Alternate GOP development

[V-J]

This is based on chatter in the 2012 thread on Chat.

Two scenarios presented themselves to me based on stuff Magniac said.

The first is that Reagan remains compos for longer, perhaps until his death. Would this have any effect on how the GOP developed over the last twenty years? I doubt Reagan would be an active president emeritus in the way Thatcher was as an ex-PM, quite apart from that kind of thing being more frowned on in the US, but inevitably his name would be invoked by people, and perhaps inevitably Reagan would then be drawn to comment on certain things. If that happens, then what would Reagan say? Would he bend and flex with party developments, or would he try to keep the GOP 'honest'? Potentially here even Reagan commenting in a small way could be regarded as huge.

Another is the possiblity of McCain winning in 2000 and serving two-terms. What would that do to the GOP? The culture war that was the 2004 election is gone, Rove can't do his get out the base strategy, perhaps politics is less polarised - or would it inevitably be polarised similar to OTL by McCain's probably hyperactive foreign policy? Unlike Reagan, I can see McCain being a relatively vocal former president, post-2009, who would very much want to continue the project of 'GOP as Teddy would have wanted it'.

Thoughts?

 

[Magniac]

Dubya was very good at getting all his establishment ducks in a row prior to the announcement of his candidacy, which is a major problem for McCain in 1999/2000. Next in line and all.

Gramps really needs Bush to have an accident in order to become the frontrunner for the nomination, much like Hillary late in the Democratic primary process of 2008. If this happens then IMO McCain is strong enough to beat off Forbes without needing to pledge any support for massive tax cuts (McCain eventually voted against both rounds of Bush adminstration taxcuts--2001 and 2003--IIRC.)

Economically a President McCain is the best hope for the GOP to at least keep their deficit spending under control. Of course there is also Iraq and Afghanistan to consider, so maintenance of the surplus is impossible...

 

[reformedcpmuser]

The first is that Reagan remains compos for longer, perhaps until his death. Would this have any effect on how the GOP developed over the last twenty years? I doubt Reagan would be an active president emeritus in the way Thatcher was as an ex-PM, quite apart from that kind of thing being more frowned on in the US, but inevitably his name would be invoked by people, and perhaps inevitably Reagan would then be drawn to comment on certain things. If that happens, then what would Reagan say?

A Ronald Reagan president-emeritus scenario might help to keep fiscal conservatives in the fold. However, the social conservatives have been wed to the GOP ever since the Republicans decided in the 1970's to take on abortion as one of their major wedge planks. Reagan himself flip-flopped on the issue: he was pro-abortion as Calif. governor, and then anti-abortion when he wanted the GOP "values voter" bloc during his 1980 prez run. Personally, Ronnie was not a churchgoer and probably cared little about the issue. He was instrumental, however, in locking in the evangelical vote and the Catholic bishops.

If Reagan is compos into the 90's, expect even higher military expenditure. Ronnie'll find someone to fight, even after the fall of the wall.

 

[grandbudda]

Can't really see too much changing. When we look back at Reagan we gain true appreciation in hind sight. The fact is Reagan wasn't quite as adored in his own time. He is however a great model for almost any President.

 

[hcallega]

For McCain to win in 2000, Bush needs not to run. This could happen by him being defeated in 1994 by Ann Richards, or simply sticking with the Rangers and banking on being elected Commissioner when Selig retires. If that happens, then you probably see a wider field in 2000, but if there are enough conservative voices that they drown each other out, then I could see McCain winning.

If that happens, then you have a much better foreign policy and a much worse economic policy. That sounds really generic, so I'll elaborate. McCain is much more knowledgeable about foreign affairs than Bush, so he will handle the War on Terror in a more decisive and concise matter. It's unlikely he invades Iraq without clear evidence of WMD or a link to bin Laden. On domestic policy, he probably pushes for a lot of the policies Bush did, minus NCLB and the massive tax cuts. However when the economy bellies up he's screwed. McCain is not an economic expert in the least bit, and remained silent during the White House meeting that he and Obama were invited to. He actually attempted to submarine Paulson's plan because he wanted to take credit for any bailout. So matters are the same if not worse come 2008. Maybe no bailout, and the economy completely explodes.

 

[V-J]

To clarify, I'm not asking for a 'how-to' on a McCain presidency or neccessarily to outline of how it would transpire. I'm asking for what effect it would have on the party. Just how would the party view McCain at the end of his presidency? Would there be the narrative that McCain wasn't 'one of us', which you get in some ways now with Bush, or would McCain succeed in shifting at least some things, eg, the debate over the defecit?

 

[hcallega]

I think that McCain would be viewed negatively by the Christian Right and the Grover Norquist folks. He would be very popular with rank and file Republicans, and would probably keep suburban whites from leaving the party. He would also keep Hispanics in the mold, as I would expect a very serious push for immigration reform. But the financial crisis would probably be all the right would need to disown him, sort of like H.W.

 

[reformedcpmuser]

I think that McCain would be viewed negatively by the Christian Right and the Grover Norquist folks.

The "Grover Norquist folks" (aka FreedomWorks, Club for Growth, much of the Tea Party movement) have never seemed to be happy with any GOP candidate after Reagan. What Norquist and allies are good at doing is drawing together the fringe and riling them up. Other than that, they've yet to field a strong contender in the primaries. Steve Forbes maybe? His run was halfhearted; Forbes is a blueblood and no populist.

The Christian right wasn't nuts about McCain especially because he didn't reassure them with anti-abortion talk. However, serious values voters have known that the GOP has took them for a 30+ year ride when it comes to abortion. Christianists stick with the GOP simply because of the hope that a Republican will throw them a SCOTUS bone or two (which W. dutifully did). Generally, Christianists will just pull the R lever even though they know that the GOP nominee might not do anything for them.

 

[Wendell]

Under the first scenario, Reagan would be a major party fundraising draw, and further could be a power player as far as endorsements are concerned, much as Bill Clinton has been since leaving office. Reagan also likely reconciles with his kids.

As for the second scenario, the absence of Rovian campaigning might butterfly away the "Fifty State Strategy" and Howard Dean's successful Democratic Party chairmanship. This in turn changes how things develop between 2004 and 2006.

 

[Magniac]

That sounds really generic, so I'll elaborate. McCain is much more knowledgeable about foreign affairs than Bush, so he will handle the War on Terror in a more decisive and concise matter. It's unlikely he invades Iraq without clear evidence of WMD or a link to bin Laden. On domestic policy, he probably pushes for a lot of the policies Bush did, minus NCLB and the massive tax cuts. However when the economy bellies up he's screwed.

Yes to him being screwed at that point, no to him leaving anything like the longterm debt crisis that Dubya bequeathed his successor.

I don't think you understand how badly the level of deficit spending perpetuated by Dubya worsened the fallout from the crisis sparked by deregulation which hit Wall Street in '08.

McCain running smaller deficits than Bush in general can't possibly make things worse when the bubble bursts:

Mr. Bush has focused on a big tax cut, valued by his campaign at $483 billion over five years. Mr. McCain's tax cut is half the size of Mr. Bush's, $240 billion over five years, and Mr. McCain would use much more of the surplus in an effort to ensure Social Security's long-term solvency through the most sweeping overhaul in the retirement system's 65-year history.

QED...



...at least as long as around half that orange filler is cut in half by President McCain, not that there wouldn't be a lot of pressure on him to respond to the post-9/11 economic shock by going the full Forbes. Though there's almost certainly a knife-edge senate during his first term. (FWIW his SS plans apparently included privatised accounts, so I think that's one policy that's DoA in the US Senate whenever the specific legislation is submitted.)

and a much worse economic policy.

I'm curious as to how you reached that conclusion, because as I've shown if McCain's original fiscal policy is implemented then America would be in a better position to handle both the deficit increase and the jobless recovery that must result from a Wall Street crash/recession in the post-Glass-Steagall era.

(I have doubts about McCain being a better foreign policy president than Bush, and they won't be dispelled until we have any testimony from the old man about how he wouldn't have invaded Iraq. He sure is happy to give the impression that's something he would have done after 9/11, so I currently take him at his word.)