Ron Paul becomes POTUS in 1981

[Oliver Strom]

1972: Incumbert Robert R. Casey decides to retire to challenge John Tower for his US Senate Texas seat. Ron Paul duly rides Nixon's presidential coattails to flip TX-22 for the GOP.
1976: Reagan successfully challenges POTUS Ford for the GOP nomination and narrowly loses in November to Carter. After Carter's inauguration, he gets killed by a Manson famiy member (OK, I may be stretching it here).
1980: Howard Baker wins the GOP nod over Bush and Anderson. He passes over Kemp or Crane as VP, fearing that they may be able to use their independent political bases to defy him. He selects Paul instead: 1. young 2. a firm Reaganite (at the time) yet a favorite son of the TX Bush delegates 3. maybe an OB-GYN can appeal to white suburban mothers? With Anderson not running against Baker, the ticket goes on to win in November, despite Rand Paul making headlines as President of a local 'Students for Baker' chapter.
1981: John Hinckley Jr. guns down POTUS Baker on March 30. Ron Paul ascends to the Presidency.

 

[Oliver Strom]

It's happening!

 

[Simeon]

It's happening!

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

GOP more isolationist, regulatory growth less after 1980, somewhat better civil liberties in US. Stronger GOP electoral position relative to OTL 2022 due to being more big tent/flexible/localist socially. Democrats either significantly weaker than OTL as a party or have to do more for economic redistribution/social liberalization -- most realistic outcome for dems is a mix of two. No Clinton democrats or OTL's rockefeller republican-semilibertarian(only on business issues) hybrid democratic

US culture less influenced by yuppie puritans of both left/right.

 

[Oliver Strom]

GOP more isolationist, regulatory growth less after 1980, somewhat better civil liberties in US. Stronger GOP electoral position relative to OTL 2022 due to being more big tent/flexible/localist socially. Democrats either significantly weaker than OTL as a party or have to do more for economic redistribution/social liberalization -- most realistic outcome for dems is a mix of two. No Clinton democrats or OTL's rockefeller republican-semilibertarian(only on business issues) hybrid democratic

I wouldn't be surprised if the Libertarian Party goes the way of the States' Rights Democratic Party.

US culture less influenced by yuppie puritans of both left/right.

Agreed. The US would be far less polarized today with a Paul Presidency in the 1980s.

 

[Lycaon pictus]

1976: Reagan successfully challenges POTUS Ford for the GOP nomination and narrowly loses in November to Carter. After Carter's inauguration, he gets killed by a Manson famiy member (OK, I may be stretching it here).

Not too much of a stretch. Just have Squeaky Fromme wait a couple of years and spend that time mastering the finer points of the assassin's art ("remember to put bullets in the gun").

 

[Oliver Strom]

Not too much of a stretch. Just have Squeaky Fromme wait a couple of years and spend that time mastering the finer points of the assassin's art ("remember to put bullets in the gun").

If Squeaky Fromme fails for some reason, we always have Sara Jane Moore!

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Libertarian Party goes the way of the States' Rights Democratic Party.

Agreed. The US would be far less polarized today with a Paul Presidency in the 1980s.

less polarized, yes but also 1) a wider overton window 2) more scrambled/less ideologically sorted parties than otl

 

[peeter]

Democrats probably break the record for most combined house+senate seats gained in a single mid-term in 1982

 

[Oliver Strom]

less polarized, yes but also 1) a wider overton window

The GOP would certainly have been more big-tent than now.

2) more scrambled/less ideologically sorted parties than otl

Perhaps the Southern Democrats can survive in a 'President Paul in 1981' scenario.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

The GOP would certainly have been more big-tent than now.

Perhaps the Southern Democrats can survive in a 'President Paul in 1981' scenario.

1) For sure. Definitely more of s split between pro-choicers/antichoicers than OTL's antichoice GOP, with the antichoicers being more flexible, wanting to allow states to re-ban it instead of trying stuff federal.
2) Yes and no. More "New South" and Blue Dog types than oTL? Definitely. Proper Southern Democrats? Eh, probably not even if they would die later.

 

[Oliver Strom]

1) For sure. Definitely more of s split between pro-choicers/antichoicers than OTL's antichoice GOP, with the antichoicers being more flexible, wanting to allow states to re-ban it instead of trying stuff federal.

There would certainly have been a far greater emphasis on 'state's rights' under POTUS Paul in the 1980s.

2) Yes and no. More "New South" and Blue Dog types than oTL? Definitely. Proper Southern Democrats? Eh, probably not even if they would die later.

I could see the Southern Democrats rallying against Paul's free trade policies.

 

[Oliver Strom]

Democrats probably break the record for most combined house+senate seats gained in a single mid-term in 1982

Paul in 1981 is nowhere near as odious as, say, Helms or Thurmond.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

Wasn't the Cold War Ron Paul extremely strong on military defense and even earning the praise of Ronald Reagan (which helped made neoconservatism a major faction in the GOP)?

 

[peeter]

Paul in 1981 is nowhere near as odious as, say, Helms or Thurmond.

Helms and Thurmond definitely have worse politics but that doesn’t mean that Ron Paul’s politics still aren’t in the mainstream of politics. Ron Paul would be seen as a completely out of his depth and delusional. It would be so easy for the democrats to blame the 1982 recession and the incredibly high unemployment in the early 80s that it would honestly be unfair.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Would he blame the Carter Malaise on Nixon taking us off the gold standard and issue an Executive Order resuming direct convertability of dollars to gold?

[ At least the resulting economic shitshow will mean he is a one term President, and can't veto EMTALA when it comes up. ]

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Is it not the case that those who succeed to the presidency are typically expected to largely function as care takers? Ron may act more reserved than he other wise would be given his policy agenda wasn't the one that won an electoral mandate.

 

[Jiraiyathegallant]

Paul gets impeached for trying to end the Cold War, intelligence agencies, and a myriad of subsidies. The whole thing goes down as a bizarre fluke.

 

[Oliver Strom]

Helms and Thurmond definitely have worse politics but that doesn’t mean that Ron Paul’s politics still aren’t in the mainstream of politics. Ron Paul would be seen as a completely out of his depth and delusional. It would be so easy for the democrats to blame the 1982 recession and the incredibly high unemployment in the early 80s that it would honestly be unfair.

If it ends in 1983 as under Reagan, Paul might just get re-elected and implement his agenda in full in his 2nd term.

Is it not the case that those who succeed to the presidency are typically expected to largely function as care takers? Ron may act more reserved than he other wise would be given his policy agenda wasn't the one that won an electoral mandate.

John Tyler sure didn't think so

Paul gets impeached for trying to end Cold War intelligence agencies, and a myriad of subsidies. The whole thing goes down as a bizarre fluke.

Had Wallace been retained on the ticket in 1944 and become POTUS as a result in 1945, he would no doubt have been worse than Andrew Johnson but I doubt that even he could have been convicted in the Senate.

 

[the Imperium of Canada]

Had Wallace been retained on the ticket in 1944 and become POTUS as a result in 1945, he would no doubt have been worse than Andrew Johnson but I doubt that even he could have been convicted in the Senate.

What? Like seriously what? Is this the caricature of Wallace that would literally publicly castrate himself if Stalin asked him to that exists in people's heads your talking about?