Hello and good morning my fellow alternate historians your challenge today is to make 39th President Jimmy Carter the modern-day FDR up to and including serving four or more terms and being President during a world war good luck and be creative.
AHC: Make Jimmy Carter the modern day FDR
- Thread starter Joseph Weaver
- Start date
A world war 3 that for some reason doesn’t go nuclear and necessitates the suspension of the 22nd amendment and drags on painfully for a decade plus. Literally the only way I can see it and imo there’s no way even in a non nuclear no 22nd amendment world that the electorate would have the tolerance for it again.
If a world war occurred in the 1970s, the entire Northern Hemisphere would be obliterated as a result of a nuclear exchange between the West and the USSR - with much of the Southern Hemisphere being affected by nuclear fallout. The world that Carter would inherit in 1980 would not be much of one at all.
That being said if the 22nd amendment is butterflied, you could see Carter or another President being elected to more than two terms. Let's say that the 22nd amendment does not acquire the supermajorities to be ratified and it fails. In 1960, Dwight Eisenhower runs for a third term as President. Yet in 1963, he has a fatal heart attack and Nixon becomes President six years early. Nixon wins in 1964, but following his decision to escalate the war in Vietnam he loses most of his popular support. In 1968, he loses to Senator John F. Kennedy. JFK is re-elected in 1972, but succumbs to Addison's Disease in 1974. His Vice-President, Terry Sanford, loses to California Governor Ronald Reagan in 1976. Reagan takes the blame for stagflation and the Iran Hostage Crisis, setting him up for defeat in 1980. The man who unseats Reagan is Jimmy Carter, who in this ATL succeeds in his initial 1966 bid to become Georgia's Governor. After leaving office in 1971, Carter is elected to the Senate - giving him experience in Congress that makes him a more effective politician and administrator. In 1980 Carter promises to return the nation to peace and prosperity, and he defeats Reagan. The economy improves and he wins again in 1984.
In 1988, with few Democrats strong enough to challenge popular New York Governor Jack Kemp, Carter decides to run for a third term. He defeats Kemp, and come 1992 Carter must decide whether to run for a fourth term. Carter announces that 1992 will be his fourth and final run for the Presidency. Initially, Kansas Senator Bob Dole seems to have a strong chance of victory. Yet Dole's gaffe-prone behavior on the campaign trail and poor performance in the debates allow Carter to pull off an upset. Today, Carter is remembered as America's longest-serving President who led the nation out of the "malaise" of the 1970s and into a post-Cold War world more peaceful and prosperous than the one that existed before he was elected.
Last edited:
You’ll have to change Carter’s political philosophy in order for this to happen as the guy was pretty much the first big “Third Way” democrat. So let’s say his mom when he’s young dies of cancer. This affects him a lot and makes him a passionate supporter of UHC which pushes him to the left on other issues too. However he has large political ambitions but there’s no way he’ll go far being openly liberal in Georgia so he plays the character we know as Jimmy Carter until after the presidental election. However instead of Walter Mondale he selects Frank Church as his vp. Frank Church as a former protégée of LBJ and Senate veteran is a great tool to help Carter with congress. This liberal version of Carter is much friendlier with Congress passes UHC, and other new deal like measures to stimulate the economy. He doesn’t take in the shah and avoids the hostage crises. He beats Reagan in 1980 and is scene by the highest esteem by the left for getting the holy grail of left policy which is UHC.
You'll also have to change Carter's majorities in Congress. FDR had 75 Senators (with 2 fewer states!), Carter had 61. FDR's House Democrats led 334-88, whereas Carter had a 292-143 split.* (I used 1936 and 1976 election figures.) Moreover, Congressional Dems in the 1930's where more uniformly supportive of FDR's policies than 1970's Dems were of Carter's-- the big tent coalition by 1976 had a more varied view of what should be the US economic priorities.
There's more. The public was more desperate for the Federal government to act in the 1930's than in the 1970's (barring that global nuclear hypothesized by others). Carter has a less compliant Supreme Court and Federal judiciary, Carter had a lower caliber Cabinet and advisors than FDR, etc. etc.
Also in the 30s, the New Deal coaltion was rapidly forming and gaining power, while in the 70s, it was rapidly collapsing.
In OTL, Carter had a lot of bad luck. Suppose he as better luck, maybe proactive control with Iran. He wins a second term and scores well: inflation ends on his watch. He leaves after a second term as a hero. There is no chance of a third term without earlier (22nd Amendment) changes. He leaves office in 1985 as a very respected advisor to a successor. After all, FDR's true success was mostly in his first two terms.
You could start by Carter not firing six members of his staff after the malaise speech in July 1979. The response to his speech was initially quite positive; that bounce disappeared when he sacked half of his Cabinet in the following week. It undermined confidence in his administration going into the 1980 election season.
I had forgotten that. The Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog alters history yet again.
“Good and bad luck is a synonym in the great majority of instances, for good and bad judgment.” -- John Lyman Chatfield
He could have let the rabbit in the boat. Making him look like a great humanitarian, instead of whacking at it with this paddle.
I almost choked laughing at this premise. I was in my 20s during the Carter years, and remember him as politically naive, stubborn, and self-righteous. His favorite communication techniques were scolding and sermonizing. He could irritate more readily than inspire or motivate. And on top of all of that, he was a micromanager par excellence. Indeed, Watergate was the key (sole?) reason he squeaked by in the first place.
To even get within the same time zone of Franklin Roosevelt's popularity, he would have needed a complete personality overhaul/transplant. Barring that, the chances are best summarized in three words: no $%\$_&#$+ way.
To even get within the same time zone of Franklin Roosevelt's popularity, he would have needed a complete personality overhaul/transplant. Barring that, the chances are best summarized in three words: no $%\$_&#$+ way.
As has been stated, this is pretty difficult given Carter's personality. He did not govern with a clear ideology. Jonathan Alter likens it to the (Theodore) Roosevelt Progressivism, if anything. Additionally, he was stubborn and often believed he was the smartest man in the room. You can certainly make him more successful than he was IOTL, but it's hard to make him a truly "great" president in the way FDR is remembered. Part of this, too, is he has considerably less charisma.
That said, I think it's lame to have a thread with an AHC that's simply filled with naysayers. According to the parameters of the OP, Carter must serve at least 4 terms and govern through a World War. You could imagine him mining the ports around Iran in the wake of the Hostage Crisis, crippling the Iranian economy early, and (as some speculated) forcing them into the arms of the Soviets. The Soviets come in, and you have a direct face off in waters around Iran. When Iran kills the hostages, Carter has the impetus needed to launch a full-on assault. Carter was not a pacifist and would almost certainly have used dramatic force had the hostages been kidnapped. You now have a ground war in the Middle East in which the Soviets are involved. Now, the Soviets are fighting in Afghanistan and in Iran. Their resources and morale are drained faster. The nation, at war, re-elects Carter. The Soviet Union collapses from this strain ahead of the '84 election, which Carter is able to run in because the 22nd amendment was never ratified.
With the economy roaring, Carter is re-elected to a third term in 1984. In 1987, he and Kennedy finally come to a compromise on health care reform now that Carter's been able to balance the budget thanks to the post-War economic boom. In 1988, he wins a fourth and final term in office.
Not terribly plausible, but it was a hard task...
That said, I think it's lame to have a thread with an AHC that's simply filled with naysayers. According to the parameters of the OP, Carter must serve at least 4 terms and govern through a World War. You could imagine him mining the ports around Iran in the wake of the Hostage Crisis, crippling the Iranian economy early, and (as some speculated) forcing them into the arms of the Soviets. The Soviets come in, and you have a direct face off in waters around Iran. When Iran kills the hostages, Carter has the impetus needed to launch a full-on assault. Carter was not a pacifist and would almost certainly have used dramatic force had the hostages been kidnapped. You now have a ground war in the Middle East in which the Soviets are involved. Now, the Soviets are fighting in Afghanistan and in Iran. Their resources and morale are drained faster. The nation, at war, re-elects Carter. The Soviet Union collapses from this strain ahead of the '84 election, which Carter is able to run in because the 22nd amendment was never ratified.
With the economy roaring, Carter is re-elected to a third term in 1984. In 1987, he and Kennedy finally come to a compromise on health care reform now that Carter's been able to balance the budget thanks to the post-War economic boom. In 1988, he wins a fourth and final term in office.
Not terribly plausible, but it was a hard task...
Bravo, this seems interesting. How easy would it be to butterfly the 22nd amendment?