Difference between "would have + past participle" and "would + bare infinitive" in the main clause of a past subjunctive sentence

I'm wondering about the difference in meaning, if any, between the two sentences in each of the following examples.

Example 1.

a. If he was a serious leader, tackling the debt would have been a pillar of the speech.
^{(Corpus of Contemporary American English)}

b. If he was a serious leader, tackling the debt would be a pillar of the speech.

Example 2.

a. I am sure your father would have been upset if his boss got a gigantic raise and he got nothing.
^{(Corpus of Contemporary American English)}

b. I am sure your father would be upset if his boss got a gigantic raise and he got nothing.

1a. If he was a serious leader, tackling the debt would have been a pillar of the speech.
1b. If he was a serious leader, tackling the debt would be a pillar of the speech.

2a. I am sure your father would have been upset if his boss got a gigantic raise and he got nothing.
2b. I am sure your father would be upset if his boss got a gigantic raise and he got nothing.

Since this is possibly counterfactual, the question is what's not true, and why not?
There are quite a few contextual questions that need answers, because they might be false.

• Is he still alive?
  Is he (still) a leader?
  Is he a serious leader?
  Was he a serious leader in the past?
  Was tackling the debt a pillar of the speech?

• Is your father still alive?
  Is your father still working?
  Did your father get upset?
  Did his boss get a gigantic raise?

And is it really counterfactual in the first place?
All of these can be interpreted as simple hypotheticals. E.g, in a context like this:

We're trying to find out if he was a serious leader; his record is insubstantial, so we're looking at his speeches. Our hypothesis is that if he was a serious leader, insert either clause.

In general, saying your father would be upset at least invites an inference that he's still alive, and that he would be upset if he knew (which he doesn't). But if it's already well-known to all parties that he's dead, he can be spoken of in spiritu as approving (or not), and as having feelings.

Saying your father would have been upset, on the other hand, invites an inference that he's dead, and that he would be upset if he were still alive (which he isn't).