What If Ronald Reagan was impeached following the Iran-Contra Affair?

[gillan1220]

What are the implications being after Reagan is impeached and arrested for treason following the Iran-Contra Affair? How would it affect the 1980s all the way to the present day?

Here are some videos for explanation:

What Was the Iran-Contra Affair? | History



Revisiting the Iran-Contra Affair: 30th Anniversary Special Report

[stevep]

  gillan1220 ,

  Basically it was a Watergate that failed to be properly explored.  Reagan was somewhat smarter than Nixon who not only admitted to having the incriminating tapes but eventually handed them over.  For Reagan there is some suggestion that by 86, when the scandal blew up he was no longer really mentally capable but the actual decisions were taken earlier, both to fund the Contra's in direct contradiction of Congress and to do it via a deal with Iran, despite limits on activities with the regime there and Reagan's repeated denial that he had negotiated with them to get terrorist hostages released.

  If it had all come into the open and possibly led to Reagan's resignation, as with Nixon the previous decade it might have changed both Reagan's reputation and also some of his other policies, in a swing back towards the centre as occurred after Watergate.  You could have seen less deficit spending and a better economy developing.  Because it was the executive branch that was [again] responsible for the scandal you might see more incentive for Congressional control of it or you might conversely see a reaction against all government which ironically was one of the things Reagan worked for.  Of course a good and capable government is very important for ordinary people as without it [whether due to weakness or corruption] powerful individuals or groups are likely to dominate and be able to abuse their power so you might by the latter route still see a decline in the viability of government in the US as OTL.

  Steve

[gillan1220]

Dec 24, 2020 12:33:03 GMT stevep said:

  gillan1220 ,

  Basically it was a Watergate that failed to be properly explored.  Reagan was somewhat smarter than Nixon who not only admitted to having the incriminating tapes but eventually handed them over.  For Reagan there is some suggestion that by 86, when the scandal blew up he was no longer really mentally capable but the actual decisions were taken earlier, both to fund the Contra's in direct contradiction of Congress and to do it via a deal with Iran, despite limits on activities with the regime there and Reagan's repeated denial that he had negotiated with them to get terrorist hostages released.

  If it had all come into the open and possibly led to Reagan's resignation, as with Nixon the previous decade it might have changed both Reagan's reputation and also some of his other policies, in a swing back towards the centre as occurred after Watergate.  You could have seen less deficit spending and a better economy developing.  Because it was the executive branch that was [again] responsible for the scandal you might see more incentive for Congressional control of it or you might conversely see a reaction against all government which ironically was one of the things Reagan worked for.  Of course a good and capable government is very important for ordinary people as without it [whether due to weakness or corruption] powerful individuals or groups are likely to dominate and be able to abuse their power so you might by the latter route still see a decline in the viability of government in the US as OTL.

  Steve

As this happens, the Soviets will be pleased knowing America has humiliated itself once more. Considering this era is just not even 20 years after the Vietnam War, there would be massive protests about this.

[lordroel]

Dec 24, 2020 5:49:44 GMT gillan1220 said:

What are the implications being after Reagan is impeached and arrested for treason following the Iran-Contra Affair? How would it affect the 1980s all the way to the present day?

Here are some videos for explanation:

What Was the Iran-Contra Affair? | History



Revisiting the Iran-Contra Affair: 30th Anniversary Special Report

We see President Bush get his two terms.

Also who is in control of the house in 1987.

[gillan1220]

Dec 27, 2020 15:44:37 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 24, 2020 5:49:44 GMT gillan1220 said:

What are the implications being after Reagan is impeached and arrested for treason following the Iran-Contra Affair? How would it affect the 1980s all the way to the present day?

Here are some videos for explanation:

What Was the Iran-Contra Affair? | History



Revisiting the Iran-Contra Affair: 30th Anniversary Special Report

We see President Bush get his two terms.

Also who is in control of the house in 1987.

In 1987, the House and even the Senate was controlled by the Democrat majority.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100th_United_States_Congress

[TheRomanSlayer]

President Bush Sr. would get his two terms, although if he too, was implicated, then the Republicans might have to field a different candidate. Moreover, you can see a Democrat panic at the thought of four Republican administrations in a row. Then again, we had five Democrat administrations in a row before (four in FDR and one in Truman). In any case, Reagan and Bush SR. could be impeached for this, if the fallout was bigger.

[lordroel]

Dec 27, 2020 18:52:52 GMT TheRomanSlayer said:

President Bush Sr. would get his two terms, although if he too, was implicated, then the Republicans might have to field a different candidate. Moreover, you can see a Democrat panic at the thought of four Republican administrations in a row. Then again, we had five Democrat administrations in a row before (four in FDR and one in Truman). In any case, Reagan and Bush SR. could be impeached for this, if the fallout was bigger.

So if President Reagan and Vice President Bush are impeached, would that mean that the Speaker of the House of Representatives become the new president, that would be Tip O'Neill ore Jim Wright depending when the impeachment happens in 1987.

[TheRomanSlayer]

Possibly, but either one of the two would have a very short term since the following year would be election year.

[american2006]

Overall, an unlikely scenario but certainly plausible, along the same lines as Germany winning WWI. His popularity would likely go down and Democrats, beit Bill Clinton or someone else, wins back the White House in a Reaganesque or Nixonesque victory. GOP is hurt after two scandalous administrations.

[Zyobot]

Dec 28, 2020 3:42:50 GMT american2006 said:

Overall, an unlikely scenario but certainly plausible, along the same lines as Germany winning WWI. His popularity would likely go down and Democrats, beit Bill Clinton or someone else, wins back the White House in a Reaganesque or Nixonesque victory. GOP is hurt after two scandalous administrations.

Considering that the GOP’s victory streak ends earlier ITTL, I’m wondering whether the Democrats will still nominate a conservative Blue Dog who will shift their party to the right like Clinton did?

That’s a prospect I was more on the fence on initially, but considering the point that stevep made up-thread about an untrustworthy executive branch discrediting big (or at least, top-down) government, electing a more hands-off Democrat sounds like an increasingly plausible course of action to me. Of course, I assume that the exact electoral map will vary depending on who the exact candidate is (with Clinton himself, depending on his life and political experience, being charismatic third-way guy who could do a good job on Election Night).

[stevep]

Dec 28, 2020 5:40:57 GMT Zyobot said:

Dec 28, 2020 3:42:50 GMT american2006 said:

Overall, an unlikely scenario but certainly plausible, along the same lines as Germany winning WWI. His popularity would likely go down and Democrats, beit Bill Clinton or someone else, wins back the White House in a Reaganesque or Nixonesque victory. GOP is hurt after two scandalous administrations.

Considering that the GOP’s victory streak ends earlier ITTL, I’m wondering whether the Democrats will still nominate a conservative Blue Dog who will shift their party to the right like Clinton did?

That’s a prospect I was more on the fence on initially, but considering the point that stevep made up-thread about an untrustworthy executive branch discrediting big (or at least, top-down) government, electing a more hands-off Democrat sounds like an increasingly plausible course of action to me. Of course, I assume that the exact electoral map will vary depending on who the exact candidate is (with Clinton himself, depending on his life and political experience, being charismatic third-way guy who could do a good job on Election Night).

  Interesting point but are we talking about 1986 or 1990 after Bush senior's OTL single term as that could make a difference.  Presumably it might depend on how deeply Bush was implicated in the scandal. 

  Since Reagan was himself a 'hands-off' President, at least by his definition the question might be less how interventionist the candidate is than his personal morals.  What is probably likely is there's going to be a lot of pressure at least, which might well be successful after two such scandals being made public, for more checks on the executive branch and/or the intelligence services to seek to prevent something like this happening again.  I mean Carter won as someone who would not only be moral but also sort out some of the economic issues the country faced and he did push for alternative energy developments to reduce the dependency on the ME.  As such it could go either way on the attitude of the candidate towards how active he was or not in government.  Clinton could be a poor candidate here as assuming he gets elected his sexual excesses, while not illegal are likely to go down poorly in a time calling for a strong moral lead by the President.  [Albeit again this might not occur until he's been in office for a while]  However it would shown its not just Republicans who had some shady secrets.

  I think there were such efforts at tighter controls after Watergate but their failure to prevent a repeat here is going to see more.  In most ways Iran-Contra was worse than Watergate.  The former was an element in a political party, albeit directed by their leading member who was currently President, hiring private individuals to perform an illegal bugging operation. Iran-Contra not only involved deliberately by-passing Congressional laws but involved members of the government and intelligence services being fully involved in doing so.

  Steve