Reagan Killed in 1981

korea

John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assassinate President Reagan in March 1981. In OTL, Reagan survived and continued as president until 1989. He survived partially because the bullet landed just 2 inches from his heart. But in an alternate timeline, what if Hinckley Jr. successfully killed President Reagan barely 2 months into his first term? If Hinckley Jr. pointed his gun just slightly differently, altering the trajectory of the bullet, what would happen to America and the world (especially the Soviet Union)?
 

Scorpius72

Well we'd have president Bush for starters and I doubt that there would be a second Bush term given that he didn't have Reagan's charisma.
 

Nivek

korea said:
John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assassinate President Reagan in March 1981. In OTL, Reagan survived and continued as president until 1989. He survived partially because the bullet landed just 2 inches from his heart. But in an alternate timeline, what if Hinckley Jr. successfully killed President Reagan barely 2 months into his first term? If Hinckley Jr. pointed his gun just slightly differently, altering the trajectory of the bullet, what would happen to America and the world (especially the Soviet Union)?
Click to expand...
Nothing major, but I think 2000 candidates might be holding their breath
 

korea

Scorpius72 said:
Well we'd have president Bush for starters and I doubt that there would be a second Bush term given that he didn't have Reagan's charisma.
Click to expand...
I am speculative of Bush's policy with the Soviet Union. Reagan took a hard stance against the Soviet Union and communism in general. What do you think would be Bush's policy towards the USSR, not to mention the status of America's military without Reagan's firm support for additional funding?
 

Scorpius72

korea said:
What do you think would be Bush's policy towards the USSR, not to mention the status of America's military without Reagan's firm support for additional funding?
Click to expand...

IMO Bush is likely to take a similar line as before he was VP he was the director of the CIA and, unlike Reagan, actually served in the military where he was a naval aviator in the USN flying Grumman TBM Avenger torpedo bombers in the Pacific against the Japanese where he survived being shotdown twice.
 

dw93

Bush signs Kemp-Roth into law as a tribute to Reagan and considering the defense build up that Reagan is credited for started under Jimmy Carter, I see no reason why Bush would've reduced it. Granted I doubt SDI becomes a thing, but all of Reagan's other defense initiatives more or less remain. As for his V.P, I think Paul Laxalt is the most likely choice. He was Conservative, was a personal friend of Reagan's, and I doubt there'd be a risk of him outshining Bush like their would be with Jack Kemp. The 1982 midterms more or less go the same, and the economy recovers enough to get Bush/Laxalt over the finish line in 1984, abet not by the 49 state landslide that Reagan won in OTL.

A second term likely sees Bush attempt to balance the budget so I doubt the 1986 tax cut/reform bill gets enacted. He's probably less likely to achieve the IMF treaty or any other diplomatic gains that Reagan got with Gorbachev OTL due to a lack of credibility, but none the less sees Cold War tensions die down. If Iran Contra still happens, it damages Bush more than it did Reagan so I doubt Bush sees his approval ratings rebound the way Reagan did, though I doubt Bush would've been impeached either. Any meaningful attempts at balancing the budget could trigger a recession after the 1987 stock market crash, but it could also remain strong. Even if the market crash doesn't trigger a recession I see a Democrat (not named Dukakis) defeating VP Laxalt or Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole in 1988. Bush lacked Reagan's charisma and personal appeal and Dole or Laxalt were no more charismatic than Bush. If it is in fact a recession that aids the Democrats in 88, they hold the Presidency through at least 1996 if not 2000. If no late 80s recession hits, it all depends on how a Democratic President deals with an early 90s recession. Regardless, I think the GOP does take the House back sometime between 1990 and 1994.
 

TxAggie

The biggest butterfly of a Reagan demise, IMO, was that he was kind of carrying the battle flag for neoliberalism in the late 70s. He was an ideologue about that, in a way that Bush wasn't.

I get the impression that Bush Sr. really didn't care about the domestic economy, and would have gone with whatever his party or advisors said. He famously wasn't about "that vision thing". By the late 80s, early 90s, the Republican Party was all aboard the neoliberal train, so Bush went with it. But if you drop Bush in office in 1981, I don't think he continues forward with Reagan's deregulation and deficit-spending plans. Not to the same degree.

Neoliberalism ended up being a blowout success in the short run, and after Clinton brought the Democrats on board, the US basically ran on a left/right neoliberal economic consensus. If you butterfly Reagan out of there, I'm wondering if that never forms. Maybe you see a continuation of the economic New Deal Democrats? That has huge implications for the next 30 years.

As far as how Bush would handle the Soviets... that's the last thing I would worry about. He was a foreign policy expert. I had read a long-form interview from Dick Cheney about assembling the coalition for Desert Storm behind the scenes, and it was amazing how much respect Bush carried. Both among the leaders of different Arab states, and inside the US military.

Bush didn't have Reagan's level of personal relationship with Gorbachev, and likely never would, but he was pragmatic and very, very capable. He would've kept the US military re-build going (can't see him getting on board with Star Wars, he was just too small-c conservative for that), and would have been a safe pair of hands to manage anything the Soviets wanted to try.

I would see him remaining pretty hostile towards the Soviet Union. As mentioned, he couldn't thread the Reagan needle of "I like you, but I'm still willing to nuke you." He would have leaned more on the latter, massing the US war machine and arming Afghanistan under the table. If Gorbachev was willing to play ball for de-escalation, he would be willing to play too, but I don't see him starting that initiative himself.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top