I think Congress would have been MUCH tougher on him than on Reagan. That spins things all over the place.
GHWB is replace in 1984 by someone on the other side (reasonable chance) and that person would have faced serious competition from Dole or Robertson or SOMEONE in 1988.
The elder Bush was committed to the trickle-down Reaganomics, so that wouldn’t have changed. Bush was an ex-spymaster from the CIA, so the ham-handed Iran-Contra crimes would have been handled more smoothly. They may not have been exposed at all.
Reagan let the religious right believe he was one of 'em; GHWB not so much. Reagan was a powerful draw for off-year elections, and his support for Republicans in House and Senate races cannot be underestimated. He was the purest president in a long time, in that he had almost no “moral” baggage going into the White House, and except for the Iran-contra “scandal,” gained almost none while in office. (Frankly, most of us Americans didn’t really understand the badness of Iran-contra.) Reagan left office without the stain of war that dogged Johnson, the crimes that sank Nixon, the appearance of incompetence that doomed first Ford and then Carter or the moral quagmire that would almost swallow Clinton.
All of this is preamble to the idea that Reagan’s coattails provided the highway for the conservative shift in 1982 and 1984. Ronald Reagan, more than being just the president, was a symbol of everything the conservatives, and especially the religious right, wanted in America. The conservatives’ “Contract with America” was a direct result of Regan’s symbolism. GHWB served only one term, not because his tax policies broke the “contract,” but because he didn’t court the religious right the way Reagan had. They deserted him, abstained from voting in 1992, and let the centrists and liberals elect Clinton. Dubya learned the lesson well and betrayed his ultra-conservative base only after winning his second term.
Would things be different? Probably. Without Reagan, the religious right probably wouldn’t have found the traction they needed in the '82 and '86 elections to get the conservative agenda elected into Congress.
I doubt Reagan was handling Iran-Contra to any level that affected it’s “smoothness”. In fact, I always assumed Bush was handling it anyway, being ex-CIA as you noted.
It was because Congress had decided the U.S. should not be funding the Contras any more. Which was properly Congress’s call, and Reagan himself did sign the Boland Amendment. () And then these guys did an underground end-run around that. Granted, most Americans pay little attention to such issues as the proper division of power between the legislative and executive branches, and probably thought of the whole affair as “politics” rather than a threat to the rule of law; and there was some level of grass-roots support for the Contras in any case. Also, and probably more upsetting to most people who paid attention, there was the aspect of trading arms for hostages – “negotiating with terrorists” – and doing it with the Iranians, just a few years after the hostage crisis.
One big issue is who would Bush have named as VP in 1981? I’m thinking he might have gone with Howard Baker or Bob Dole. Whoever it was, would have been an obvious front runner for the 1988 nomination.
I don’t think that the Soviet Union would have fallen. Bush pere was a coward when it came to international affairs. Remember that he almost went wobbly in the first Gulf War, and he didn’t finish it. And he simply didn’t have the leadership ability and charisma of Reagan. I can easily see him failing to get reelected.
Gorbachev, as I recall, was doing his best to preserve the Soviet Union because he knew it was in trouble. He came up with a master plan to save the Soviet Union called the Union Treaty. Right then, Yeltsin and the rest pulled the rug out from under him.
I know. But my point was that the Soviet Union collapsed because of internal events in that country. Reagan had essentially nothing to do with it and wasn’t even in office when it happened. But some of his fans continue to insist that he personally won the Cold War.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
It was because Congress had decided the U.S. should not be funding the Contras any more…
Yes, yes, to the ultra-sensitive, highly intellectual left wing, Iran-contra was the slippery slope that led to the loss of every civil liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. To the rest of us Democrats, the whole Iran-contra fracas was a ridiculous sideshow that distracted us – or rather, our party leadership – from the very real threat of a Republican takeover of Congress … which actually happened during Reagan’s first term. While our party’s leadership was grilling Ollie North and posturing over separation of powers, the Republicans were grabbing real power, and 20 years later, they still haven’t let go of it.
Were I a very cynical conspiracy theorist, I’d propose that the Reaganites deliberatly committed misdemeanors for the specific purpose of distracting the Democratic leadership. Of course, then I’d propose that Dubya’s folks started the Iraq war for the specific purpose of getting their man re-elected, since the country has never failed to re-elect an at-war president.
But we digress … I maintain my original position: Reagan was thickly coated with Teflon, making him the perfect key to unlock the doors to power for the Republicans. So yes, I believe his sudden death, and GHWB’s sudden promotion, would have vastly changed the American political landscape.
Aren’t you ignoring the role that regime change in Eastern Europe in 1989 played in the collapse in the Soviet Union? And in ignoring this, you are ignoring too the very real role the Reagan Administration played in directly supporting groups like Solidarity.
Some of Reagan’s critics continue to forget all that Reagan did. Like Star Wars. Half a trick, but the Soviets fell for it hook, line, and sinker. And the disarmament talks. And the support of the Afghans. And the overthrow of the coup in Grenada. And the support for those who opposed communism throughout the world. And…
What makes you think there would have been a Gorbachev? Gorbachev wasn’t picked as Secretary General until 1985, and many attribute that to an attempt to placate the various Republics that were beginning to stir with unrest. Reagan was at the forefront of fomenting that unrest by calling out the Soviet Union for what it was, an evil empire, and for standing up for dissident movements. This can’t be underestimated - former dissidents have spoken of the huge boost in morale they got when Reagan started calling out the Soviet Union.
Gorbachev may also have been picked because of Reagan’s defense build-up and bellicose stance, which made the Politburo attempt to put a ‘human face’ on the USSR to deflect criticism and hopefully give them some bargaining space with the U.S.
Had the U.S. wound up with an ineffectual, appeasement-oriented President like Carter or Mondale or Kennedy, the Soviets may have decided that they could still ‘win’ through aggression.
Anyway, answering the question of what would have happened had Reagan not been around is pretty much impossible. There are a whole spectrum of possible outcomes. Perhaps appeasement would have emboldened the Soviets and caused them to move further into the Middle East, leading to a world war. Or perhaps Reagan would have become a martyr and caused an even more conservative President to be elected in 1988. Who knows?
No. That’s not what I said. I said that the Soviet Union would not have fallen if it weren’t for Reagan; I do not believe that Bush, had he taken over in 1981 would have caused the fall of the Soviet Union. He didn’t cause the fall in 1991 either: he had to be pushed into war against Saddam (‘Now is not the time to go wobbly, George’), and couldn’t finish the job.
We conservatives would sincerely like to thank the Tweed & Elbow Patch set for all their fine service to our cause. Keep strummin’ those mandolins, boys! You make it like shooting fish in a barrel.
Keep strummin’ those mandolins, boys! You make it like shooting fish in a barrel.