President Reagan's Legacy if Struck Down in 1981?

[Amadeus]

While serving two terms as US President, Ronald Reagan became one of the most monumental as well as controversial leaders of his generation. However, this almost wasn't the case. Reagan was nearly killed in an assassination attempt when a deranged gunman named John Hinckley Jr shot him in the chest on March 30, 1981. According to the excellent book "Rawhide Down," one of Hinckley's bullets came extremely close to hitting Reagan in the heart. So close in fact that Reagan seemed to believe that God himself spared the President from a tragic fate that day. What would President Reagan's legacy be had he been killed after serving only two months as President before George Bush took office in March 1981?

(Note: the purpose of this thread is not to entertain talk about how a successful Reagan assassination would perversely have been good for America. Whether or not we agree with a politician's actions, celebrating and/or advocating violence against them is never okay and I don't want to see that on this thread).

 

[Theoretical_TJ]

Honestly, probably a tragic version of William Henry Harrison.

 

[Amadeus]

Honestly, probably a tragic version of William Henry Harrison.

I agree. Both would have set records for being the oldest Presidents at the time, but accomplished literally nothing in their brief terms of office.

One difference is that the Conservative movement would look back on Reagan and reminisce about what might have been, as liberals do with John and Robert Kennedy.

 

[ReconGuy02]

Republican Kennedy.

 

[V-J]

He's going to be deified by the right, at least as much as he was IOTL. Moreso, maybe, given a martyred Ronnie with no 'apostasy' over the SU or no Kennedy and O'Connor on the SCOTUS, etc, is more perfect than the OTL reality.

In any case, an acute sense of loss, and then, of acute grievance at the movement's denial after finally getting it's man elected.

They're going to watch Daddy Shrub like a hawk.

And if he steps out of line, Kemp is going to wave Saint Ronnie's bloody shirt around like crazy in '84. (Laxalt is both too obvious as veep, and, more importantly, would undoubtedly have the Nancy vote)

Given his OTL inability to keep his right flank secure even after a two term legacy Gipper, '84 should be interesting.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

I agree. Both would have set records for being the oldest Presidents at the time, but accomplished literally nothing in their brief terms of office.

One difference is that the Conservative movement would look back on Reagan and reminisce about what might have been, as liberals do with John and Robert Kennedy.

Does that work against older candidates in the future? After HW OTL, the next set of electees were younger - both Clinton and Obama were in their 40s and W was in his mid-50s. The idea that “they’ll just die in office anyway” almost makes a race between the likes of, say, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton impossible. Even John McCain would be more likely to lose because of his age.

And yes, expect him to be the GOP’s Kennedy, and if HW fucks up, he may go LBJ and decline to run in 1984.

 

[Dalriadan Archangel 21]

What you don't get to the same degree is the end of the Cold War.

By now, 2018, the Soviet Union is gone but without Reagan I don't think it collapses as early as '89.

Reagan was a far more complex character than he is perhaps painted in general history.

He was hawkish but only with conventional forces. When it came to nuclear weapons he abhorred them. Many of his policies and actions were designed to end the threat of their use.

I don't see HW being in the same vein at all.

I don't think you get the same build-up in the Defense Department but I also don't think you get the same willingness to sit down and negotiate disarmament deals.

So all in all the USSR is not forced to compete and therefore hasten the financial and social bankrupting of the country.

So much like the myth that JFK wanted out of Vietnam and would have brought peace had he lived you get the same for the GOP. Supporters positing "What-ifs" about the Berlin Wall coming down in 89 rather than ..........

 

[C. McKay]

Don’t underestimate the malaise we’d be in after both JFK and Reagan had been killed. I think people had longer memories then. We’d be talking about the curse of Tecumseh (0year curse). Both sides might want to keep their heads down. I wonder if in TTL the Pope survives. If so, that could have an impact. Remember Lennon’s murder was recent too

 

[Amadeus]

By now, 2018, the Soviet Union is gone but without Reagan I don't think it collapses as early as '89.

The USSR collapsed two years later in 1991, almost three whole years after Reagan left office. Aside from the Soviet economic decline, the USSR collapsed because Gorbachev's reforms resulted in the Communist regime falling apart at the seams. The Communist establishment opposed Gorbachev's domestic reforms and his New Union Treaty, so they tried to overthrow him in August 1991. He was returned to power in a popular counter coup, but in the process Boris Yeltsin dismantled the Russian Communist Party and Russia's faith in Communism was so shaken by the economic failure, the coup, and the new freedoms they enjoyed under Perestroika that they forced Gorbachev out of office that December and the USSR was no more. And as background to all this, in 1991 many Soviet states began declaring their independence from the USSR, prompting Gorbachev to try to save the Union with the New Union Treaty. This helped to trigger the coup in the first place.

Once stagflation hit in the 1970's, the USSR was a failed state and it was only a matter of time before a reformer decided to relax Soviet society and give people the freedom of discourse needed to fundamentally undermine the basis of Communist totalitarianism. If anything, I'm surprised that the Soviet collapse didn't happen sooner. The OTL collapse had little to do with who was the US President at the time, and it certainly wasn't the result of Reagan's military buildup. The USSR failed from within because Communism is a failed idea to begin with.

 

[Anarcho-Occultist]

I agree Reagan would basically be the Republican Kennedy. People would probably be less polarized about him-don’t speak ill of the dead and all that. Bush probably passes most of his agenda-he might even be able to cut spending and reduce the deficit.

Don’t underestimate the malaise we’d be in after both JFK and Reagan had been killed. I think people had longer memories then. We’d be talking about the curse of Tecumseh (0year curse). Both sides might want to keep their heads down. I wonder if in TTL the Pope survives. If so, that could have an impact. Remember Lennon’s murder was recent too

This is also true. I could see major candidates steer clear of 2000 because they believe in the year 0 curse.

 

[Amadeus]

This is also true. I could see major candidates steer clear of 2000 because they believe in the year 0 curse

So perhaps Dubya runs in 2004 instead of 2000. We could see a Gore vs. McCain matchup that year instead. And instead of going out of their way to emulate Reagan, GOP candidates in this era would try to be more like HW Bush if he serves two terms from 1981-1989.

 

[Anarcho-Occultist]

So perhaps Dubya runs in 2004 instead of 2000. We could see a Gore vs. McCain matchup that year instead. And instead of going out of their way to emulate Reagan, GOP candidates in this era would try to be more like HW Bush if he serves two terms from 1981-1989.

Certainly plausible but we also need to take other factors into account. It’s not impossible the Dems win in ‘88 if the Republican runs on 4 more years of Bush who isn’t going to be as popular as Reagan. Hell if Iran-Contra happens I think Bush would actually go down for it.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

On 1988, if GHW Bush becomes President in 1980 and is re-elected in 1984, under the 22nd Amendment he is ineligible to run in 1988.

In electoral politics, one butterfly is that, although Bush will probably be re-elected in 1984, it will be a smaller margin since the Reagan landslide was the sort of perfect storm that could be butterflied away and they won't have Reagan's personal appeal. This should affect the Democrats enough to get different candidates in 1988 and 1992. I cant think of a good reason why the Republican candidate in 1988 wouldn't be Dole.

 

[Amadeus]

Hell if Iran-Contra happens I think Bush would actually go down for it.

That scandal was Reagan's pet project, one he illegally facilitated and continued running years after the Boland Amendment was passed in 1982. He was uniquely obsessed with overthrowing the left wing governments in Latin America at any cost including violations of federal law and making crooked deals with the Iranian theocracy. I think a different President, whether it be Carter, Ted Kennedy, Bush, Baker, etc, wouldn't have developed the program to begin with. The same could be said for "Star Wars" IMO. If Reagan falls so early in his term before the Iran-Contra deals are even conceived, the scandal very likely never happens to begin with.

Of course, had Reagan died during his 1985 surgery when Bush temporarily became Acting President, Bush might have taken the fall for the scandal since he didn't inspire the intense personal loyalty in his aides that got the Gipper off the hook. (According to an LA Times piece from 1987 that I remember reading many moons ago, Oliver North was alleged to have destroyed documents implicating Reagan in his infamous "shredding party.")

 

[Anarcho-Occultist]

I cant think of a good reason why the Republican candidate in 1988 wouldn't be Dole.

Well he lacks charisma which means some dark horse could get the nod instead. Then again I have a feeling 1988 might be a Democrat year if it’s over succeeeding Bush and not Reagan.

 

[Dalriadan Archangel 21]

The USSR collapsed two years later in 1991, almost three whole years after Reagan left office. Aside from the Soviet economic decline, the USSR collapsed because Gorbachev's reforms resulted in the Communist regime falling apart at the seams. The Communist establishment opposed Gorbachev's domestic reforms and his New Union Treaty, so they tried to overthrow him in August 1991. He was returned to power in a popular counter coup, but in the process Boris Yeltsin dismantled the Russian Communist Party and Russia's faith in Communism was so shaken by the economic failure, the coup, and the new freedoms they enjoyed under Perestroika that they forced Gorbachev out of office that December and the USSR was no more. And as background to all this, in 1991 many Soviet states began declaring their independence from the USSR, prompting Gorbachev to try to save the Union with the New Union Treaty. This helped to trigger the coup in the first place.

Once stagflation hit in the 1970's, the USSR was a failed state and it was only a matter of time before a reformer decided to relax Soviet society and give people the freedom of discourse needed to fundamentally undermine the basis of Communist totalitarianism. If anything, I'm surprised that the Soviet collapse didn't happen sooner. The OTL collapse had little to do with who was the US President at the time, and it certainly wasn't the result of Reagan's military buildup. The USSR failed from within because Communism is a failed idea to begin with.

I have to say I disagree with your analysis but I can see where you are coming from.

I agree that the USSR was doomed but I disagree that outside influences played little part in the collapse.

I do agree with you that internal issues also played a significant part however who is to say that Gorbachev gets selected in this TL.

It could be argued that Gorbachev was a reaction to the rampant paranoia of Andropov about Reagan's intentions.

A different US president means the chance of a different Andropov response and therefore all bets are off after that.

 

[Amadeus]

Well he lacks charisma which means some dark horse could get the nod instead. Then again I have a feeling 1988 might be a Democrat year if it’s over succeeeding Bush and not Reagan.

I think the nominee would be whoever Bush appoints as VP. As in OTL, Dole's best chance for 1988 would be an upset over the sitting VP in the primaries.

 

[Philip]

I cant think of a good reason why the Republican candidate in 1988 wouldn't be Dole.

I can think of two:

1) The sitting vice president will have the inside track. It certainly will not be Dole. My guess is Jim Baker. Maybe Howard Baker.

2) Bush will not support Dole in the primaries. He may not work against him, but he won't work for him.

Baker (either, if VP) and Kemp have at least as good a chance as Dole.

 

[Amadeus]

Bush probably passes most of his agenda-he might even be able to cut spending and reduce the deficit.

The tax cuts wouldn't be as far reaching, but Bush would cut taxes to a limited extent. Otherwise I agree that spending cuts reduced deficits would be a key part of his agenda in addition to traditional GOP fiscal policies such as a balanced budget.

But I do wonder this: would Reagan's death serve as a greater impetus for gun reform? I could see something like the Brady Bill being passed in Bush's first term rather than ten years later. But perhaps it would be called the "Ronald Reagan Handgun Violence Protection Act" instead. If Reagan were to have any legacy in this TL, this would probably be it. Secondary to that would be mobilizing a Republican coalition that includes both social and fiscal conservatives that Bush would have to work with over the next four or eight years.

 

[Anarcho-Occultist]

The tax cuts wouldn't be as far reaching, but Bush would cut taxes to a limited extent. Otherwise I agree that spending cuts reduced deficits would be a key part of his agenda in addition to traditional GOP fiscal policies such as a balanced budget.

But I do wonder this: would Reagan's death serve as a greater impetus for gun reform? I could see something like the Brady Bill being passed in Bush's first term rather than ten years later. But perhaps it would be called the "Ronald Reagan Handgun Violence Protection Act" instead. If Reagan were to have any legacy in this TL, this would probably be it. Secondary to that would be mobilizing a Republican coalition that includes both social and fiscal conservatives that Bush would have to work with over the next four or eight years.

The tricky thing is TTL's Brady Bill won't have Reagan himself advocating for it. I could see some hardcore gun rights supporters claiming the bill is a disgrace to Reagan's legacy and he'd oppose it if he were still alive.