Bicentennial Man: Ford '76 and Beyond

Even with my financial planning background I’m not really a policy whiz by any means (especially on something as opaque as health insurance lol) but this is probably close to where Carey-care/Teddy-care will land
I’ve become a major fan of policies the past couple years. That stuff fascinates me.

While I’m all for public option and I know CountDVB is all for universal healthcare (both with their strengths and weaknesses), if the Democrats pass sweeping healthcare reform now in the 1980s the that won’t be in the national debate come the 2000s.

It all depends with what you have planned.
 
Fair, but they’ll have to be careful as well. Some of these guys may be facing pressure to fold since defecting would lead to potential blows to their popularity and so on.

For your Dixiecrat Dem they have a really difficult tightrope to walk. They are elected by some of the most "right wing" electorates in the US by many, but not all measures, but big government is not intrinsically unpopular the way it is in the non coastal West, just so long as it is the Interstate Highways, NASA, TVA way that directly and tangibly benefits the White Middle Class. If your health care policy doesn't raise taxes more than it saves them health insurance they'll vote for it. But anything too redistributive is a problem (because in practice that means redistributing from White to Black). Big but not redistributive is their ideal.

Edit: and to be clear if the choice (as it became in OTL) is between big and non-distributive they'd rather a small state that doesn't do the things they want but doesn't tax them to redistribute to blacks. Because racism.
 
Last edited:
Well, they were in talks of that in 1970s, and then Watergate, so the issue and potentially was there and seriously taken, like I put earlier. It only died because of Reagan’s lucky victory and the shift occurred from there.

That may reflect more on Carter given the reputation he had for not working too well with Congress. I like the guy, but he was not a good president.

I get that, but there would still be some fair bit of liberal Republicans there. And honestly, depends on what Carey does. Austerity measures will, like OTL, fail.

We should probably so we don’t bother @KingSweden24 too much XD.
Fair enough on Carter and his, umm, “relationship” with Congress.

Yes there are a few liberal GOP Congressmen and that’s why I think the limited Seven Point Proposal I suggested for Careycare has a better chance of staying even when the GOP make a comeback in the ‘90s. And they can be built from there to reach the far better and more extensive healthcare expansions we’re both pushing for. Our timetables are just different and I get that.

And expanding Medicare and Medicaid isn’t austerity, it’s limited expansion. Also establishing HSAs, eliminating barriers to cross-state health insurance plans, increasing tax deductions for healthcare costs are all going to help. These will be paid for by increased employment leading to increased tax revenue, plus a small Federal Sales Tax on alcohol, cigarettes and junk food.

As for Health Savings Account, I need to clarify. I’m not advocating for Carey to set up a system where an HSA is an individual or family’s sole healthcare plan, but rather one that acts as an optional ‘medical bank’ in conjunction to their regular plan.

So say an individual has BlueCrossBlueShield and had a $700 surgery in 1981. Insurance paid for $550 of it. For that remaining $150 they can take it out of their $300 Health Savings Account to pay it without having to go into their saving or checking accounts.

And they don’t have to have an HSA, it’s optional. And if they only want to have $100 in there that’s fine, it’s just a maximum of $300. So it is a bit different than the HSAs we have today. This HSA is a supplement to regular insurance.

Also discussing facets of this timeline in a PM doesn’t make much sense in my opinion since neither of us are the author. And even if KingSweden goes in a completely different direction, we’re at least providing food for thought.
 
Last edited:
And nothing of value was lost.

Fun fact, IOTL after elements of the Sinisalo faction were expelled from the original Communist Party of Finland, they reformed, adopted the name Communist Party of Finland (Unity). A name so strikingly ironic given how their new party came about because of nearly two decades of disunity and rivarly within the old party before finally being expelled. The irony didn't fade one bit as time passed, as in 1988 hardliner elements of this new party broke off, forming the new Communist Worker's Party, accusing the party leaders of revisionism and for having distanced too far from Marxist-Leninist ideological principles.
Communists avoid splintering challenge
"IMPOSSIBLE!"
 
A Democrat was President from 1993 to 2001 - 7 of 10 years of the 90s. If that's not dominance at the Presidential level what is?
Having the president be from your party doesn’t mean your “dominating”. Eisenhower was a republican but nobody says the republicans dominated the 1950s. Obama was a two-termer but nobody would say democrats “dominated” 2009-2016.
For your Dixiecrat Dem they have a really difficult tightrope to walk. They are elected by some of the most "right wing" electorates in the US by many, but not all measures, but big government is not intrinsically unpopular the way it is in the non coastal West, just so long as it is the Interstate Highways, NASA, TVA way that directly and tangibly benefits the White Middle Class. If your health care policy doesn't raise taxes more than it saves them health insurance they'll vote for it. But anything too redistributive is a problem (because in practice that means redistributing from White to Black). Big but not redistributive is their ideal.
I honestly don’t think the southern democrats will put up much of a fight on healthcare because of the bad levels of unemployment currently plauging most southern states. A public option system would be pretty intruiging to southerners who don’t have healthcate due to neing unemployed or those who’s jobs are not secure. Southern Democrats could campaign on it in 1982
 
Having the president be from your party doesn’t mean your “dominating”. Eisenhower was a republican but nobody says the republicans dominated the 1950s. Obama was a two-termer but nobody would say democrats “dominated” 2009-2016.
I was explicitly talking about the Presidential level. Republicans dominated at the Presidential level in the 50s, same as Democrats in the 90s.
 
Judging by hints at the future, the Dems will have control of both Congress and the Presidency throughout the 80's while the GOP will control both for most of the 90's in a contrast to OTL and ITTL 70's. I imagine divided government is seen as more unproductive ITTL.
 
But the Democrats had dominant control of Congress throughout most of the 1930s up to the 1980s. Obviously there were several Republican Presidents and brief moments when either the House or Senate were GOP controlled but even during that entire time the Democratic Party never passed Universal Healthcare or a Public Option even when nations in Europe were doing so.
Well, first, FDR really bungled his best chance by not adding National Heath Insurance in his Social Security Bill in 1936.
Next, the Dems did not really dominate the 1950s. The 1960s saw Vietnam and Civil Rights gaining prominence - both of these never became problems in Europe. Substantial healthcare reforms could have been passed in 1970s-1980s had someone else other than Carter became President in 1976.

Plus, while 1981-1984 might be tricky economically, 1985-1988 would be easy mode for Carey's team.
 
Having the president be from your party doesn’t mean your “dominating”. Eisenhower was a republican but nobody says the republicans dominated the 1950s. Obama was a two-termer but nobody would say democrats “dominated” 2009-2016.

Judging by hints at the future, the Dems will have control of both Congress and the Presidency throughout the 80's while the GOP will control both for most of the 90's in a contrast to OTL and ITTL 70's. I imagine divided government is seen as more unproductive ITTL.

I think the test of "domination" is controlling all three elected branches simultaneously for multiple terms, so 2008-2010 was was not for long enough to qualify as "dominated" ditto 1992-994.
 
I think the test of "domination" is controlling all three elected branches simultaneously for multiple terms, so 2008-2010 was was not for long enough to qualify as "dominated" ditto 1992-994.
In which case, perhaps 1980 is the OTL end of Dem domination. Carter had a trifecta his entire presidency...
 
How high is American military spending compared to other periods and OTL? Must be pretty high given the upheavals in Central America and the Middle East
 
1981 United States elections
1981 United States elections

One can debate to what extent elections for Governor in places like New Jersey and Virginia are bellwethers for the state of politics in the United States, and it is especially questionable how much mayoral elections in New York are representative of the whole of the republic considering New York's uniqueness both demographically but also culturally compared to other major American cities. Nonetheless, the polls of autumn 1981, coming near the end of Hugh Carey's first full year in office as President, were telling of a few different things, and New York came to be seen as an important litmus test for what people thought of the brash Brooklynite, especially in his hometown.

In New York at least, the Carey administration - having passed substantial reform legislation to jumpstart a tepid economy, stared down a potential debilitating strike by the air traffic controllers' union, captured Omar Torrijos and in the week before voters went to the polls supported Sweden in its David vs. Goliath shootout with the Soviets over the course of three days - was redeemed, avoiding what would have been humiliating headlines of Carey's close friend and ally Mayor Mario Cuomo losing to former Rite-Aid CEO and investment banker Lewis Lehrman, who ran a fiery, populist campaign that married the unapologetic conservative persona of Ronald Reagan to the law-and-order rhetoric of Nixonian Republicanism. Cuomo, who despite a great deal of oratorical talent in prepared situations was never known as a particularly dogged campaigner and who had had the misfortune of governing New York City during the nadir of its post-Beame recovery in the midst of the worst recession in forty years, was not quite the underdog but nonetheless faced a remarkably stiff test, especially as Lehrman focused on the high taxes imposed by Cuomo's City Hall to continue making up the city's deficit, the historically high crime rates, and making a fierce attempt to associate the general feeling of decline in the City with Democratic control over its institutions, promising that he would run the city the way he had run Rite-Aid.

This was not as easily said as done, of course. Cuomo frequently reminded voters of how much they had disliked John Lindsay and, for that matter, Abe Beame, unflinchingly hurling his unpopular once-ally and predecessor under the bus. His ads blasted Lehrman as a ruthless businessman and tried to highlight layoffs from Rite-Aid and especially targeted working class white voters in Staten Island and Queens with material that emphasized Lehrman's high-flying lifestyle. Whether this worked is debatable - Lehrman won Staten Island easily and nearly carried Queens, but Cuomo's advantage in his home neighborhood in Jamaica as well as carrying the other three boroughs, especially huge margins in Manhattan, earned him a surprisingly healthy 54-45 win and a second (and, he promised, final) term at Gracie Manor. Nonetheless, Lehrman's blueprint in the outerboroughs - touting one's wealth as experience, aggressively law-and-order, painting liberals as bleeding-heart wimps, appealing to culturally conservative white voters put off by the post-1964 evolution of the Democratic Party - did not go unnoticed by either Democrats or Republicans, and a number of strategists began to ponder how they could use this to their own advantage. In that sense, the lessons learned from the 1981 New York City mayoral election would set up a series of events that would come to define, and indeed haunt, the Carey White House.

Glad as he was that the populist braggadocio of the Lehrman campaign was beaten more soundly than the media perhaps made it seem was likely to be the case, there were little other good signs for Carey in the results from Virginia and New Jersey. The former had largely been expected to go against the administration, despite its history as a Solid South state; thanks to the rapid growth of suburban DC and Richmond, and the slow transition of rural whites from the Democrats to the Republicans, Virginia had seen two Republican governors in the 1970s and only the conservative (by national standards) Andrew Miller had been able to narrowly win in 1977, at a time before the Ford administration's popularity had tanked. Miller's Lieutenant Governor, Chuck Robb, was thus the leading candidate for the 1981 election, facing off against the Republican Attorney General Marshall Coleman. It was not a particularly exciting affair, with Coleman running a bog-standard Nixonian law-and-order campaign but otherwise a moderate profile proposing more investments in education and roads, while Robb promised to continue Miller's slow-and-steady style in managing the Virginia economy. Coleman won decisively, 54-44, to return Republicans to the Governor's mansion for the third time since 1969, bringing 38-year old state senator Nathan Miller (no relation to the outgoing Governor) over the line as Lieutenant Governor while Democrat Gerry Baliles narrowly won the AG's office to prevent the GOP from taking all three.

This had largely been expected by national Democrats, however - it was instead New Jersey that proved the frustrating race, especially, as Carey put it to Paterson in its aftermath, "it's my backyard." A number of reasons were presented for why Democrats failed to win a third straight term in New Jersey in 1981 despite the relative popularity of regionally-associated Hugh Carey. The national environment, despite Carey's positive but gradually declining approval ratings in November 1981, was perhaps not as solid for Democrats as the party had assumed during its "Autumn of Action" and summer unveiling of the boldest legislative agenda since the Great Society. Unemployment and inflation were creeping down but still high; the very strong economy of late 1982 to mid-1985 had yet to reveal itself, and voters were not yet feeling the effects of the Economic Stabilization Act even as the data showed things were turning around.

More crucially, however, was perhaps issues in New Jersey itself. Brandon Byrne's two terms had been boldly progressive but polarizing, and Byrne was seen as having made a mistake in not choosing a successor, which allowed the liberal lane of the party to splinter across multiple candidates. Two Congressmen, James Florio and Robert Roe, jumped into the Democratic primary as outsiders to Trenton, casting themselves as allies of Carey who were nonetheless a change from Byrne and his inner circle. The race turned extremely ugly, and Florio - who was easily the most conservative candidate in the race, even sporting an endorsement of the increasingly right-wing National Rifle Association - eventually won in a small plurality over Roe. On the Republican side, meanwhile, the establishment favorite Pat Kramer, the Mayor of Paterson, faced off in what eventually became an effective two-man race with Thomas Kean, the former Assembly Speaker who had come second in 1977's primary. Both men were regarded as moderates - Kean had been Ford's 1976 state chairman and Kramer ran a city for four terms that leaned Democratic - but ran to the right, endorsing capital punishment, casting themselves as business-friendly and Kramer even cut an ad quoting Ronald Reagan, suggesting just how much the political landscape had potentially changed in the Garden State in the past year. Kean eventually triumphed, in part thanks to hiring Reagan's political director Roger Stone to run his campaign, and for the general election ran on a more Nixonian line - zero tolerance for crime, new spending on transportation infrastructure, and corralling corrupt urban machines. With liberal turnout depressed (it did not help that Florio was based out of Camden and thus had little connection to the Jersey City and Newark-based Democratic party leadership) and Kean running a disciplined campaign, the Republican challenger triumphed by a considerably larger margin than expected, winning 52-47 amidst charges of voter intimidation by the GOP in Democratic-heavy precincts and illegal campaign spending of the type that had eventually brought down Nixon. [1]

The Lehrman and Kean campaigns thus suggested to Republicans licking their wounds ahead of 1982 and 1984 that there was a roadmap to winning in "Careyland," and that perhaps the issue with Reagan had been his hardened Western individualism and uncomfortably overt footsie with Southern Baptists, instead of speaking straight to the "hard hats," as Nixon called them in a late 1981 interview that seemed to call back to the Hard Hat Riot of 1971. New Jersey was thus the result that Carey took the hardest; it was a win on his turf, suggesting a pathway for the GOP to compete with "his" kind of voter. Kean was immediately a national star for a party that desperately needed fresh faces, and the urgency for Democrats to continue to strike while the iron was hot ahead of 1982 was apparent.

[1] All this is as OTL, except for Kean's margin, which in the actual 1981 was by like 3k votes.
 
Kean for President in 1992? Could be interesting. At least it seems that the republicans are staying away from Reagan's religious zealots and are leaning more towards a Nixon style path. It is of course way too early to say and a LOT can change in 10 years
 
Last edited:
Kean for President in 1992? Could be interesting. At least it seems that the republicans are staying away from Reagans religious zealots and are leaning more towards a Nixon style path. It is of course way too early to say and a LOT can change in 10 years
Would be nice to see a GOP with a stronger liberal/moderate wing than OTL.
 
Kean for President in 1992? Could be interesting. At least it seems that the republicans are staying away from Reagan's religious zealots and are leaning more towards a Nixon style path. It is of course way too early to say and a LOT can change in 10 years
Essentially, my thinking here is that Nixon broke into the South in ‘68 and delivered 49 states in ‘72, and then his heir Ford managed to win in absolute horrid conditions in ‘76. Reagan? He lost, just as his forerunner Goldwater did. Republicans ITTL may just view Ford as a less talented, more moderate Nixon (and Ford was a fairly orthodox conservative in his own right) and see Nixon-Ford politics as way more viable than Goldwater-Reagan politics. Hence, guys like Kean (and others to follow) are the rising stars.
Would be nice to see a GOP with a stronger liberal/moderate wing than OTL.
Indeed, though I’d say what’s happening to the GOP ITTL is them going down a different style of conservatism that’s more of the Nixon brand than the Reagan brand
 
Essentially, my thinking here is that Nixon broke into the South in ‘68 and delivered 49 states in ‘72, and then his heir Ford managed to win in absolute horrid conditions in ‘76. Reagan? He lost, just as his forerunner Goldwater did. Republicans ITTL may just view Ford as a less talented, more moderate Nixon (and Ford was a fairly orthodox conservative in his own right) and see Nixon-Ford politics as way more viable than Goldwater-Reagan politics. Hence, guys like Kean (and others to follow) are the rising stars.
Very logical really. Also, it likely has been answered before, but is there any hope for the Rockefeller kind of republicans now that the Reagan kind of republicans will be small players? Or is that kind of republican gone for good at this point?
 
Very logical really. Also, it likely has been answered before, but is there any hope for the Rockefeller kind of republicans now that the Reagan kind of republicans will be small players? Or is that kind of republican gone for good at this point?
Rockefeller was already a dying breed in 1960/64 - the early 1980s are way too late
Look, we all know where this timeline is going, no need to go beating around the bush.

President Harold Stassen '92.
Stassen ‘92: Better Late than Never!

In all seriousness though idk how anybody tops “Empire Parnell Built” by @Rattigan where Stassen just runs and wins in perpetuity
 
Top