AHC: George McGovern wins re-election to U.S. Senate in 1980.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...65b-b593-95b9943ca44e/?utm_term=.ae1a8ba01e35

Senate Votes to End Grain Embargo [but from article, House is unlikely to go along]

Washington Post, Sept. 27, 1980

‘ . . . prompting farm state Democrats to join with most Republicans in voting to end the embargo . . . ’
So, Republicans weren’t “tough” against the Soviets in this regard, they were just anti-Carter.

Per many other sources, Reagan himself spoke against the embargo, but then seemed to have doubts. He didn’t take steps to end the embargo till April 1981.
 
Last edited:
Okay, President Jimmy Carter already didn’t have the greatest relationship with farming communities.

And his grain embargo after the Dec. 24, 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (embargo announced Jan. 4, 1980) did not exactly help matters.
http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal80-1175403

Part of Carter's problem is that unlike Obama he didn't have the suave public speaking skills to maintain public confidence even while things weren't going well. Someone like Reagan may have been able to manipulate PR to turn this move into a win, but Carter just wasn't a good enough politician to do so.
 
Plus, Carter largely governed as an independent.

He didn’t have Democrats in his corner energetically making his case.

True. He wasn't a Reaganite, but neither was he a Kennedy Democrat. He generally rebuffed liberal Congressional initiatives towards health care and public works on inflation and deficit grounds, leading many to charge that he was no different from a Republican. This resulted in one of the worst ever relationships between a President and Congress; most leading Congressional Democrats actually supported Kennedy in 1980.

IMO, RFK should have sat out 1968 and waited for 1972 or 1976. Had he been elected instead of Carter, the late seventies would have been handled much better and it's entirely possible that major reforms that Carter opposed like UHC or public works programs could have come to pass. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way and all we have to show for it is the tragedy of history.
 
Last edited:
. . IMO, RFK should have sat out 1968 and waited for 1972 or 1976. Had he been elected instead of Carter, the late seventies would have been handled much better and it's entirely possible that major reforms that Carter opposed like UHC or public works programs could have come to pass. .


How successful juicing the economy is depends a lot on whether . . .

we’re at the relatively flat part of the curve or the steep part.
 


How successful juicing the economy is depends a lot on whether . . .

we’re at the relatively flat part of the curve or the steep part.

Kennedy would be taking office in 1977. So really what should be asked is what was SRAS in 1977 and what can be done to bring it back to normal levels?
 
Kennedy would be taking office in 1977. So really what should be asked is what was SRAS in 1977 . . .
SRAS = Short Run Aggregate Supply (or more simply, the Supply Curve)

In 1977 and ‘78, the U.S. economy was pretty good.

A number of sources say that following the energy crisis of ‘79, the world price of oil approximately doubled (I do not know the time frame, but I assume a matter of months). And with that big a change to the price of a major economic input, the overall economy simply can do less.
 
Last edited:
SRAS = Short Run Aggregate Supply (or more simply, the Supply Curve)

In 1977 and ‘78, the U.S. economy was pretty good.

A number of sources say that following the energy crisis of ‘79, the world price of oil approximately doubled (I do not know the time frame, but I assume a matter of months). And with that big a change to the price of a major economic input, the overall economy simply can do less.

Makes sense. I'm surprised to hear that you argue the US economy was good in 1977 and 78. It was better in comparison to 1973 and 1979, but I've never heard that 77-78 could be considered good economically. Would it be too much trouble for me to ask to see a source for this?
 
But look at the growth rate for around ‘77 and ‘78. It’s better than the ‘90s! :)

Wow. This definitely changes how I view that era. The usual narrative is that the economy tanked in '73 and it was all malaise until Reagan and Volcker swooped in to save the day by '84. I assume that the reason behind the GDP dip is the fallout from the Iran Revolution and Volcker's recessionary measures taken to fight inflation. Thanks for the helpful info.
 
. . . Thanks for the helpful info.
You're welcome. The '70s were by no means all blah economically.

And certainly not culturally. Although I tend to think the '80s with the big hair and neon colors in clothing may have gone even further on the quirky, creative, alive, expressive scale!! :)
 
Last edited:
You're welcome. The '70s were by no means all blah economically.

And certainly not culturally! Although I tend to think the '80s with the big hair and neon colors in clothing may have gone even further on the quirky, creative, alive, expressive scale. :)

American movies back in the '70s were the best. The Godfather, Jaws, Taxi Driver, you name it. And so not to steer too far away from the historical purpose of the thread, I'll say that its interesting that one of the worst decades in US history produced some of the best American art.
 
upload_2018-9-7_16-40-51.png


https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RO1Q156NBEA

A snapshot of the same graph. At the site, you can hover your mouse arrow over the graph and, for example, find out that the rate of growth for 1979 Quarter 3 was 2.4%. That's still a positive rate of growth, but it's a decline from what the growth rate had been in 1977 and '78.
 
View attachment 406953

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RO1Q156NBEA

A snapshot of the same graph. At the site, you can hover your mouse arrow over the graph and, for example, find out that the rate of growth for 1979 Quarter 3 was 2.4%. That's still a positive rate of growth, but it's a decline from what the growth rate had been in 1977 and '78.

So I wonder: was Carter's 1980 landslide defeat more so due to his poor political skills or was he really just in over his head as a leader?
 
American movies back in the '70s were the best. The Godfather, Jaws, Taxi Driver, you name it. And so not to steer too far away from the historical purpose of the thread, I'll say that its interesting that one of the worst decades in US history produced some of the best American art.

The mid-80s gave us a lot of good movies. Back to the Future, the Brat Pack movies, Gremlins, Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones, the beginning of (and better half of) the Lethal Weapon series, Coming to America, Trading Places, Karate Kid, Blues Brothers, Field of Dreams, Die Hard.
 
Carter was an over-complicator, and largely correctly perceived that way from voters.

He also had a tendency to express a pessimistic outlook and blame the American people for his problems. The malaise speech was the most notorious example of this*. Perhaps had Carter possessed the same political and oratory skills as a Reagan or a JFK, he might have narrowly won in 1980. Carter is a caring and idealistic man, but IMO he is better suited to Sunday School teaching and charity work than politics.

*The speech was popular at first, but when Carter ordered a dramatic shake up of his cabinet it ruined public confidence in the administration.
 
. . . just in over his head as a leader?
Per the graphic “A Decrease in Aggregate Supply” on page 1, once the supply curve shifts inward from an abrupt rise in the price of oil (as happened in 1979) . . .

. . . there’s not a thing an FDR, an Eisenhower, or anyone else can do, even if they’re three times as competent as Carter.

All you can do is to level with your fellow citizens that stagflation is to be expected with both lower GDP and higher prices, and that it’s not some great mystery. And from the reality of this setback, we can and should continue to do the smart, medium things to grow the economy.
 
Last edited:
once the supply curve shifts inward from an abrupt rise in the price of oil (as happened in 1979)

All you can do is to level with your fellow citizens that stagflation is to be expected with both lower GDP and higher prices, and that it’s not some great mystery. And from the reality of this setback, we can and should continue to do the smart, medium things to grow the economy.

I disagree with a lot of this, but I'm not interested in having an argument over the topic but it's safe to say we have differing points of view on Carter's legacy, as well as how much a leader can and should do in a time of economic crisis. I'm at least glad that Carter is getting the attention and reappraisal that he deserves, even though he was a very bad President and one termers are usually swept under the historical rug.
 
Top