Scoop Jackson wins the 1976 US Election

[Pericles]

I've just read The Presidency of James Earl Carter Jr by Burton and Scott Kaufman. That got me thinking about an idea I've had for a possible TL. This idea is that Scoop Jackson wins the 1976 US election and is a President who is hawkish abroad and liberal domestically, leading a much different presidency than Carter. What would Jackson have done as President? Could he have been successful when Carter failed? How would his presidency impact stagflation, Camp David, the Iranian Revolution and the late 1970s and onwards? What if?

 

[Pericles]

Anybody have some thoughts? How would the presidency of Scoop Jackson go?

 

[oudi14]

Jackson might have won the Dem. nomination, and then the presidency, had not Carter ran at that time. Its hard to say how well he would have run against Ford in the general, but assume he wins narrowly. Maybe he is conservative enough to A: not tolerate the fall of Somoza, and, B: to do all he can to prevent the toppling of the Shah. Does this sound plausible? Or is it too Reaganesque? I doubt he would have done anything different about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, from what Carter did. By then, even the naïve Carter was beginning to see the light, and understanding what a chronic liar, and evil man Brezhnev really was.

 

[Pericles]

Jackson might have won the Dem. nomination, and then the presidency, had not Carter ran at that time. Its hard to say how well he would have run against Ford in the general, but assume he wins narrowly. Maybe he is conservative enough to A: not tolerate the fall of Somoza, and, B: to do all he can to prevent the toppling of the Shah. Does this sound plausible? Or is it too Reaganesque? I doubt he would have done anything different about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, from what Carter did. By then, even the naïve Carter was beginning to see the light, and understanding what a chronic liar, and evil man Brezhnev really was.

Seems plausible. He was a neocon on foreign policy so he would be much tougher on Iran than Carter and tolerate human rights abuses from anti-communists. But Jackson was an old-fashioned liberal on domestic policy. Carter alienated liberals by trying to use budgetary austerity against inflation, Jackson would try Keynesian stimulus to combat unemployment. Maybe he doesn't break with liberals and fights for universal healthcare.

 

[Blackfox5]

Jackson was a hawk and sincere anti-Communist, but he was also prudent. He opposed the 1983 Lebanon intervention, and advocated caution in 1980 in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution and invasion of Afghanistan.

I don't see him cutting off aid to Nicaragua, but he could demand a lot of reforms by Somoza to get that help. Furthermore, the Sandinistas were not uniformly Communist. In common with most Communist activities, they always made allies with non-Communist reformers to show a broad front, and then abandon/push out those elements later. Presumably Jackson would see through this faster than Carter, but there are still elements in the Sandinistas that could be worked with initially.

I think the situation in Iran would be similar. People did not foresee an Islamic Revolution. He likely would have acted similarly to Carter (try to build relations with democratic reformers friendly to the US) until the hostage situation happened. The Shah was a valued ally, but his human rights abuses were a complete embarrassment.

In both cases I think you could say he maybe might handle the transition better and might have avoided the need for Reaganesque responses. If not, then the Reagan-like policies are implemented earlier.

However, there is likely to be a big impact on arms talks with the Soviet Union. Detente would likely end.

Domestically the big change is that none or few of Carter's pro-market reforms happen. Jackson was in the mold of traditional Democrat economic ideas. I don't see him deregulating at all, and I'm not sure if he'd appoint someone like Volcker to the Fed. Stagflation likely won't be resolved.

 

[Pericles]

Jackson would be much more liberal domestically. That has a range of butterflies. No Volcker is one. Also Carter made a major break with liberals when he refused to push for universal healthcare, Jackson might try pass universal healthcare in his term. Iran would go differently. Overall Jackson would be a far more experienced, competent and resolute leader of the US on the world stage. It might not matter given how much of a poisoned chalice 1976 was, but then again Carter was close in the election polls with Reagan IOTL(right until the debate and results they were pretty close) so you never know.

 

[Pericles]

Any more ideas? The 1970s were a turning point in US politics and indeed a major point in history so a different President would have important effects. How would Jackson handle Iran?