-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Last edited:
A Note to the Reader
When I first embarked on this journey to chronicle the past twenty-five or so years I was cautioned not to "rush into history" and to let considerable time to go by before a fairer telling of events could come up. Indeed, it seemed that I was apparently "too connected" or rather "too close" to these events to produce a balance and accurate account. Perhaps in fifty years I could try again.
Evidently I have chosen to not take such advice, and instead have rushed right into history. I am troubled that the past which matters the most to us right now, and which is most relevant today is somehow off-limits to historians. Which appears more often in debates today - The War of 1812 or the War in Syria?
I am not arguing whether or not studying the War of 1812 can be useful. I am only questioning how relevant it is to today when foreign policy is not as concerned with Britain as it is with the Middle East. Too often have I watched pundits and journalists lack a basic understanding of recent history, of what happened in our lifetimes. Understanding these past several years is vital if one wants to positively contribute to the ongoing political debates in a meaningful way.
It is with this mindset that I began this book shortly after inauguration day a few years ago. I hope that you can walk away from this with a greater understanding of our world because you know how it came to be this way.
- Quincy W. Erty
Last edited:
Thank you all for the interest. The first update should come soon enough. The author is going to start examining contemporary history with a history of the main currents of thought in American politics - American "liberalism" and American "conservatism" - since the New Deal. Just to be clear, this is a historybooke aar which will make occasional use of wikiboxes and video, but the main focus is writing something plausible which is also grounded in a good deal of actual contemporary American (and Western) history.
I am interested!
Prologue: New Deal to New Democrats
Having just begun by noting to the reader that recent history is perhaps most relevant to our understanding of the world today, I shall contradict that notion by providing a general history of the two main currents in American politics - American "liberalism" and American "conservatism." These two groups somewhat resemble the Holy Roman Empire of Voltaire, being neither truly liberal nor truly conservative. Although the two terms have often been elusive, in part because they have been employed by a number of different people for a number of different reasons with a number of different definitions, I do not intend to turn this section of the book into a treatise on the subject. Instead, I shall start by quoting one conservative thinker speaking in 1964:
"Conservatism is the organic relationship of concrete to concrete, evolved like trees from deeply experienced historical roots. Liberalism...is the mechanical piling up of abstraction on abstraction. Its institutions are moved about like separate hunks of furniture, contrived from top-of-the-brain blueprints."Conservatism is a philosophy of communitarianism which is strongly skeptical of reason in politics and of Liberalism's claims of abstract natural rights, instead opting for the practical wisdom of culture and tradition to be found in long established institutions. Throughout its entire history, America has lacked a truly dominant pure conservatism, and has immersed itself in its liberal political culture and its fierce individualism. Indeed, the term "conservative," has only recently come into mainstream use in American politics, starting in the 1940s. However, as we shall see, these American "conservatives" are far more liberal than they seem to think.
In order to understand why these men chose to label themselves "conservative," we shall look at one of the most transformative and troubling periods in American history - The Great Depression. In response to this severe crisis, the Democrats and President Franklin D. Roosevelt (hereafter referred to as FDR) initiated a series of broad and sweeping reforms which drastically increased the power and scope of the federal government known as the New Deal. These changes required substantial support from Congress and the Public, thus the "New Deal Coalition." It was a diverse array of interests, including within its ranks labor unions, African-Americans, various ethnic and religious minorities, farmers, the unemployed, the impoverished, college professors, progressives, and, crucially, Southern whites. It was this last group that forced FDR to avoid mentioning racial issues, and indeed many more members of the New Deal coalition shared the views of Southern Democrats on race. However, these problems remained under-the-surface, the focus instead being the economy and fighting the Depression.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Leader of the New Deal coalition
Many opponents of the New Deal accused its supporters of mislabeling themselves as liberal, when in fact, according to them, it was the anti-government opposition of the New Deal who were the true liberals. There was a growing dissatisfaction with the centralized, impersonal bureaucratic planning of the New Deal. While early New Deal opposition had always criticized the programs as the encroachments of an unnecessarily large government, their protests were dismissed by most Americans as paranoid and schizophrenic. Business leaders during the Great Depression funded organizations and candidates to oppose what they saw as the subversion of individual freedom and the free market by centralized planning. Their concerns found intellectual backing in the 1940s with the publishing of Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom (1944), which warned of the dangers to individual liberty of centralized planning, especially the centralized planning of the New Deal. These anti-statist individualists, claiming to be "classical liberals," would be the proponents of American libertarianism which followed the works of Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. With a strong devotion to the free market and protecting individual freedoms against an overbearing government, they would be a substantial force in the new American conservative movement that was forming.
Along with the libertarians came several major groups during the early years of the Cold War. American Liberalism seemed to be triumphant not only in the economic realm, but in the religious one as well. The Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 had been seen as a victory for secularism and an embarrassment for religious fundamentalism which withdrew into the shadows following it. During the 1940s, however, there began to appear many critics of the secularism of modern liberalism. These "traditionalists" (as they were called), led by men such as Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk, opposed what they saw as the corrosion of Western values due to rampant moral relativism and the absence of religious orthodoxy. They called for intermediary institutions between the individual and the State, much the same way that the liberal political philosopher called for intermediary bodies between the citizen and the monarch.
Friedrich von Hayek, a godfather of American libertarianism
The traditionalists put an emphasis on virtue, and so were not averse to employing state power as a means to this end. This often brought them into conflict with the libertarians who thought that this was a violation of individual liberty. This inherent contradiction in the American conservative coalition would occasionally flare up from time-to-time, but it was not an irreparable one. Frank Meyer offered up a solution with fusionism. Meyer argued that for the "conservative" the purpose of government was to protect and promote individual liberty, but that the individual ought to be committed to a virtuous, moral life.
Meyer's argument would win out, as the reader surely already knows, but it was aided by another vital movement that emerged after World War II. America stood as a liberal superpower, and its main competitor now the Soviet Union. Although American liberals did oppose communism, as evidenced by the Truman Doctrine and much more, it was the conservative movement which be home to its more fierce opponents. Anticommunism believed that America had a duty to defeat the Soviets, who promoted an evil and oppressive ideology. They were often led by ex-communists, the most notable being Whittaker Chambers. It was the anticommunists who would provide yet more glue to keep together the infant conservative coalition. All that was needed was a leader.
A leader was found in the young and witty William F. Buckley Jr., who in 1955 founded the National Review, which would serve as a means of promoting and debating what was now called "Movement Conservative." In the mission statement of the magazine he defined what it meant to be an American conservative: "A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." The Movement conservatives wanted to preserve the liberal status quo. Being arguably the most influential man in the movement, Buckley played a sort of patriarchal role to American conservatism. His transatlantic accent and his long-running television show Firing Line gave Buckley, and by extension conservatives, a sort of respectability that had not been afforded to the movement. Buckley also helped to educate a new generation of conservatives, founding the Young Americans for Freedom at his home in Sharon, Connecticut in September of 1960. Although never entering political office himself, except for a brief and unsuccessful campaign for Mayor of New York City in 1965, he would exercise more power on the direction of conservative politics than the vast majority of conservative politicians could claim to do so.
William F. Buckley, Patriarch of American Conservatism
Firstly, in nominating a western libertarian it represented the rise of so-called "Sunbelt conservatism." The New Deal coalition had in a way helped birth this form of conservatism, which was in truth just libertarianism by another name, with WW2 and postwar programs such as the GI bill and massive defense spending providing for a great amount of social mobility and prosperity which would lay the foundations of a consumer society which would produce anti-government sentiment in the Southwestern, or Sunbelt, states. Secondly, although Goldwater only won six states, these victories were rather important. Besides Arizona, Goldwater won most of what had then been called the "Solid South" for its consistent support for Democratic candidates for the president since Reconstruction. These gains would provided the basis for future successes of the Republican Party in the South.
Barry Goldwater (left) and Lyndon B. Johnson (right), the nominees in 1964
The sixties were without a doubt a very turbulent decade. Political turmoil, massive protests, demonstrations, assassinations, foreign wars, and a "Counter-Cultural" movement all contributed to an uneasy atmosphere. In the face of all this the New Deal coalition was falling apart. American historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. identified that decline in the concepts of "quantitative liberalism" and "qualitative liberalism." It was the quantitative liberalism of the New Deal that dealt with the "immediate problems of subsistence and survival." The New Deal had been preoccupied with economics and job, with "subsistence and survival." This had, according to liberals such as Schlesinger, created a great economic boom which had brought about the prosperity of the 1940s and 1950s. However, Schlesinger believed that in order to be successful liberals must turn to qualitative liberalism, which was more concerned with the "quality of civilization to which our nation aspires in an age of ever-increasing abundance and leisure." It was now time to focus on issues such as healthcare, education, urban development, women's rights, and most notably, civil rights.
John F. Kennedy, and later Lyndon B. Johnson, and the Democratic party would become the major party of civil rights for minority groups. This would prove to be the death of the New Deal coalition, as white Southern Democrats fervently opposed the civil rights legislation, claiming that it was a violation of states' rights. Southern whites' opposition to integration and intense support of segregation, combined with a disgust of the counter-cultural movement, gave the conservative coalition an opportunity to add another key component to the alliance. In 1968, appealing to "law and order," Republican Richard Nixon campaigned for President with the "Southern Strategy," which appealed to Southern whites' disillusionment with the Democrats' advocacy of civil rights and other socially liberal policies. The Democrats, hopelessly divided in a bitter and violent convention in Chicago in 1968, nominated Vice-President Humphrey for President after Johnson was rebuked by anti-war activists within the party. Humphrey would only win Texas in the South, and he did so only barely and because it was outgoing President Johnson's home state. The South would be divided between Nixon and the firebrand Alabama Governor George Wallace who famously declared "Segregation now. Segregation tomorrow. Segregation forever!"
Richard Nixon, He promised "Law and Order"
The sixties would also bring another group to the conservative movement - neoconservatives. The neoconservatives were disaffected liberals and social democrats, one of their prominent advocates being Irving Kristol who founded The Public Interest in 1965 in order to promote neoconservative causes. Unlike the Movement Conservatives broadly, they were not firmly opposed to progress. In fact, Kristol defined "meliorism," a belief in progress through effort, as one of the main distinctions between neoconservatism and the Movement Conservatism of the time. The neoconservatives were truly a reaction to the social upheavals of the 1960s and to the radicalism of the "New Left," believing that the Democrats had attempted to urge a sort of class warfare through the Great Society and Johnson's ominously named "War on Poverty."
In 1972, the "New Left" scored a victory with the nomination of South Dakota Senator George McGovern for President against President Nixon. McGovern was known for having a radical streak in the Senate, being a notable supporter of leaving Vietnam. In one anti-war speech in the Senate he said that "this [Senate] chamber reeks of blood." Critics characterized him as being for "Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion." He lost the election in landslide more devastating than Goldwater in 1964, winning only Massachusetts. Conservatives saw McGovern as all that was wrong with liberalism and the counter-culture of the 1960s. From then on, conservatives would often pejoratively compare Democratic opponents to McGovern, and indeed "anti-McGovernism" constituted another sort of fusionism for the conservative movement.
Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism
The seventies would also see the awakening of a very formidable and potent constituency. Christian evangelicals, traditionally abstaining from political activities, were suddenly compelled to enter the political arena to fight for their beliefs. Abortion was and still is a very controversial subject, and for evangelicals abortion was nothing less than sin. So it was no wonder that unrest broke out following the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) that abortion was constitutional. The evangelicals began organizing politically, further spurred into action in 1978 when the IRS announced that Christian private schools would lose their tax-exempt status unless they stopped all racial discrimination and segregation, and by the campaigning of liberals to add the "Equal Rights Amendment" to the Constitution. They found a fiery leader in the televangelist Jerry Falwell who urged that "we have to get God's people mobilized." Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979 in order to advance the cause of this new "Religious Right."
The evangelicals were awakening at the same time that many Americans lost faith in government. Nixon had resigned disgracefully after news of the infamous Watergate scandal become widespread. A deep mistrust of government grew, a mistrust which played into the hands of anti-government conservatives. In 1980, Americans elected the former actor Ronald Reagan, who was known for his anti-government beliefs, once quipping that the nine most terrifying words in the English language were "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Reagan fulfilled the same role as Buckley, being a unifying figure for the conservative movement who could be rallied upon. Indeed, occupying a position much like the one Margaret Thatcher did for the Conservative Party in the UK, future contenders for Republican nominations would compare themselves and their policies to Reagan.
The success of Reagan showed the ascendancy of American conservatism which had just several years prior been in the wilderness. However, as conservatives enjoyed the fruits of their electoral labors, conservatism would in a sense lose one of its key components - anticommunism. The Soviet Union was truthfully an ailing power in the 1980s. Although reforms such as Mikhail Gorbachev would attempt to prevent its collapse it would be no use. By the beginning of the 1990s, the Cold War had ended and in December of 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed. America was now the sole superpower.
Ronald Reagan, after the Cold War the world is no longer so black and white
Last edited:
Welcome aboard.
Thank you for the interest.
Don't worry, this is a family friendly aar.You know I'd rather say dommed then subbed but I'm subbed nonetheless.
With the prologue finished I can go at a bit of faster pace hopefully. Next we're probably going to be looking at the 1992 presidential election and after that then we'll get into the "Clinton years."
Chapter 1: 1992 and the Crisis in the New World Order
"What is at stake is more than one small country; it is a big idea: a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind -- peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle and worthy of our children's future." ~ President George Bush in an Address before a Joint Session of Congress in January 1991
After eight years in the White House, it was time for Ronald Reagan to pass on the presidential torch to a new "conservative," who could guide America through the drunken optimism set off by the supposed "End of History." To no one's surprise, Reagan's Vice-President, the gentle and awkward foreign policy buff, George Bush secured the nomination. However, many in the party were wary. Not yet completely ready to part with their undisputed hero while at the same time being suspicious of their nominee's commitment to the conservatism of his predecessor, it was clear that Bush would need to rid the party of such doubts. He would do so at the party convention in 1988, delivering a rousing speech in which he famously declared to a roaring crowd: "Read my lips. No new taxes." Bush would win the election in a landslide (although, once again, not as impressive as his predecessor) against the liberal governor of Massachusetts Michael Dukakis. Unwittingly, the new President had already laid the foundation for his own demise.
"I'm the one who will not raise taxes. My opponent- My opponent now says - My opponent now says he'll raise them as a last resort or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll be checking into. And I -My opponent - My opponent won't rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say, to them, "Read my lips. No new taxes.""
The first half of Bush's term was considered by most Americans to be a resounding success. In May of 1989, the brutal dictator of Panama, Manuel Noriega who had once received significant support from the CIA (including during Bush's tenure), had declared the country's election results to be void after a coalition of opposition parties had defeated Noriega's allies. Bush initially called on Noriega to respect the election results, but after being ignored for some time, Bush decided to escalate American involvement in Panama. Reinforcing the small US force in the Panama canal, the Bush administration decried Noriega as a drug lord while Noriega denounced US action in the region. Finally, in December, shortly before Christmas, put into effect an invasion of Panama. Noriega was deposed within a few months, and the American people were very satisfied with the President's decision.
More success was to come for Bush. In front of the whole world, the Berlin Wall came down in November of 1989, and soon after the two Germanys would be reunited.
Even better for Bush, the "Evil Empire," the Soviet Union itself collapsed and dissolved in December of 1991. The great Communist boogeyman of the Cold War was dead, and from its corpse would rise Bush's "New World Order" of democracy and human rights. The Cold War was over, and America was now the world's sole superpower. American foreign policy had since World War II been focused on combatting and containing Soviet threats across the world, and with the death of the Soviet Union America was initially confused at where to best project her power.
It would be given a chance to redirect its might, however, and to flex its muscle in the name of "democracy" when in 1990 Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, another former ally, invaded the tiny, oil-rich nation of Kuwait. Declaring his commitment to protect Kuwait, Bush demanded that Iraq withdraw. Working within the UN and the region to create a multinational coalition, Bush was able to place pressure on Saddam to pull out, with the UN agreeing to economic sanctions and a blockade. After months without budging, the UN Security Council gave Iraq until January 15, 1991 to withdraw, allowing "all necessary means" to be used after the deadline if Iraqi forces were still present. A 34-nation coalition, led by US CENTCOM commander Norman Schwarzkopf began Operation Desert Storm shortly after the deadline passed. A brutal air campaign establishing air superiority for the coalition led to a quick and intense campaign which devastated the Iraqi army. On February 28, Schwarzkopf declared that "the gates are closed." Kuwait was liberated and Saddam had been beaten back by coalition forces. Operation Desert Storm, brought into the homes of millions of American through television, seemed to be a great triumph for the American way of life.[1]
American tanks during Operation Desert Storm, considered to be President Bush's greatest achievement
Bush's approval ratings soared, even reaching as high as 89%[2]. Most Democrats were convinced that running against such a popular incumbent would be a death sentence, and so many of the party's heavyweights: civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, Senate Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, and New York Governor Mario Cuomo all declined to run. This would leave the door-opener for a number of relatively unknowns to enter. Although Senators Tom Harkin (Iowa) and Bob Kerrey (Nebraska), and Governors Jerry Brown (California) and Doug Wilder (Virginia) all established themselves early on as contenders, it would be former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas (known affectionately as "Saint Paul") who would take the initial lead after announcing his candidacy before any others. Meanwhile, a young and charismatic Governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, was preparing a "war room" which would provide him with a campaign (managed by Louisiana political consultant James Carville) strong enough to secure him the nomination.
The primary elections began with the Iowa caucus, which few Democrats seriously contested as favorite son Senator Harkin won the state easily. Harkin's fortunes would, unfortunately, end there. The real first test would come eight days later, in the cold and cozy state of New Hampshire. Clinton had managed to gain considerable traction at this point, but his campaign was derailed by a scandal (one of many in his career). The model Gennifer Flowers claimed to have had a twelve year affair with Clinton. The story was seriously damaging to the Clinton campaign, but he couldn't be counted out yet.
On an episode of the television show 60 Minutes, investigative journalist Steve Kroft sat down with both Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary to talk about their marriage and Bill's extramarital affairs. In what was an unusually close look into the personal life of a candidate, Clinton denied the affair. Attempting to appear authentic and genuine, Clinton said of problems within his marriage that "I'm not prepared tonight to say that any married couple should ever have discuss that with anyone but themselves." Flowers would also release several tapes of conversations between her and Clinton, which included disparaging remarks about Mario Cuomo even suggesting that Cuomo might had "mafioso connections." Typical of Clinton's career, these scandals were at once plentiful and damaging, bringing Clinton down to a second place finish in New Hampshire behind Tsongas (Kerrey would place third, a little ahead of Harkin and Brown). However, they would not prevent Clinton from being able to rebound. Most Democrats, and in general most voters, didn't seem to think that marital infidelity was as much as an issue as foreign policy or the economy.
Clinton, meanwhile, was not the only candidate having troubles. Although at one time President Bush had seemed invincible, sitting untouchable atop Mount Olympus with an 89% approval rating. Unexpectedly, however, Bush's fortunes began rapidly declining. During the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the federal government accumulated
a substantial deficit. By 1990, it had grown to $220 billion. In the same year, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, oil prices briefly spiked for a few months before returning to normal. However, the damage had been done. These factors, along with several others (including interest rates increases by the Federal Reserve in response to inflationary concerns), brought the economy into a recession in the middle of 1990.
Meanwhile, Bush was negotiating with the Democratic-controlled Congress into order to produce a budget which would reduce the deficit without having to raise taxes as Bush had promised in 1988. This of course meant that spending cuts would have to be made. Yet, the Democrats were not budging on the budget, and in an gesture of compromise the President offered to support tax increases alongside substantial cuts to programs such as Medicare. The Democrats largely agreed, but the major point of dissent came from the President's own party. House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, appalled by the tax increases, joined with liberal democrats who couldn't stomach the Medicare cuts to defeat the budget in the House. A continuing resolution was needed in order to keep the Federal Government running as the nation was already in the next fiscal year (and in fact, Congress had already passed one continuing resolution a few days prior which already expired). Bush, however, vetoed the continuing resolution, thereby causing a Shutdown of the Federal Government. It wouldn't last very long, as a few days later Congress would put together a budget which reduce the Medicare cuts and instead focus the tax increases on the wealthy. Although only a quarter of House Republicans supported the budget, it still was able to pass onto the President's desk.
The 1990 Shutdown ended up making all Republicans look bad except for Gingrich, who showed off his rising status as a key player in Washington. Bush, on the other
hand, suffered a serious loss in credibility as a result of the budget. His promise to tell Congress to "Read [his] lips. No new taxes" had been clearly broken. Many voters felt betrayed, despite the President's insistence on calling the new taxes "revenue increases." A considerable anti-government, anti-tax movement within the party mounted itself in opposition to Bush. At the head of this opposition was the paleoconservative columnist Pat Buchanan, who announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for President in January of 1992. Running on a platform of "America First"[3], Buchanan remarked that "there is no conservative party in Washington today...The big-government Republicans and the big-spending Democrats have gotten together to raise the taxes the country didn't want, to vote quotas the country didn't want, to vote Congress a 40-to-50 percent pay raise that everybody in America said they didn't want."
The first Republican contest came in New Hampshire, where Buchanan gave the President a scare by garnering almost 40% of the vote, while Bush came about with an embarrassing 53% for a sitting President. In truth, Bush had done very little campaigning in comparison to Buchanan. The surprise in New Hampshire was both a sign of Bush's growing unpopularity, and it forced Bush to begin taking the Buchanan threat seriously. Ultimately, Buchanan would end up not winning a single primary, his support usually rounding out to around 30%. This would be enough to further weaken the President's image.
Patrick "Pat" Buchanan, he talked about a culture war
Clinton's main challenger, Tsongas, had failed to receive enough support outside of his own home of the Northeast. Following two more impressive Clinton victories in Illinois and Michigan, Tsongas would withdraw from the race. With both Harkin and Kerrey having already dropped out in early March after struggling to poll in the double digits, the race was now down to Clinton and Brown. In reality, Clinton was far too ahead of Brown for the former California Governor to realistically be able to catch up, but despite this Brown kept in the race. He kept up his message of leading a "grassroots revolution," campaigning on reforming the campaign finance system, starting first with limiting campaign contributions to a maximum of $100. After Clinton scored a huge victory in New York, what little chance Brown had was now gone. Although he would stay in for the rest of the remaining primaries, the race was essentially over. Brown's persistence would cause significant tension between him and Clinton, which was further exacerbated when at the Democratic National Convention Brown would endorse his own nomination instead of Clinton's.
Despite both the Democratic and Republican nominations being basically decided, it seemed that the American people had room for a third choice. In February, while on CNN's Larry King Live, Texas billionaire Perot was asked if he would consider running for President. Although saying that he "[doesn't] want to" while leaving open the door by adding that if people got him on the ballot then he would do so. "I want to see some sweat," Perot told King,"I want you in the ring." Setting up a phone bank and spending several hundred thousands dollars of his own money, Perot would gain ballot access through the support of grassroots "Draft Perot" movements across America. Perot ran as an independent, promising to balance the budget, to restore democracy to the people through reforming the electoral system, to serve only one term, and to lead America into the 21st century through the use of technology.
In April and May, Perot began rapidly climbing up the polls. Soon enough, he was even leading in them. Something about his folksy Southern drawl and his thirty-minute television infomercial-like campaign advertisements where he would warn Americans about the rising federal deficit through his multitude of graphs which drew voters to him. While Republicans have often charged Perot with 'splitting the vote' among conservatives, in reality Perot polled roughly equally among Republicans and Democrats. This was despite Perot's inclusion of Boston University President and former Democratic candidate for Governor of Massachusetts, John Silber, as his Vice-Presidential nominee. The Perot-Silber ticket was truly sweeping the nation. However, by July it began to falter, partially because of Perot's decision to suspend his campaign for two weeks[4] on account of supposed Republican tampering with his daughter's wedding, but perhaps more so because the Clinton and Bush campaign began to focus their attacks on the new frontrunner.
Ross Perot (L) and his running mate John Silber (R), they wanted to shake things up
surprise most by choosing as his running mate Tennessee Senator Al Gore, a young Southern moderate just like Clinton. The choice of Senator Gore served to complement
Clinton's "New Democrat" message.
The three campaigns would participate in four debates, one of which would be contested among the vice-presidents. It was here that much of the later part of the campaign was focused. Clinton was attacked for his lack of character, for having supposedly dodged the draft during the Vietnam War, and for having organized protests against the war while a student at Oxford University in England. The President was criticized for, among other shortcomings, the 1990 budget, something which in his convention speech he conceded was a "mistake." Perot's lack of experience, not having ever held political office before, was highlighted by Republicans and Democrats alike, but he would respond proudly that he had "a lot of experience in not taking ten years to solve a ten minute problem."
The debates would reach their climax in Richmond, Virginia when a voter asked the candidates "How has the national debt personally affected each of your lives?" Perot started off by talking about how the debt had disrupted his business, and had forced forced him to enter politics. Bush would initially stumble, and the voter would even repeat the question multiple times to the President before he talked about how "everybody's been affected by the debt." It would be Governor Clinton's response, symbolic of much of the campaign, which would win the day. Using his charisma and good looks, he delivered a response which, to many voters it would seem, appeared to genuine and empathetic. Throughout the debates, Clinton looked cool and collected, while President Bush appeared to be nervous, awkward, and impatient (even checking his watch once during a debate on accident). The President had good reason to be on high alert; his approval ratings, once among the highest in the history of polling, were now among the lowest - floating around 30%.
Come election day it was clear that Clinton would win, and the Democrats would return to the White House for the first time in twelve years. The Clinton campaign
sweeped almost the entirety of the Northeast, performing exceptional traditionally Republican New England. Clinton would do similarly in the Midwest, taking almost every state except for Indiana. The Republican stranglehold on the West would be broken with California making its first appearance in the Democratic column for the first time since 1964. And the South, once the "Solid South" which always voted Democratic, was reclaimed in most parts by the Arkansas Governor against two Texans. One of the Texans, Ross Perot, despite not being able to maintain his lead, would still manage the strongest third party showing in the electoral college since George Wallace in 1968 and in the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. Observers wondered if the traditional two-party system of American politics might be crumbling...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] A more in-depth account of the war shall be given later on, with a chapter on America and the Middle-East, but for now the focus is mainly on the war's electoral
impact.
[2] This happening not coincidentally on February 28, 1991
[3] The name of an isolationist movement which opposed America's entering WWII.
[4] This time around, Perot doesn't drop out of the campaign as he did in our time line, but instead suspends it shortly.
*I can't seem to find the whole interview nor the whole episode of 60 minutes, but this should give you a good idea of what went on during it.
Last edited:
I vaguely remember this now. It is not often remembered that Clinton won so small a portion of the popular vote