• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Reagan Assassinated in 1981?

Beata Beatrix

Camille Paglia on Judge Dredd
Location
Portland, OR
Pronouns
she/her/hers
It's been talked about. And talked about. And talked about some more. And talked about –

I think you get where I'm going with this.

Still, though, it is one of the classic scenarios, and I thought the minds of SLP might want a crack at it. What sort of negotiations might President Bush conduct with the Soviets? What might his economic policy be (I suspect a bit more conservative than we tend to think!)? Who might Bush appoint as his Vice President, and who might he run against in '84? The mind does reel a bit, and the eyes do roll at the lack of originality, to be sure, but I do think this is worth considering.
 
I’ll try and get something more substantial up later, but chances are Bush would pick someone safe and boring like Howard Baker or Bob Dole, maybe Kemp if he really felt like it.

I doubt Bush would bring on a Reaganite as his VP, considering his feelings towards that wing of the party after his failed run for Congress as a Goldwater Republican in ‘64.
 
Last edited:
Some scenario elements for consideration and debate:

No invasion of Grenada in 1983?

Different level of involvement in Afghanistan against the USSR? (Perhaps not likely, given Bush's links to the CIA from his director days, but maybe)

Ted Kennedy runs in '84?

Earlier and perhaps stronger version of the Brady Bill passed?

Earlier or different invasion of Panama?

Different Iran-Contra?

Different (or just subtler) U.S. covert involvement in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Central America in general?

Different U.S. involvement in/level of support for the anti-apartheid campaign aimed at South Africa?
 
Last edited:
This might be a good place to plug the idea I aired in the book thread the other day:

The Reaganites actually scuppered some of the anti-enviros' plans by going too far right. The "Sagebrush Rebellion" of pissed-off ranchers in the 70s had wanted federal lands devolved to the states so they chip away grazing regulations at the local level, but Reagan's people wanted to sell them off entirely, an extremely unpopular proposition. Reagan also misstepped by appointing fanatics like James Watt (the Secretary of the Interior who believed conservation was unnecessary because the Rapture was on its way) and Anne Gorsuch (who was cited for contempt of Congress during her tenure as EPA director and was at the center of a huge corruption scandal that got forgotten in the wake of Iran-Contra) who scandalized the public and got themselves forced out of office. This could be worth a thread in Scenarios and PODs. If a less radically free-market Republican had been elected in 1980, it's possible the Sagebrush Rebellion might have succeeded, potentially meaning more deregulation and damage on public lands in the long run.

HW liked to portray himself as more moderate on environmental issues than Reagan; could he have "compromised" on state land transfers rather than privatizations?

That leads to the question of his oil background. 1981 is only a couple years removed from the hatred and suspicion directed at the oil industry during the energy crises; with Bush in the White House, would populist anti-Big Oil notions like Scoop Jackson's bid to nationalize the industry have a longer lease on life? Would there be more scrutiny of the industry and its ties to Middle Eastern dictators, and to America's role in the Iran-Iraq War?
 
One thing that has always fascinated me about Hinckley successfully assassinating Reagan is the effect on American culture in the 1980s. Leaving aside just how much Reagan might have shaped culture through his personality and policies there are going to be some pretty heavy reactions when it becomes apparent that Hinckley's viewing of Taxi Driver played a part in his actions.

A few possible effects:

  • Jodie Foster probably removes herself from public life, the media attention was bad enough following the attempted assassination and this would only be amplified if it was successful.
  • Martin Scorsese, whose career had only just started recovery following Raging Bull and whose life had only just been saved by De Niro helping him kick his cocaine habit, might go back onto a downward spiral in both respects. No way is he getting The King of Comedy made in this environment, and depending on how badly his drug habit returns its possible he might die very young.
  • @Avalanches has mentioned Bob Dole as a potential VP brought on by GHWB, we might remember that Bob Dole readily took up the mantle of censorship in the 1990s claiming the entertainment industry was threatening the nations character or some such. He might do the same in the 1980s, only this time as Vice President.
  • Could we even see calls for a new version of the Hays Code to be implemented? It was only finally abandoned in 1968 after all, though this was as much due to it being unenforceable by the 1960s, but there would certainly be some calling for a Valenti Code.
  • If violence in films becomes a useful scapegoat to explain the assassination of a US President might we see an equivalent of the video nasties debacle? There were certainly enough cheap slasher films in the early 1980s to fill out the list.
  • Concatenating the previous two points, MPAA President Jack Valenti was one of the most virulent campaigners against home video describing it as copyright infringement. Might a new motion picture code and an American video nasties list give him the impetus to see VHS/Betamax outlawed?
  • Would all this allow the major studios to reassert their control over the film industry? They already were in many ways against the director driven New Hollywood era, but with such a mainstay of that trend being seen as haivng contributed to the death of a President might it allow them to sweep the last vestiges of the 1970s tendencies? Would a new Production Code allow them to reassert some control over theatre chains refusing to allow any of their films be screened at any cinema that shows films not approved by the MPAA?

Which filmmakers would accept the new status quo, who would flounder under such an environment, and who might try their hands somewhere else? The likes of Spielberg and Lucas would enjoy continued success under the new environment, though the latter might have even more reason to keep his name of Body Heat now. Brian De Palma might find his career stalled, with the controversy of Dressed to Kill still fresh in peoples memory. What about directors like John Carpenter, James Cameron, Joe Dante, or John Landis? Would they try their hands out in Europe where some had worked before? Or might we see the rise of somewhere like Vancouver rise as an independent alternative to Hollywood?
 
One thing that has always fascinated me about Hinckley successfully assassinating Reagan is the effect on American culture in the 1980s. Leaving aside just how much Reagan might have shaped culture through his personality and policies there are going to be some pretty heavy reactions when it becomes apparent that Hinckley's viewing of Taxi Driver played a part in his actions.

A few possible effects:

  • Jodie Foster probably removes herself from public life, the media attention was bad enough following the attempted assassination and this would only be amplified if it was successful.
  • Martin Scorsese, whose career had only just started recovery following Raging Bull and whose life had only just been saved by De Niro helping him kick his cocaine habit, might go back onto a downward spiral in both respects. No way is he getting The King of Comedy made in this environment, and depending on how badly his drug habit returns its possible he might die very young.
  • @Avalanches has mentioned Bob Dole as a potential VP brought on by GHWB, we might remember that Bob Dole readily took up the mantle of censorship in the 1990s claiming the entertainment industry was threatening the nations character or some such. He might do the same in the 1980s, only this time as Vice President.
  • Could we even see calls for a new version of the Hays Code to be implemented? It was only finally abandoned in 1968 after all, though this was as much due to it being unenforceable by the 1960s, but there would certainly be some calling for a Valenti Code.
  • If violence in films becomes a useful scapegoat to explain the assassination of a US President might we see an equivalent of the video nasties debacle? There were certainly enough cheap slasher films in the early 1980s to fill out the list.
  • Concatenating the previous two points, MPAA President Jack Valenti was one of the most virulent campaigners against home video describing it as copyright infringement. Might a new motion picture code and an American video nasties list give him the impetus to see VHS/Betamax outlawed?
  • Would all this allow the major studios to reassert their control over the film industry? They already were in many ways against the director driven New Hollywood era, but with such a mainstay of that trend being seen as haivng contributed to the death of a President might it allow them to sweep the last vestiges of the 1970s tendencies? Would a new Production Code allow them to reassert some control over theatre chains refusing to allow any of their films be screened at any cinema that shows films not approved by the MPAA?

Which filmmakers would accept the new status quo, who would flounder under such an environment, and who might try their hands somewhere else? The likes of Spielberg and Lucas would enjoy continued success under the new environment, though the latter might have even more reason to keep his name of Body Heat now. Brian De Palma might find his career stalled, with the controversy of Dressed to Kill still fresh in peoples memory. What about directors like John Carpenter, James Cameron, Joe Dante, or John Landis? Would they try their hands out in Europe where some had worked before? Or might we see the rise of somewhere like Vancouver rise as an independent alternative to Hollywood?
Good ideas - another consequence might be that there is less mythology surrounding JFK, if dramatic presidential assassinations have become more normalised.
 
In a scenario in which Reagan has been elected pretty strongly, and then murdered and martyred, Bush is more or less bound to pick someone from the right as his VP. And the only really standout name is Paul Laxalt. A former governor and now-senator - the 'qualified' issue is not just an abstract thing with a president who has been murdered - one of Reagan's best friends and someone who would certainly have the Nancy vote, a westerner from a good solid sunbelt background; it's not quite nailed-on - Bush did pick Dan Quayle after all - but it's such an obvious pick it's hard to see who else Bush would go for. Bush and Dole didn't get on; picking Howard Baker would be like, to adopt a Roemism, skull-fucking Jesse Helms' wife.

The Bobster in 1996 talking all about Values in Hollywood was just about him pandering to the party's newly-ascendant socially conservative wing in preparation for his presidential candidacy, he didn't have any genuine interest in that himself.

I don't think we would see any breakthrough with the Soviets until about the time we did IOTL - by which time Bush might not be in office. Relations were in a very bad place around this time, even independent of Reagan - the invasion of Afghanistan, martial law in Poland, Carter stressing human rights and his beginning of the defence buildup etc. You'd also have the shooting down of Flight 007 - though that would likely be butterflied ITTL. There were a lot of structural factors cooling relations, not just Reagan's cold warrior inclinatons. You also of course had the churn and sclerosis in the politburo.

Assuming Bush wins a second term, and assuming Gorbachev still emerges, the re-start of détente would be much more restrained, not just because Bush and the Republican foreign policy establishment were much more cautious than Reagan, but also because Bush wouldn't have the capital with the right that Reagan did - as it was Reagan was accused of appeasement for INF by the right of the party. You would ultimately end up with SALT-style stuff which takes the power balance and Cold War as given factors, and not the huge arms reductions of OTL. We would probably drift into the breakup of the USSR with a managed but still-active Cold War, which probably puts more pressure on Gorbachev as far as Eastern Europe is concerned, and potentially could make the breakup worse.

I think it's still possible the Iran portion of Iran-Contra still happens - Bush might feel the same temptation to free hostages and the ostensible promise of opening up a channel to moderates that held such sway over Reagan. Keeping the Contras going 'body and soul' is perhaps less likely, even assuming the US mines Nicaraguan harbours, and prompts the Boland Act in the first place. There's a lot of potential for divergence here, the scandal is far from a fixed point under a different president.
 
Last edited:
In a scenario in which Reagan has been elected pretty strongly, and then murdered and martyred, Bush is more or less bound to pick someone from the right as his VP. And the only really standout name is Paul Laxalt. A former governor and now-senator - the 'qualified' issue is not just an abstract thing with a president who has been murdered - one of Reagan's best friends and someone who would certainly have the Nancy vote, a westerner from a good solid sunbelt background; it's not quite nailed-on - Bush did pick Dan Quayle after all - but it's such an obvious pick it's hard to see who else Bush would go for. Bush and Dole didn't get on; picking Howard Baker would be like, to adopt a Roemism, skull-fucking Jesse Helms' wife.

The Bobster in 1996 talking all about Values in Hollywood was just about him pandering to the party's newly-ascendant socially conservative wing in preparation for his presidential candidacy, he didn't have any genuine interest in that himself.

I don't think we would see any breakthrough with the Soviets until about the time we did IOTL - by which time Bush might not be in office. Relations were in a very bad place around this time, even independent of Reagan - the invasion of Afghanistan, Carter stressing human rights and his beginning of the defence buildup etc. You'd also have the shooting down of Flight 007 - though that would likely be butterflied ITTL. There were a lot of structural factors cooling relations, not just Reagan's cold warrior inclinatons. You also of course had the churn and sclerosis in the politburo.

Assuming Bush wins a second term, and assuming Gorbachev still emerges, the re-start of détente would be much more restrained, not just because Bush and the Republican foreign policy establishment were much more cautious than Reagan, but also because Bush wouldn't have the capital with the right that Reagan did - as it was Reagan was accused of appeasement for INF by the right of the party. You would ultimately end up with SALT-style stuff which takes the power balance and Cold War as given factors, and not the huge arms reductions of OTL. We would probably drift into the breakup of the USSR with a managed but still-active Cold War, which probably puts more pressure on Gorbachev as far as Eastern Europe is concerned, and potentially could make the breakup worse.

I think it's still possible the Iran portion of Iran-Contra still happens - Bush might feel the same temptation to free hostages and the ostensible promise of opening up a channel to moderates that held such sway over Reagan. Keeping the Contras going 'body and soul' is perhaps less likely, even assuming the US mines Nicaraguan harbours, and prompts the Boland Act in the first place. There's a lot of potential for divergence here, the scandal is far from a fixed point under a different president.
How bad would things get in Eastern Europe in this timeline?
 
The biggest effect might be that GHW Bush is not president in Aug 1990, when Kuwait is invaded. Very few others would have gone to war over Kuwait. Even Dole supported the invasion reluctantly but openly called it a war for oil. Much of Bush's own cabinet called for diplomatic condemnation only. No Gulf War, no 9-11, no 2nd Iraq or Afghan Wars.
 
I’ll try and get something more substantial up later, but chances are Bush would pick someone safe and boring like Howard Baker or Bob Dole, maybe Kemp if he really felt like it.

I doubt Bush would bring on a Reaganite as his VP, considering his feelings towards that wing of the party after his failed run for Congress as a Goldwater Republican in ‘64.
What about Paul Laxalt?

The biggest effect might be that GHW Bush is not president in Aug 1990, when Kuwait is invaded. Very few others would have gone to war over Kuwait. Even Dole supported the invasion reluctantly but openly called it a war for oil. Much of Bush's own cabinet called for diplomatic condemnation only. No Gulf War, no 9-11, no 2nd Iraq or Afghan Wars.
Do you have a source for this, please? After all, I seem to recall that all or almost all Republicans in the US Congress supported this war. Did they only do so with extreme reluctance?

I wonder if you might be able to get a somewhat healthier Andropov ITTL - perhaps he’s less concerned with Reagan’s brinksmanship. Bush-Andropov diplomacy might work out quicker, and at least there’d be some Politburo stability?
How would a different US President have resulted in healthier kidneys for Andropov? Does more stress actually weaken one's kidneys?

BTW, does anyone see a realistic way to keep the Curse of Tippecanoe going into the 2000s in this scenario? Who can realistically win the US Presidency in 2000 in this scenario only to subsequently die in office?
 
Back
Top