Bicentennial Man: Ford '76 and Beyond

That's sort of where we're headed, though Rizzo/80s Trump types would definitely still fit best in the Democrats for now (indeed that's where we'll run into DT when he makes his appearance ITTL)

That's... yeah, actually, a decent idea. Wilson especially fits.

Probably not, but no decision made yet.
I don’t see a Reform Party coming. This administration seems a lot more protectionist and I know that’s a big part of Perots appeal. Maybe something else sparks a run, maybe he does it for his own ego. Maybe a Lee Iacocca run in 1988 or 1992.
 
That's sort of where we're headed, though Rizzo/80s Trump types would definitely still fit best in the Democrats for now (indeed that's where we'll run into DT when he makes his appearance ITTL
Trump or Pete Wilson as an american Pim Fourtyn in an alt-1996 or 2000 is underused in AH
If Holtzman is the presidential candidate in 1996 I could see there being significant third party runs from a southern candidate and a northern one seeking to attract blue-collar workers that don’t like Holtzman
 
If Holtzman is the presidential candidate in 1996 I could see there being significant third party runs from a southern candidate and a northern one seeking to attract blue-collar workers that don’t like Holtzman
A David Boren ticket. Maybe Larry McDonald if he doesn't die. Richard Shelby might make a run with Boren backing him up. I honestly figured a Mondale type would be the nominee in '96. Plug him in as the Bob Dole type.
 
A David Boren ticket. Maybe Larry McDonald if he doesn't die. Richard Shelby might make a run with Boren backing him up. I honestly figured a Mondale type would be the nominee in '96. Plug him in as the Bob Dole type.
I’m thinking that Holtzman gains momentum primarying Askew in 92 and coming close. She is able to channel that momentum into the nomination in 1996 where she loses an odd election that’s like a hybrid of 1968 and 1996 IOTL.

Adlai Stevenson lll runs in 2000 as a unifying/compromising figure unironically like his dad was but this time the son fulfill’s the Stevenson family pursuit of the White House lol
 
Last edited:
I’m thinking that Holtzman gains momentum primarying Askew in 92 and coming close. She is able to channel that momentum into the nomination in 1996 where she loses an odd election that’s like a hybrid of 1968 and 1996 IOTL.

Adlai Stevenson lll runs in 2000 as a unifying/compromising figure unironically like his dad was but this time the son fulfill’s the Stevenson family pursuit of the White House lol
Without jumping ahead too far I see Holtzman losing to Mondale in 1996, essentially as a Pat Buchanan type figure who’s been booted from the senate by little Cuomo. Then 2000 is maybe a JFK Jr. Or if we’re being more realistic an Al Gore, Bill Bradley, or someone inbetween who beets whoever is Vp. I like your idea though, a little more original.
 
We are talking about 24 years after the PoD, JFK Jnr was 16 at the time. The most plausible Democratic Party candidate for the 2000 Presidential Election is someone who never appeared on the radar in OTL either because they didn't enter politics or were defeated at an early stage.
 
We are talking about 24 years after the PoD, JFK Jnr was 16 at the time. The most plausible Democratic Party candidate for the 2000 Presidential Election is someone who never appeared on the radar in OTL either because they didn't enter politics or were defeated at an early stage.
I think the candidate should be Bill Cypher.
 
We are talking about 24 years after the PoD, JFK Jnr was 16 at the time
He would not have been 16 in 2000. That’s what I’m talking about right now, the year 2000. Before that I’d have him defeat an incumbent Republican in the New York Governors race in 1994. If not that then 1998. Essentially, he’s this timelines Dubya.
The most plausible Democratic Party candidate for the 2000 Presidential Election is someone who never appeared on the radar in OTL either because they didn't enter politics or were defeated at an early stage.
How is this anymore plausible then what I put forth. Why is having Ron Sims be president or anyone like you described more plausible than JFK Jr? Someone with the wealth and status to make a career in politics who could easily fit the timeline.
 
He would not have been 16 in 2000. That’s what I’m talking about right now, the year 2000. Before that I’d have him defeat an incumbent Republican in the New York Governors race in 1994. If not that then 1998. Essentially, he’s this timelines Dubya.

A lot of things can happen to someone between age 16, the date of the PoD and 40. While a Kennedy for obvious reasons is more likely to go into politics than your average member of the public and considering his fairly unsuccessful life in OTL it's not implausible that he should be more successful and in a position to run for the Presidency in 2000 it is more likely that after 24 years of butterflies it is someone who in OTL is completely unknown.

How is this anymore plausible then what I put forth. Why is having Ron Sims be president or anyone like you described more plausible than JFK Jr? Someone with the wealth and status to make a career in politics who could easily fit the timeline.

I have no idea who Ron Sims is but I think a good general principle for these things is the following:
  • General success is largely a combination of natural talent/dedication and good fortune
  • Specific success, i.e. obtaining a particular position at a particular time is more heavily weighted towards chance
  • The further you go from the PoD the higher the odds that it is someone who in OTL was completely unknown is the winner.
  • As far as butterflies are concerned 24 years is a long time.
With a 1976 PoD the list of plausible major party nominees in 1980 is essentially limited to people who were in contention in OTL, the number of Barack Obama's who rise very rapidly is very limited. By 1992 for plausibilities sake be mostly people who were present but not prominent in OTL. By 2000 it should be people who were completely unknown in OTL because if you look at most Presidents the time from the start of their political career (first elected office) to their assuming the Presidency is less than 24 years.

Look at recent Presidents from the time of their first election to meaningful public office to their becoming President.
Biden (47 years)
Trump (0 years)
Obama (12 years)
Bush Jnr (6 years)
Clinton (15 years)
Bush Snr (22 years)
Reagan (14 years)
Carter (14 years)

Average = 16.25 years


Now those numbers don't say everything, Trump was very prominent long before he became President and Bush Jnr was the son of the President. So if you take them out you get an average of 20.66 years. Either way in 2000 in this tl, 24 years after the PoD it should be someone who doesn't have a Wikipedia entry.
 
It’s certainly not implausible that JFK JR decides to fully embrace politics with a Ford winning POD. IRL during the late 70s JFK JR was the leader of a college student group based on discussing political issues so he was clearly interested/invested in politics. I could see the way things have went ITTL’s late 70s making JFK JR 100% deadset on going into politics. The New York political machine would be more than happy to make him the heir apparent to Cuomo.

A JFK JR 2000 presidency isn’t likely BUT he has the name, looks, work ethic, and a pretty favorable political environment to make it happen.
 
A lot of things can happen to someone between age 16, the date of the PoD and 40. While a Kennedy for obvious reasons is more likely to go into politics than your average member of the public and considering his fairly unsuccessful life in OTL it's not implausible that he should be more successful and in a position to run for the Presidency in 2000 it is more likely that after 24 years of butterflies it is someone who in OTL is completely unknown.



I have no idea who Ron Sims is but I think a good general principle for these things is the following:
  • General success is largely a combination of natural talent/dedication and good fortune
  • Specific success, i.e. obtaining a particular position at a particular time is more heavily weighted towards chance
  • The further you go from the PoD the higher the odds that it is someone who in OTL was completely unknown is the winner.
  • As far as butterflies are concerned 24 years is a long time.
With a 1976 PoD the list of plausible major party nominees in 1980 is essentially limited to people who were in contention in OTL, the number of Barack Obama's who rise very rapidly is very limited. By 1992 for plausibilities sake be mostly people who were present but not prominent in OTL. By 2000 it should be people who were completely unknown in OTL because if you look at most Presidents the time from the start of their political career (first elected office) to their assuming the Presidency is less than 24 years.

Look at recent Presidents from the time of their first election to meaningful public office to their becoming President.
Biden (47 years)
Trump (0 years)
Obama (12 years)
Bush Jnr (6 years)
Clinton (15 years)
Bush Snr (22 years)
Reagan (14 years)
Carter (14 years)

Average = 16.25 years


Now those numbers don't say everything, Trump was very prominent long before he became President and Bush Jnr was the son of the President. So if you take them out you get an average of 20.66 years. Either way in 2000 in this tl, 24 years after the PoD it should be someone who doesn't have a Wikipedia entry.
For the sake of the story. Why have it be someone as you put it “completely unknown” . King Sweden is a fantastic writer, one of the best on the site, but I’m not fully sold on an irrelevant person being made president because you crunched the numbers and deem it sensible. My theory, agree or disagree, follows nearly exactly the career path of George W. Bush with a gubernatorial victory in 1994, presumed a good democratic year if the author follows otl but in a slight reverse. Having a JFK with a Les Aspin/Warren Christopher type as VP makes perfect sense. If you disagree feel free. But don’t act as if JFK JR. To say someone could never be placed in this position because statistically it can take 16 years to go from ”no wiki page” to president. The idea of “more or less likely” should shape the timeline but narrative should always be the focus.
 
Last edited:
thinking on the PATCO situation i wonder if it could lead to some kind of labor bill. Maybe Carey uses pushing back or taking a tough stance on PATCO’s unreasonable demands as a way to get the political capital to make some reforms to the Taft-Hartley act
 
My fear with Heseltine is that so many TLs use him as an alt-PM, but perhaps for a reason. Prior seems to me somebody who’s time had come and gone by the 80s (perhaps even true of Whitelaw), those men of the generation groomed by Rab Butler who came up alongside Enoch before he decided to go in a, uh, different direction are probably not forward looking enough to mark a decisive breach with what’s going to be a very long-in-the-tooth generation of Labour heavies by the time they’re back in power. Meyer is an interesting suggestion though, somebody I’ve never heard of, so I may take a peek at him. I do want to use Patten at some point, too.
One figure usually overlooked in 'Tories are out of office in the early 80s' TLs is Peter Walker. Significant Tory moderniser in the 1960s (when he was still in his early 30s), senior cabinet minister under Heath, opted not to serve in Thatcher's shadow cabinet but joined her in cabinet. Walker even wrote a book in 1977 called 'The Ascent of Britain' setting out his more moderate alternative to Thatcherism, and he was always particularly concerned with avoiding high unemployment. As Energy Secretary he was largely responsible for the defeat of the Miners Strike and responsible for the privatisation of British Gas - so a moderate but not a Ian Gilmour/Anthony Meyer style 'ultra wet'.
 
I don’t see a Reform Party coming. This administration seems a lot more protectionist and I know that’s a big part of Perots appeal. Maybe something else sparks a run, maybe he does it for his own ego. Maybe a Lee Iacocca run in 1988 or 1992.
Carey being President, rather than the less union-friendly and more free trade-friendly Carter/Clinton profiles, definitely eliminates a lot of the free trade energy amongst Democrats (the economic dislocation in much of the South in the early 80s, especially Bama/Miss, tampers such enthusiasm too) for the time being. That said, the neoliberal turn away from the Keynesian postwar consensus due to the 1970s lost decade was global and largely nonpartisan (as per the New Zealand example) so you'd probably see some of those same ideas, with attached backlash, bubble up in due time, just not quite as hatchet vs. scalpel as the Thatcher monetarist and Reagan supply-side cut model.
For the sake of the story. Why have it be someone as you put it “completely unknown” . King Sweden is a fantastic writer, one of the best on the site, but I’m not fully sold on an irrelevant person being made president because you crunched the numbers and deem it sensible. My theory, agree or disagree, follows nearly exactly the career path of George W. Bush with a gubernatorial victory in 1994, presumed a good democratic year if the author follows otl but in a slight reverse. Having a JFK with a Les Aspin/Warren Christopher type as VP makes perfect sense. If you disagree feel free. But don’t act as if JFK JR. To say someone could never be placed in this position because statistically it can take 16 years to go from ”no wiki page” to president. The idea of “more or less likely” should shape the timeline but narrative should always be the focus.
You're very kind!

I haven't decided if I'm even going to use JFK Jr. anywhere in the TL (I feel its a bit cliche to make him President but I did deploy him in an old TL of mine over on Wikia and I do love recycling my old ideas after all, lol) but my plan had all along been to have America's first black President elected in 2000, somebody who I've never seen used in a TL before and is a name many of you might recognize but is still fairly obscure in the great scheme of things. That said, a Kennedy restoration does have a certain romantic appeal to it for many voters I'm sure, but I do wonder how much Kennedy nostalgia there would be without New Deal liberalism's defeat by Reagan and when Carey has sort of rebuilt the old Kennedy coalition behind him and scratches the "Irish-American man of the people" itch. Food for thought, I guess, if I change my mind.
I don’t think Mondale would be interested in running, seems like the type to be content with being a powerful force in the senate. Ann Richards is someone who could be very compelling ITTL’s 90s
Mondale had to be aggressively persuaded to even run for VP in '76. He's a Senate lifer here, I'd like to see how I can eventually make him Senate Majority Leader (shouldn't be too hard I don't think, he's an obvious choice once Byrd hangs up the spurs)
thinking on the PATCO situation i wonder if it could lead to some kind of labor bill. Maybe Carey uses pushing back or taking a tough stance on PATCO’s unreasonable demands as a way to get the political capital to make some reforms to the Taft-Hartley act
Carey definitely wants to do some labor reform though I'm not sure how PATCO directly leads into that, since they were a very unique, white-collar union
It’s been a while, but what is the status of things like healthcare and so on?
Coming up soon!
One figure usually overlooked in 'Tories are out of office in the early 80s' TLs is Peter Walker. Significant Tory moderniser in the 1960s (when he was still in his early 30s), senior cabinet minister under Heath, opted not to serve in Thatcher's shadow cabinet but joined her in cabinet. Walker even wrote a book in 1977 called 'The Ascent of Britain' setting out his more moderate alternative to Thatcherism, and he was always particularly concerned with avoiding high unemployment. As Energy Secretary he was largely responsible for the defeat of the Miners Strike and responsible for the privatisation of British Gas - so a moderate but not a Ian Gilmour/Anthony Meyer style 'ultra wet'.
Oooh that is a good choice. Not as much of a Heathite as Whitelaw but perhaps also doesn't have the stink of Thatcher and Whitelaw's failures and can be viewed as a compromise figure that unites the whole party? He's the right level of "kind of obscure" for my oeuvre and seems to fit a Tory Party getting increasingly conservative but perhaps not attached to all that comes with a Heseltine
 
A Special Relationship
A Special Relationship

Hugh Carey's first foreign visit was, of course, to next-door Canada, and his first overseas visit that followed would be a straightforward trip to the United Kingdom, then Brussels for a NATO conference, and then on to Germany to meet with the rather interesting new Chancellor Franz-Josef Strauss before stopping over in Paris for a quick bilateral with the newly-reelected Valery Giscard d'Estaing and then heading home. The foreign tour was meant to introduce a new era of foreign policy to the three most key European allies and "establish relationships between the White House and our most important partners in the Atlantic alliance." The back half of the tour was fairly unremarkable; like most NATO leaders, Carey was put off by Strauss during their "walk in the park" in Munich, while his time with VGE was polite and boringly constructive.

London proved to be the highlight, both for Carey personally and for the transatlantic alliance. Carey was treated to an audience with the Queen, with whom he came away impressed by, and though a brief jaunt to his ancestral Ireland was not on the cards in this trip, he spoke at a press conference of "my love for the entirety of this island chain, and my intent to spend more time in it." The famously ruthless British press made some mockery of Carey's gruff, stiff posture and compared his thick eyebrows to those of Prime Minister Healey, but on more substantive grounds did pointedly ask the question on everybody's mind - to what extent did Carey sympathize with Irish republicanism, him being a devout Irish Catholic himself? The question of Irish-American attitudes towards "the six counties" was considerably more live in 1981 than it had been when John F. Kennedy visited Ireland twenty years earlier in his own Presidency, with the Troubles having erupted in 1968 and still simmering a decade after their most intense year; indeed, Michael Foot and the Home Office had just through cautious negotiations barely avoided another publicly embarrassing hunger strike by IRA prisoners just weeks before Carey's visit. [1] It was widely known to British policymakers that a fair amount of Sinn Fein's funding came from Irish-Americans romantically attached to their homeland and ignorant about what the IRA actually stood for, and indeed there were more than a few people, even in Labour which was less reflexively Unionist (indeed, Foot privately thought that Northern Ireland should be Dublin's problem rather than London's, and had said as much to his Cabinet colleagues on several occasions) [2] who were actively worried that the election of an Irish-American "hard man" from New York who was very close politically and personally to the three powerful Irish-American Democratic legislators Ted Kennedy, Daniel Moynihan and most importantly Speaker Tip O'Neill meant a wrinkle in the US-UK relationship over Ireland; Francis Pym, the Tories' Shadow Foreign Secretary, went so far as to describe this quartet as "the Four Horsemen of the Ulster Apocalypse."

As such, before the first face-to-face meeting between the occupants of the White House and Number 10, there was tension and mistrust in the air between the two principals. That said, historians have cast doubt on the extent of this. Healey, like Callaghan before him, had got on quite well with Gerald Ford and had been the first foreign leader to call Carey to congratulate him on his victory over Ronald Reagan. Beyond that, Foreign Secretary David Owen - widely thought to be doing everything in his power to set himself up as Healey's successor as Labour leader in four to five years' time, as Healey was not expected to want to serve to the age of seventy and Owen was nearly twenty years his junior - had made a point of becoming good friends first with George Bush and now with Nicholas Katzenbach in a short period of time, coming to dominate the foreign portfolio as he spent nearly every other week abroad on diplomatic assignments as possibly the most hard-charging Foreign Secretary since World War II, which had served to lay a tremendous amount of groundwork for the meeting. In person, though, Carey and Healey hit it off. As old-fashioned men of a similar age who had come of age with the mid-century Old Left, they shared a mutual distaste for the rising "New Left" ascendant in both their parties and Healey openly joked about "all these Trots Tots around us." Carey was impressed by Healey's voluminous knowledge of European figures, and leaned on him and Owen both for their thoughts on how best to handle Strauss, whom nobody in Washington seemed quite sure what to do with (Carey went so far as to jokingly call him "Kraut Nixon.") Healey earned from Carey a key commitment on the matter most personal to him, which was "the peaceful transition of Eastern Europe from Soviet communism to democracy," not precisely a controversial stance in the United States but one that committed Labour to a much more muscular role in Cold War affairs than perhaps the Militant faction and the Bennites just a tick to their right were comfortable with. Beyond concluding that Andropov was best not to be trusted, the meeting did much to cement a positive relationship between two men who were largely aligned politically and whose cooperation and partnership would come to define the US-UK alliance in a way few leaders had since LBJ and Harold Wilson. [3]

The immediate point of agreement both leaders arrived at, however, was pushing forward with securing an end to apartheid in South Africa. The "Free Nelson Mandela" movement had grown dramatically in the course of the last two years, boosted in part by an innovative public relations campaign by OR Tambo in London as well as international outrage still lingering from the Soweto Uprising. That negotiation with South Africa was possible had been proven by BJ Vorster's participation in securing Zimbabwe's Internal Settlement, and though the Muzorewa regime's commitment to democracy was increasingly questionable ever since incorporating the Nkomo faction into government, the "Rhodesia Model" was one both Carey and Healey gave much credit to, in large part as Healey had been instrumental during his time as Foreign Secretary in securing it. Now as Prime Minister, Healey's great desire in international relations was to use the British Commonwealth actively to promote freedom, equality and democracy abroad rather than simply serve as an old clearing house for the former Empire.

It was not as simple as Healey thought, though, to simply copy what had worked in Rhodesia and transplant it to South Africa. The apartheid government was much more sophisticated, internally strong and dogged in its refusal to budge than Ian Smith had been, and Vorster had been toppled internally in a scandal and been replaced by PW Botha, who was a thorough hardliner. Tambo's reputation after a freak poisoning incident that had killed hundreds of ANC members had also declined sharply, and Mandela was twiddling his thumbs on Robben Island. International contempt for South Africa was much higher, too; Mandela was a considerably more sympathetic figure abroad than Mugabe and Nkomo had been, and Rhodesia a more obscure corner of the world, meaning all eyes were on what happened there. In particular, US Congressman Andrew Young of Atlanta had made it his personal mission to secure severe sanctions against Pretoria and personally regarded Rhodesia's Internal Settlement as disgraceful, and opposed any such solution in South Africa. [4]

The pressure was on, then, in the early 1980s for a novel solution to the problem, but both leaders came away from their multi-day meetings in London with the agreement that South Africa, rather than an anti-communist bulwark, was a pariah regime that needed to be brought to heel and that doing so was a high priority for both of them...



[1] So Bobby Sands is alive, IOW. A lot of what drove the second hunger strike was Thatcher's people not coming to the table after the IRA blew up her Northern Ireland hand and good personal friend Airey Neave (one of the few things I actually learned about watching the dreck that was The Iron Lady, good as Meryl is in it) right after the 1979 elections. So between the IRA not blowing up Neave and Mountbatten in 1979, the early 80s are a lot more pacific in Northern Ireland, even though the situation is still pretty tense.
[2] To what extent Foot actually believed this, I don't know, but from what I recall reading this was a point of view ascendant in Labour at the time
[3] Of course Ford and Callaghan had a lot more mutual overlap here than IOTL, but they were not of the same political persuasions
[4] As UN Ambassador, Andrew Young was a big part of sinking the flawed but workable Internal Settlement, paving the road for Mugabe's takeover
 
but I do wonder how much Kennedy nostalgia there would be without New Deal liberalism's defeat by Reagan and when Carey has sort of rebuilt the old Kennedy coalition behind him and scratches the "Irish-American man of the people" itch. Food for thought, I guess, if I change my mind.
I think temporarily in the late 70s-early 80s you’d see heightened Kennedy nostalgia. I’d imagine there’d be sentiment that the late economic troubles of the late 70s is karma for straying away from the basic new deal principles guys like Kennedy believed in. And with Ted being the known head guy of the senate during the economic recovery it would only enhance the Kennedy name. The Kennedy’s in the long term would have quite as much of the tragic aura it has now though. Ted’s legacy is gonna easily surpass RFK’s after his health plan gets through, Ted is the big winner legacy wise of this scenario.
Carey definitely wants to do some labor reform though I'm not sure how PATCO directly leads into that, since they were a very unique, white-collar union
what I mean is that Hugh Carey could use being tough on them to “flex his moderate muscles” as a way to get enough political capital to pass a decent pro-labor bill, kind of like how Nixon was able to get away with normalizing relations with China more than most presidents in his position would have been able to. As you say it’s a more white-collar union so Carey could use that to pit the blue collar unions against them to avoid major blowback from the union side of things for taking a tough stance on them
Mondale had to be aggressively persuaded to even run for VP in '76. He's a Senate lifer here, I'd like to see how I can eventually make him Senate Majority Leader (shouldn't be too hard I don't think, he's an obvious choice once Byrd hangs up the spurs)
Being the heir to Humphrey if he wants it he’ll easily have it. Hubert Humphrey’s ideology being the dominant force of the Dem Party is justice lol
Carey being President, rather than the less union-friendly and more free trade-friendly Carter/Clinton profiles, definitely eliminates a lot of the free trade energy amongst Democrats (the economic dislocation in much of the South in the early 80s, especially Bama/Miss, tampers such enthusiasm too) for the time being. That said, the neoliberal turn away from the Keynesian postwar consensus due to the 1970s lost decade was global and largely nonpartisan (as per the New Zealand example) so you'd probably see some of those same ideas, with attached backlash, bubble up in due time, just not quite as hatchet vs. scalpel as the Thatcher monetarist and Reagan supply-side cut model
Carey is basically the perfect two-party candidate for Perot voters
 
I fucking love that we've got the reverse situation towards South Africa than we did in OTL. As a kid who learnt about ( a very simplified version of) apartheid in school, it infuriated me how the country was regarded by Ronnie and Maggie. You love to see it!
 
Top