lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,007 
Likes: 49,410
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 4, 2020 19:54:55 GMT
As yet another cross-time US presidential election between losing candidates who got absolutely crushed, '1936 Alf Landon Vs. 1984 Walter Mondale'. They come from two complete different time periods, which year would the election take place. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 4, 2020 21:28:24 GMT
As yet another cross-time US presidential election between losing candidates who got absolutely crushed, '1936 Alf Landon Vs. 1984 Walter Mondale'. They come from two complete different time periods, which year would the election take place. That’s a fair question. Maybe some 1984 states get sent back to 1936, probably including Minnesota so that Mondale comes along for the ride. Meanwhile, maybe DC is replaced so that neither Reagan nor Roosevelt can run for another term, which probably leaves Alf Landon to run on the Republicans’ behalf (barring the possibility that someone else steps up to the plate before him). Of course, I think his reputation as the man who lost to FDR in a landslide would sink his candidacy against a less baggage-ridden Democrat like Bill Clinton. But when it comes to Walter Mondale, who lost every state apart from Minnesota to Reagan in 1984, I think the ultimate results of a race between him and Landon are much less certain. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,229
|
Post by stevep on Jun 5, 2020 11:09:05 GMT
Not sure if it should be here or in the frivolous thread. What if for some reason the French revolution is killed off before it gains power AND as a result there is no SI system of units developed.
I can see some attempt at a standardisation of units internationally in the 19thC as technological and increasing trade makes it very useful but would this be some combination of 'imperial' units being agreed upon and gradually accepted. This would probably means some form of mile, pound, horse-power etc. It would be more complex because not having all units centred around base 10, which would make writing programmes for computers a little more difficult but shouldn't be a great problem. Might also mean a slightly more numerate population as people have to get used to thinking in multiple bases.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 5, 2020 13:40:49 GMT
As another cross-time presidential election, this time between two incumbents who got crushed by their challengers, ‘1932 Herbert Hoover Vs. 1980 Jimmy Carter’.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 6, 2020 13:44:48 GMT
‘1964 Lyndon Johnson Vs. 1972 Richard Nixon’.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 7, 2020 21:17:09 GMT
‘2015 Middle America To 1975’. President Obama and his inner circle come along for the ride to represent the uptimers and their interests.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 8, 2020 22:05:19 GMT
'1980 People React To Subsequent Presidents'. In the interest of keeping certain discourse to where it belongs, perhaps we should avoid talking about No. 45 for the time being.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 10, 2020 0:57:57 GMT
‘1981 Ronald Reagan SI To 1941 FDR’.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,229
|
Post by stevep on Jun 10, 2020 10:24:46 GMT
‘1981 Ronald Reagan SI To 1941 FDR’.
Assuming no states go with him he can provide some information to the US and hopefully the allies but he's unlikely to have a successful career. For one thing he's totally out of place and known if at all as a B film actor, which will make people reluctant to take him seriously. Also while his hands off role for government will go down well with the core of 1941 Republicans their also strongly isolationist. Given that war is coming while Reagan is very likely willing to fight fascism that will cause a rift between them. Also given that war is coming and that FDR is widely seen as the man who saved the US from the Great Depression there's no way he's going to supplant him before at least the 1944 election.
Or thinking about it do you mean he replaces FDR in the latter's body? [Got so used to your alternative election mixes but that might be what you mean.] If so and assuming he's given enough knowledge of FDR's personal life that he doesn't stick out like a sore thumb then a lot depends on how he plays it. Plus assuming he can adjust to the differences, including having a different wife and being a partial cripple.
There is the chance he can have the US a bit better prepared, although given that the Japanese hadn't decided on the Pearl attack until only a couple of months before it happened its unclear that will happen and exactly when depending on what butterflies he creates. Plus he can't exactly simply demand that the Pacific fleet be ready, or even at sea on the morning of 7-12-41 as both that would look very strange and if they still come it could be a different week.
He might manage to make sure that the Philippines is a bit better prepared but its still going to be lost as is Guam and very likely Wake. The latter may be a good thing for the USN as it could be a very costly outpost to maintain while their still weak in terms of carriers compared to the IJN. Not sure if he could give any advice or support for Britain that might enable Malaya to survive but that could be difficult.
In wider terms he would probably be a bit friendlier to Britain and almost certainly less friendly to the Soviets. Lend-Lease will still be sent but probably with some strings attached and in smaller amounts and at some suitable point - say on news of the Katyn massacres emerging for instance - when the USSR is secure, it might be sharply curtailed. Given what he knows about the future and his ring wing position I can't see him not trying to ensure that Stalin's empire is markedly weaker, especially in occupying less of eastern Europe. Probably also if he lives long enough seeking to aid the KMT more against the CCP.
Reagan can give advice on a number of possible weapons and development aims but I'm not sure how knowledgeable he would be on actual details or how much he could say without looking too odd. For instance he can't really, even if he had the necessary knowledge, suddenly become an expert on nuclear weapons, tell people how to enrich Uranium or to produce and isolate Plutonium. At this point the latter element doesn't even exist let alone be named. Also he may have inaccurate knowledge of the actual events on the ground so its possible he could urge for something that might end up as a disaster such as a 43 landing in N France.
Steve
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 10, 2020 15:03:09 GMT
‘1981 Ronald Reagan SI To 1941 FDR’.
Assuming no states go with him he can provide some information to the US and hopefully the allies but he's unlikely to have a successful career. For one thing he's totally out of place and known if at all as a B film actor, which will make people reluctant to take him seriously. Also while his hands off role for government will go down well with the core of 1941 Republicans their also strongly isolationist. Given that war is coming while Reagan is very likely willing to fight fascism that will cause a rift between them. Also given that war is coming and that FDR is widely seen as the man who saved the US from the Great Depression there's no way he's going to supplant him before at least the 1944 election.
Or thinking about it do you mean he replaces FDR in the latter's body? [Got so used to your alternative election mixes but that might be what you mean.] If so and assuming he's given enough knowledge of FDR's personal life that he doesn't stick out like a sore thumb then a lot depends on how he plays it. Plus assuming he can adjust to the differences, including having a different wife and being a partial cripple.
There is the chance he can have the US a bit better prepared, although given that the Japanese hadn't decided on the Pearl attack until only a couple of months before it happened its unclear that will happen and exactly when depending on what butterflies he creates. Plus he can't exactly simply demand that the Pacific fleet be ready, or even at sea on the morning of 7-12-41 as both that would look very strange and if they still come it could be a different week.
He might manage to make sure that the Philippines is a bit better prepared but its still going to be lost as is Guam and very likely Wake. The latter may be a good thing for the USN as it could be a very costly outpost to maintain while their still weak in terms of carriers compared to the IJN. Not sure if he could give any advice or support for Britain that might enable Malaya to survive but that could be difficult.
In wider terms he would probably be a bit friendlier to Britain and almost certainly less friendly to the Soviets. Lend-Lease will still be sent but probably with some strings attached and in smaller amounts and at some suitable point - say on news of the Katyn massacres emerging for instance - when the USSR is secure, it might be sharply curtailed. Given what he knows about the future and his ring wing position I can't see him not trying to ensure that Stalin's empire is markedly weaker, especially in occupying less of eastern Europe. Probably also if he lives long enough seeking to aid the KMT more against the CCP.
Reagan can give advice on a number of possible weapons and development aims but I'm not sure how knowledgeable he would be on actual details or how much he could say without looking too odd. For instance he can't really, even if he had the necessary knowledge, suddenly become an expert on nuclear weapons, tell people how to enrich Uranium or to produce and isolate Plutonium. At this point the latter element doesn't even exist let alone be named. Also he may have inaccurate knowledge of the actual events on the ground so its possible he could urge for something that might end up as a disaster such as a 43 landing in N France.
Steve
Thank you for the thorough initial answer. Yes, I meant that 1981 Reagan takes over FDR’s body in 1941 (which is what terms like SI, or ‘self-insert’, stand for in this context). In which case, I agree that he’d rectify what originally went wrong or could’ve gone better as best he can (i.e. taking a harder line against the USSR), though it’s also true that hindsight isn’t perfect. Which is only exacerbated by Reagan’s lack of inclination towards studying alternate history as we do  . In the short run, though, how his more right-wing views affect things aside from making the Republicans more receptive to ‘FDR’ and incurring cocked eyebrows on the part of everyone else (assuming that he deviates from what’d be considered ‘in-character’ too much, which is more than likely), I don’t know. Even though Reagan’s probably astute enough to recognize that undoing the New Deal is a political impossibility at this point, maybe he’d still seek to prevent sweeping programs like LBJ’s Great Society legislation from taking shape ahead of time (or whatever analogues might otherwise spring up ITTL). ...And now I’m reminded of an ASB election I once proposed between 1944 FDR and 1984 Reagan, in which case the latter probably lacks the legendary status he achieved post-presidency. The former, however, would have his own share of baggage, namely his ailing health and due process-free internment of Japanese Americans shortly after Pearl Harbor. Of course, I’m guessing that who wins depends on the election year in question, with an ASB 1960 election in which the two run yielding a different outcome than an ASB 1980 election featuring the same candidates (due to backlash against Stagflation and Keynesian economics). |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,229
|
Post by stevep on Jun 10, 2020 16:23:13 GMT
Assuming no states go with him he can provide some information to the US and hopefully the allies but he's unlikely to have a successful career. For one thing he's totally out of place and known if at all as a B film actor, which will make people reluctant to take him seriously. Also while his hands off role for government will go down well with the core of 1941 Republicans their also strongly isolationist. Given that war is coming while Reagan is very likely willing to fight fascism that will cause a rift between them. Also given that war is coming and that FDR is widely seen as the man who saved the US from the Great Depression there's no way he's going to supplant him before at least the 1944 election.
Or thinking about it do you mean he replaces FDR in the latter's body? [Got so used to your alternative election mixes but that might be what you mean.] If so and assuming he's given enough knowledge of FDR's personal life that he doesn't stick out like a sore thumb then a lot depends on how he plays it. Plus assuming he can adjust to the differences, including having a different wife and being a partial cripple.
There is the chance he can have the US a bit better prepared, although given that the Japanese hadn't decided on the Pearl attack until only a couple of months before it happened its unclear that will happen and exactly when depending on what butterflies he creates. Plus he can't exactly simply demand that the Pacific fleet be ready, or even at sea on the morning of 7-12-41 as both that would look very strange and if they still come it could be a different week.
He might manage to make sure that the Philippines is a bit better prepared but its still going to be lost as is Guam and very likely Wake. The latter may be a good thing for the USN as it could be a very costly outpost to maintain while their still weak in terms of carriers compared to the IJN. Not sure if he could give any advice or support for Britain that might enable Malaya to survive but that could be difficult.
In wider terms he would probably be a bit friendlier to Britain and almost certainly less friendly to the Soviets. Lend-Lease will still be sent but probably with some strings attached and in smaller amounts and at some suitable point - say on news of the Katyn massacres emerging for instance - when the USSR is secure, it might be sharply curtailed. Given what he knows about the future and his ring wing position I can't see him not trying to ensure that Stalin's empire is markedly weaker, especially in occupying less of eastern Europe. Probably also if he lives long enough seeking to aid the KMT more against the CCP.
Reagan can give advice on a number of possible weapons and development aims but I'm not sure how knowledgeable he would be on actual details or how much he could say without looking too odd. For instance he can't really, even if he had the necessary knowledge, suddenly become an expert on nuclear weapons, tell people how to enrich Uranium or to produce and isolate Plutonium. At this point the latter element doesn't even exist let alone be named. Also he may have inaccurate knowledge of the actual events on the ground so its possible he could urge for something that might end up as a disaster such as a 43 landing in N France.
Steve
Thank you for the thorough initial answer. Yes, I meant that 1981 Reagan takes over FDR’s body in 1941 (which is what terms like SI, or ‘self-insert’, stand for in this context). In which case, I agree that he’d rectify what originally went wrong or could’ve gone better as best he can (i.e. taking a harder line against the USSR), though it’s also true that hindsight isn’t perfect. Which is only exacerbated by Reagan’s lack of inclination towards studying alternate history as we do . In the short run, though, how his more right-wing views affect things aside from making the Republicans more receptive to ‘FDR’ and incurring cocked eyebrows on the part of everyone else (assuming that he deviates from what’d be considered ‘in-character’ too much, which is more than likely), I don’t know. Even though Reagan’s probably astute enough to recognize that undoing the New Deal is a political impossibility at this point, maybe he’d still seek to prevent sweeping programs like LBJ’s Great Society legislation from taking shape ahead of time (or whatever analogues might otherwise spring up ITTL). ...And now I’m reminded of an ASB election I once proposed between 1944 FDR and 1984 Reagan, in which case the latter probably lacks the legendary status he achieved post-presidency. The former, however, would have his own share of baggage, namely his ailing health and due process-free internment of Japanese Americans shortly after Pearl Harbor. Of course, I’m guessing that who wins depends on the election year in question, with an ASB 1960 election in which the two run yielding a different outcome than an ASB 1980 election featuring the same candidates (due to backlash against Stagflation and Keynesian economics).
Well in some ways he's more socially liberal than FDR. Such as race relations for instance. Although given attitudes at the time and especially that the Democrats relied heavily on the voting block of the old south he will probably be limited here. He might however be able to reduce the suffering of the Japanese minority in the aftermath of war breaking out although I suspect there would be a fair amount of hostility if something like Pearl Harbour still happens.
In other things don't forget the social reforms of the Great Society are still three decades ahead and he probably has only a decade at most to live given FDR's poor health. If he tries to make too many changes in favour of the very rich its not only going to look very odd its likely to go down like a lead balloon to those who lived through the great depression. Could reduce some social programnes, such as preventing the GI bill for instance but that could cause a lot of resentment as well as weakening the US in the medium term as a lot of the workforce would be less well trained and skilled. However both the US and the west in general were heading in a more liberal swing during this period and the reaction against the extremes of fascism and communism as well as the success of government action in WWII [and in the US in the 1933+ period] gave a lot of support for ideas such as those supported by Keynes and against the laissez faire ideas that had caused massive inequalities of both wealth and opportunities.
Hence he might not be able to do that much. It was only when the reform period started to run out of steam in the late 70's that the old power blocs managed to regain so much power and push the Anglo-sphere especially back into earlier mods of government.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 11, 2020 15:58:50 GMT
Thank you for the thorough initial answer. Yes, I meant that 1981 Reagan takes over FDR’s body in 1941 (which is what terms like SI, or ‘self-insert’, stand for in this context). In which case, I agree that he’d rectify what originally went wrong or could’ve gone better as best he can (i.e. taking a harder line against the USSR), though it’s also true that hindsight isn’t perfect. Which is only exacerbated by Reagan’s lack of inclination towards studying alternate history as we do . In the short run, though, how his more right-wing views affect things aside from making the Republicans more receptive to ‘FDR’ and incurring cocked eyebrows on the part of everyone else (assuming that he deviates from what’d be considered ‘in-character’ too much, which is more than likely), I don’t know. Even though Reagan’s probably astute enough to recognize that undoing the New Deal is a political impossibility at this point, maybe he’d still seek to prevent sweeping programs like LBJ’s Great Society legislation from taking shape ahead of time (or whatever analogues might otherwise spring up ITTL). ...And now I’m reminded of an ASB election I once proposed between 1944 FDR and 1984 Reagan, in which case the latter probably lacks the legendary status he achieved post-presidency. The former, however, would have his own share of baggage, namely his ailing health and due process-free internment of Japanese Americans shortly after Pearl Harbor. Of course, I’m guessing that who wins depends on the election year in question, with an ASB 1960 election in which the two run yielding a different outcome than an ASB 1980 election featuring the same candidates (due to backlash against Stagflation and Keynesian economics).
Well in some ways he's more socially liberal than FDR. Such as race relations for instance. Although given attitudes at the time and especially that the Democrats relied heavily on the voting block of the old south he will probably be limited here. He might however be able to reduce the suffering of the Japanese minority in the aftermath of war breaking out although I suspect there would be a fair amount of hostility if something like Pearl Harbour still happens.
In other things don't forget the social reforms of the Great Society are still three decades ahead and he probably has only a decade at most to live given FDR's poor health. If he tries to make too many changes in favour of the very rich its not only going to look very odd its likely to go down like a lead balloon to those who lived through the great depression. Could reduce some social programnes, such as preventing the GI bill for instance but that could cause a lot of resentment as well as weakening the US in the medium term as a lot of the workforce would be less well trained and skilled. However both the US and the west in general were heading in a more liberal swing during this period and the reaction against the extremes of fascism and communism as well as the success of government action in WWII [and in the US in the 1933+ period] gave a lot of support for ideas such as those supported by Keynes and against the laissez faire ideas that had caused massive inequalities of both wealth and opportunities.
Hence he might not be able to do that much. It was only when the reform period started to run out of steam in the late 70's that the old power blocs managed to regain so much power and push the Anglo-sphere especially back into earlier mods of government.
...Yeah, that sounds fair. I'd quibble as to what policies have brought about either positive or negative results and what school of economics works best, but that's probably a debate for another time and place. Regarding the matter immediately at hand, I suppose I should've been clearer about the ground rules I was proposing for a '1944 FDR Vs. 1984 Ronald Reagan' scenario, in which at least a handful of uptimer states (i.e. 1984 California) would get sent back in time, with Reagan coming along to represent them and their interests. Or, perhaps, FDR getting resurrected in the Eighties, and the US government magically handwaving the 22nd Amendment just this once so that he can challenge Reagan for the presidency. An effort that, at least I think, would face its own share of complications, such as FDR's poor health and record of unjustly interning Japanese-Americans--something that he'd probably be called on to apologize for, at the least. That also discounts how he's probably too socially conservative for even Reagan's America, considering that he'd probably be dumbstruck at the Sexual Revolution and more permissive social norms that took hold in the decades after his OTL death. And, of course, he'd probably have to downplay or hide his disapproval at the resulting changes, and I'm unsure as to whether he can pull that off or not. Moreover, how might he address conservative charges that New Dealer Keynesianism wasn't foolproof and that Reagan's rollbacks--tempered by him not repealing New Deal policies that are already in place, of course--spurred a beautiful economic recovery, especially due to how Stagflation under Jimmy Carter remains in recent memory at this time? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,229
|
Post by stevep on Jun 12, 2020 11:01:32 GMT
Well in some ways he's more socially liberal than FDR. Such as race relations for instance. Although given attitudes at the time and especially that the Democrats relied heavily on the voting block of the old south he will probably be limited here. He might however be able to reduce the suffering of the Japanese minority in the aftermath of war breaking out although I suspect there would be a fair amount of hostility if something like Pearl Harbour still happens.
In other things don't forget the social reforms of the Great Society are still three decades ahead and he probably has only a decade at most to live given FDR's poor health. If he tries to make too many changes in favour of the very rich its not only going to look very odd its likely to go down like a lead balloon to those who lived through the great depression. Could reduce some social programnes, such as preventing the GI bill for instance but that could cause a lot of resentment as well as weakening the US in the medium term as a lot of the workforce would be less well trained and skilled. However both the US and the west in general were heading in a more liberal swing during this period and the reaction against the extremes of fascism and communism as well as the success of government action in WWII [and in the US in the 1933+ period] gave a lot of support for ideas such as those supported by Keynes and against the laissez faire ideas that had caused massive inequalities of both wealth and opportunities.
Hence he might not be able to do that much. It was only when the reform period started to run out of steam in the late 70's that the old power blocs managed to regain so much power and push the Anglo-sphere especially back into earlier mods of government.
...Yeah, that sounds fair. I'd quibble as to what policies have brought about either positive or negative results and what school of economics works best, but that's probably a debate for another time and place. Regarding the matter immediately at hand, I suppose I should've been clearer about the ground rules I was proposing for a '1944 FDR Vs. 1984 Ronald Reagan' scenario, in which at least a handful of uptimer states (i.e. 1984 California) would get sent back in time, with Reagan coming along to represent them and their interests. Or, perhaps, FDR getting resurrected in the Eighties, and the US government magically handwaving the 22nd Amendment just this once so that he can challenge Reagan for the presidency. An effort that, at least I think, would face its own share of complications, such as FDR's poor health and record of unjustly interning Japanese-Americans--something that he'd probably be called on to apologize for, at the least. That also discounts how he's probably too socially conservative for even Reagan's America, considering that he'd probably be dumbstruck at the Sexual Revolution and more permissive social norms that took hold in the decades after his OTL death. And, of course, he'd probably have to downplay or hide his disapproval at the resulting changes, and I'm unsure as to whether he can pull that off or not. Moreover, how might he address conservative charges that New Dealer Keynesianism wasn't foolproof and that Reagan's rollbacks--tempered by him not repealing New Deal policies that are already in place, of course--spurred a beautiful economic recovery, especially due to how Stagflation under Jimmy Carter remains in recent memory at this time?
We could quibble about relative economic performances but one key point was that in the FDR period the vast majority of people considered it worked so a transplanted Reagan trying to reverse that would not only be difficult as so out of character for FDR its going to be deeply unpopular with the public.
Similarly in the OTL Reagan period there was an economic recovery, although also some arguments that it was in some part brought about by decisions made by Carter, Reagan's policies also brought deep problems in terms of greatly increased national debt and greater social division. It was the man who became his VP and successor after all who called it voodoo economics. There were problems with the way Keynesian economics were being implemented in the 70's but there could be a lot of argument that the conservative reaction that started in the 79/80 period hasn't done any better in the longer term.
In terms of Roosevelt's actions with the Japanese Americans I doubt there would be much complaint about it, other than by the unfortunate victims in the 40's. If brought forward to the 1980s he would face criticism from liberals especially over such actions but then what if Reagan's own, totally illegal actions in the Iran-Contra affair came to light earlier? As Trump's action's yesterday showed there is a significant element in the US that view it as different from other nations and not bound by moral limits so any criticism of either's actions is also likely to have a significant political element.
Steve
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 21, 2020 14:42:35 GMT
...Yeah, that sounds fair. I'd quibble as to what policies have brought about either positive or negative results and what school of economics works best, but that's probably a debate for another time and place. Regarding the matter immediately at hand, I suppose I should've been clearer about the ground rules I was proposing for a '1944 FDR Vs. 1984 Ronald Reagan' scenario, in which at least a handful of uptimer states (i.e. 1984 California) would get sent back in time, with Reagan coming along to represent them and their interests. Or, perhaps, FDR getting resurrected in the Eighties, and the US government magically handwaving the 22nd Amendment just this once so that he can challenge Reagan for the presidency. An effort that, at least I think, would face its own share of complications, such as FDR's poor health and record of unjustly interning Japanese-Americans--something that he'd probably be called on to apologize for, at the least. That also discounts how he's probably too socially conservative for even Reagan's America, considering that he'd probably be dumbstruck at the Sexual Revolution and more permissive social norms that took hold in the decades after his OTL death. And, of course, he'd probably have to downplay or hide his disapproval at the resulting changes, and I'm unsure as to whether he can pull that off or not. Moreover, how might he address conservative charges that New Dealer Keynesianism wasn't foolproof and that Reagan's rollbacks--tempered by him not repealing New Deal policies that are already in place, of course--spurred a beautiful economic recovery, especially due to how Stagflation under Jimmy Carter remains in recent memory at this time?
We could quibble about relative economic performances but one key point was that in the FDR period the vast majority of people considered it worked so a transplanted Reagan trying to reverse that would not only be difficult as so out of character for FDR its going to be deeply unpopular with the public.
Similarly in the OTL Reagan period there was an economic recovery, although also some arguments that it was in some part brought about by decisions made by Carter, Reagan's policies also brought deep problems in terms of greatly increased national debt and greater social division. It was the man who became his VP and successor after all who called it voodoo economics. There were problems with the way Keynesian economics were being implemented in the 70's but there could be a lot of argument that the conservative reaction that started in the 79/80 period hasn't done any better in the longer term.
In terms of Roosevelt's actions with the Japanese Americans I doubt there would be much complaint about it, other than by the unfortunate victims in the 40's. If brought forward to the 1980s he would face criticism from liberals especially over such actions but then what if Reagan's own, totally illegal actions in the Iran-Contra affair came to light earlier? As Trump's action's yesterday showed there is a significant element in the US that view it as different from other nations and not bound by moral limits so any criticism of either's actions is also likely to have a significant political element.
Steve
...Alright, then. As interesting as I find this exchange of viewpoints, I think it'd be best if we continued it elsewhere, if you're still interested in keeping it up. Otherwise, I'm unsure that lordroel would be too appreciative of one scenario in particular taking up too much thread space when the idea is that we propose and discuss multiple such ideas here. So, for another non-frivolous ASB scenario, 'Kennedy Brothers Resurrected In 2000'. This includes 1944 Joseph Kennedy, 1963 John F. Kennedy and 1968 Robert F. Kennedy. In particular, Jack's vitality is restored so that he feels stronger than ever physically, if not necessarily psychologically (due to the sheer mind-screw of being brought back from the dead nearly forty years later). |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 22, 2020 16:21:54 GMT
'2020 Internet To 2010'.
|
|
.