Carter Reelected in 1980. What Happens?

[Beet]

In 1980, Iraq attacks Iran with U.S. support. Iran is in big trouble, or so it seems. Suppose Carter cuts a secret deal with the Iranians to sell them weapons and turn against Iraq in exchange for release of the hostages in October 1980. This would be rewarding the hostage-takers, but the American public isn't aware. So it swings 4% of the Reagan vote to Carter, giving him the election. What would happen?

[bullmoose88]

With the Sunbelt neo conservative/goldwaterite wing being defeated twice since 1964...

I think Ford and Dole Battle it out in 84.

Ford likely winning because he's had the job once.

You have to give Reagan credit, we had a recession in 82, but that was due-a lot- to contractionary monetary policy which lowered interest rates.

Carter wouldn't have done that....the tax cut wouldn't have happened either, 4 more years of stagflation...so the democrats would probably still have a bad economy in 84...

allowing either Ford or Dole to win.

[TeePee4Prez]

With the Sunbelt neo conservative/goldwaterite wing being defeated twice since 1964...

I think Ford and Dole Battle it out in 84.

Ford likely winning because he's had the job once.

You have to give Reagan credit, we had a recession in 82, but that was due-a lot- to contractionary monetary policy which lowered interest rates.

Carter wouldn't have done that....the tax cut wouldn't have happened either, 4 more years of stagflation...so the democrats would probably still have a bad economy in 84...

allowing either Ford or Dole to win.

I'm going to have the disagree with you on this to a point.  Yeah our taxes were too hihg, but Reagan lowered them WAAAY too much and in favro the wealthy even worse than Bush II is now.

[Beet]

I disagree. The President isn't in charge of monetary policy. That is the preserve of the Fed, which was led by Paul Volcker after the "saturday night massacre" moved the then sitting Fed chair into the Treasury secretary position. Volcker was the one who instituted contractionary monetary policy in 1979, which was also the peak year of inflation. So I think the '82 recession would have still happened, it was already in the works by late '80, despite the attempt at expansionary fiscal money of 1981-82 through the tax cuts. Republicans might have taken the Senate or even the House in '82, but Mondale would have a good shot at '84.

I agree Ford would have had a good chance at getting the nod, and he would have had a decent chance against Mondale even if the economy was doing well.

[bullmoose88]

With the Sunbelt neo conservative/goldwaterite wing being defeated twice since 1964...

I think Ford and Dole Battle it out in 84.

Ford likely winning because he's had the job once.

You have to give Reagan credit, we had a recession in 82, but that was due-a lot- to contractionary monetary policy which lowered interest rates.

Carter wouldn't have done that....the tax cut wouldn't have happened either, 4 more years of stagflation...so the democrats would probably still have a bad economy in 84...

allowing either Ford or Dole to win.

I'm going to have the disagree with you on this to a point.  Yeah our taxes were too hihg, but Reagan lowered them WAAAY too much and in favro the wealthy even worse than Bush II is now.

Again necessary evil.

even if we throw out the tax cuts, Reagan installed Greenspan, and the two created government policy--greenspan especially--that targeted inflation and the interest rate (which should have read...raised)....

Interest rates were high for awhile under reagan (until the tax cuts kicked in) but it solved the inflation problem...causing a very short term unemployment jump (which is to be expected)...but those poor economy problems disappeared for reagan by 84.

But stagflation, Carter would have never done what Reagan and Greenspan did, would have been a very big problem for Mondale or whoever the nominee would have been in 1984.


I know you disagree with the fact that the cuts were too targeted at the wealthy, but the cuts were necessary--could they have been cut in a more "fair" fashion? Probably? But when you're dealing with stagflation "fair" might not have been the best method to use to end the problem. Who's right? I can't say, depends if you want "fairness" or "a more efficient economic recover"...I don't have an answer to the "should" question (ie which path we should have gone on)

[bullmoose88]

I disagree. The President isn't in charge of monetary policy. That is the preserve of the Fed, which was led by Paul Volcker after the "saturday night massacre" moved the then sitting Fed chair into the Treasury secretary position. Volcker was the one who instituted contractionary monetary policy in 1979, which was also the peak year of inflation. So I think the '82 recession would have still happened, it was already in the works by late '80, despite the attempt at expansionary fiscal money of 1981-82 through the tax cuts. Republicans might have taken the Senate or even the House in '82, but Mondale would have a good shot at '84.

I agree Ford would have had a good chance at getting the nod, and he would have had a decent chance against Mondale even if the economy was doing well.

My memory is a little fuzzy, wasn't Volcker the one who said that the Fed should target inflation and unemployment...rather than just inflation?

[TeePee4Prez]

With the Sunbelt neo conservative/goldwaterite wing being defeated twice since 1964...

I think Ford and Dole Battle it out in 84.

Ford likely winning because he's had the job once.

You have to give Reagan credit, we had a recession in 82, but that was due-a lot- to contractionary monetary policy which lowered interest rates.

Carter wouldn't have done that....the tax cut wouldn't have happened either, 4 more years of stagflation...so the democrats would probably still have a bad economy in 84...

allowing either Ford or Dole to win.

I'm going to have the disagree with you on this to a point.  Yeah our taxes were too hihg, but Reagan lowered them WAAAY too much and in favro the wealthy even worse than Bush II is now.

Again necessary evil.

even if we throw out the tax cuts, Reagan installed Greenspan, and the two created government policy--greenspan especially--that targeted inflation and the interest rate (which should have read...raised)....

Interest rates were high for awhile under reagan (until the tax cuts kicked in) but it solved the inflation problem...causing a very short term unemployment jump (which is to be expected)...but those poor economy problems disappeared for reagan by 84.

But stagflation, Carter would have never done what Reagan and Greenspan did, would have been a very big problem for Mondale or whoever the nominee would have been in 1984.


I know you disagree with the fact that the cuts were too targeted at the wealthy, but the cuts were necessary--could they have been cut in a more "fair" fashion? Probably? But when you're dealing with stagflation "fair" might not have been the best method to use to end the problem. Who's right? I can't say, depends if you want "fairness" or "a more efficient economic recover"...I don't have an answer to the "should" question (ie which path we should have gone on)

Yes Greenspan is excellent at fiscal policy, but I think they may at tiems be politically motivated.  The cuts should have been in a more fair fashion.  Bush I to a point and Clinton (bigtime) had to clean up Reagan's mess.

[Beet]

I disagree. The President isn't in charge of monetary policy. That is the preserve of the Fed, which was led by Paul Volcker after the "saturday night massacre" moved the then sitting Fed chair into the Treasury secretary position. Volcker was the one who instituted contractionary monetary policy in 1979, which was also the peak year of inflation. So I think the '82 recession would have still happened, it was already in the works by late '80, despite the attempt at expansionary fiscal money of 1981-82 through the tax cuts. Republicans might have taken the Senate or even the House in '82, but Mondale would have a good shot at '84.

I agree Ford would have had a good chance at getting the nod, and he would have had a decent chance against Mondale even if the economy was doing well.

My memory is a little fuzzy, wasn't Volcker the one who said that the Fed should target inflation and unemployment...rather than just inflation?

Volcker

[bullmoose88]

Thats the problem, everyone--policy makers included-- thinks in the short run...

because in the long run...we're all dead.

[bullmoose88]

Hmm...got that part alittle wrong...

regardless...I think that Carter wouldn't have been able to withstand pressure to allow the Fed to continue contractionary monetary policy...

and that would have been enough.

[The Duke]

1980:


First of all, the hostages are not released.  They remain in captivity four three more years.  The Republicans retake control of the House and Senate in 1982 on a platfrom of forcing Carter to act to release the hostages (It has now been well over 3 years).  Carter does not act quickly, and he has articles of impeachment filed against him.  He finds himself forced to act, and he tries another Desert One style operation.  It fails.

The economy continues its downward slide.  The contractionary monetary policies of Volcker get inflation under control by late 1983, but at great cost.  Without any stimulus on the tax-cut side, unemployment stands at 19%.  Carter's approval rating drops to 26%.  He is impeached and removed from office in April of 1984.  Walter Mondale is a crippled President from day one, and also fails to release the hostages or bring back the economy.  He does not seek election to a full term.

The Democratic candidates are Gary Hart, John Glenn, and Ted Kennedy.  The Republicans are Bob Dole, Harold Baker, George Bush, and Jack Kemp.  In the general it will be Gary Hart/Scoop Jackson versus Bob Dole and Jack Kemp.  The Repubs win.  I don't know if they couldfix the problem, but they'd win.

1984:

[Beet]

Hmm...got that part alittle wrong...

regardless...I think that Carter wouldn't have been able to withstand pressure to allow the Fed to continue contractionary monetary policy...

and that would have been enough.

Well the pressure would have been in the direction of preventing the Fed from continuing its contractionary policy. As it was, Volcker was the most vilified and hated Fed chairman in US history, because his policies effectively threw millions of Americans out of work. Nevertheless, they worked, although he did have some crucial help from the collapse of OPEC discipline.

Energy prices

This oil price collapse would have happened under Carter as well. As it was, oil prices peaked in January 1981, before Reagan's policies were even implemented.

Side note- the Reagan tax cuts passed in 1981, failed to stimulate the economy. When they were mostly repealed in steps in 1983 and 1984, this failed to stall the economy. Clearly, the problems of the late 70s were not problems of fiscal policy but energy prices and monetary policy.

[The Duke]

But could he have been the pick after he was tainted by the Reagan defeat?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

   John Ford, the details of the hostage release had been worked out ubder Carter, but the Iranians delayed the timing for their own purposes.  They certainly didn't release them because they were scared of Reagan.  If Carter had been relected, it' s possible that the hostages could have been home as early as December. 30 November 1980 AD was Ashura (10 Muharram 1400 AH) and given the associations brought to mind by Ashura, it is doubtful that had the hostages been held until the election day that they would have been released by the Iranians before Ashura.
   Basicly the Iranians timed the release in a manner that gave them maximum political cover frm their own zealots and served as a final snub against Carter.

   Now back to the original what-if, which assumes that the hostages were released before the election.  One peculiar result of this what-if is that it would have been Carter who got credit for breaking PATCO, not Reagan, altho Carter probably would not have given the dramatic 48 hour notice that Reagan did.   This could prove to be an issue that causes the Democratic Party, already weakened by the Kennedy-Carter fued to split into two, leading into a three cornered race in 1984. Such a split would be made easier if the reacton to 1980 election by the Republicans was that they needed to appeal to the conservative base more, not less, so that Carter could hope to gain the support that Anderson received in 1980 for Carter's party.
   Keep in mind that Carter will have the assistance of surviving the Hinckley assasination attempt (assuming he survives it).  Butterflies might keep the assasination attempt from happening on the same day, but it probably would have happened since Hinckley wasn't trying to shoot Reagan, he was trying to shoot the President.

[The Duke]

Ernest,

Technically the deal was worked out under the last days of Carter's Presidency, but that timing was largely to embarrass him as the new President took office.  I think it is unlikely that they'd have been released if Carter was re-elected.

As per the specifics of the scenario Beet presented, to be honest I hadn't read it.  I think the economy still stinks under a second term of Carter.

[ijohn57s]

Personally, I find the thought of Carter being reelected in 1980 to be very scary. It's very possible that this country would have gone headfirst into a depression and depending on what happened in the next couple of elections (if it's not to late already) though I hate to even say this, we may have lost the Cold War.

[afleitch]

We would not have lost the cold war. After the death of Brezhnev under President Carter, it is likely that relations would have improved further with the USSR than it did under Reagan. Circumstance, mostly death (Andropov and Kosygin would still have ascended and died), would still have seen Gorbachev rise to power by 1985, when the ideas of glasnost and perestroika was still fermenting in his head. President Mondale/Ford or who ever was in power in the USA would have been mad not to reach out a hand to the Soviets. Glasnost would still have been applauded in the west and would still have led to internal changes in the USSR, with the country unravelling perhaps a year earlier or later than it actually did.