AHC: strong Democratic Congress takes Pres. Ford up on energy reforms in 1975.

President Ford's 1975 State of the Union address:

January 15, 1975

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-before-joint-session-the-congress-reporting-the-state-the-union-1

' . . . I plan to take Presidential initiative to decontrol the price of domestic crude oil on April 1. I urge the Congress to enact a windfall profits tax by that date to ensure that oil producers do not profit unduly. . . '
This is absolutely shades of Pres. Carter. Plus, a little bit of brinksmanship on Ford's part.

Let's say Congress says, Okay, Sure. And takes him up on his offer!
 
The oil companies insure Ronald Reagan primarys Ford, and Ronnie names Strom Thurmond his running mate to neutralize Carter's appeal.
 
. . we still get the Iranian Revolution and siege of the American embassy, . .
With butterflies, we probably don’t have Americans at the embassy taken hostage.

And even if there’s a revolutionary government in Iran, and a doubling the price of oil as there was OTL in 1979 . . . . . with better energy policy for about four years, there’d be less downshifting and tightening of our economy.
 
Last edited:
With butterflies, we probably don’t have Americans at the embassy taken hostage.

That's true, although as I've mentioned on this forum before there wasn't a whole lot of difference between Ford and Carter on policy. The biggest difference that comes to mind is probably detente, which Ford supported - much to Reagan's displeasure - and Carter abandoned in 1979. I'm not sure if Ford would've treated Iran much differently from Carter, but since he isn't running for re-election in 1980 the political dynamics surrounding the release of the hostages would obviously be different - making it that much more likely that the hostages are released prior to January 20, 1981.
 
Reagan running in 1976 and losing bigtime would severely damage it imo
In a lot of areas, conservative ideas provide a kind of baseline.

For example, on first glance, of course we’d like to run a balanced budget. It’s only upon thinking about it that we might decide, wait a minute, during good times we’d rather run a slight surplus, in part to cool off the economy. And in bad times, we’d rather run a deficit to give some jumpstart to the economy. That is, Keynesian economics have both an intellectual case and examples of success.

But conservative ideas kind of come first in the universe of what’s possible.
 
That applies for OTL but remember OTL had both 1) Reagan 2) Bill Clinton 3) Watergate helping discredit government. Remove either of those two from the equation and alot changes
 
The problem is that there was no way that Congress (even, or, in this case, especially a Democratic one) would willingly, uniformly pass new energy legislation without the President pushing it through with all his might. Ford, the figure of compromise in the House, is not likely to do so.

There were tons of competing interests in the Democratic Party for how oil should be handled, between the environmentalists, and the Representatives and Senators from states where oil was one of the main job suppliers. Russell Long, as an oil Democrat, New Deal Democrat, and Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, ran circles around Carter in delaying tactics in committees and sub-committees to stop his energy policy of deregulation and consolidation of energy-related decision-making for months, if not years. Carter eventually brought most of his legislation through Congress, but a not insignificant portion were kicking and screaming the whole time. Although ultimately a good thing for America, the lack of short term gains and the overall headache from oil Democrats as well as pushback in his own party would likely have stopped Ford from pursuing anything nearly as meaningful as what Carter did.
 
With energy policy already rolling from 1975, Jimmy probably picks other big programmatic topics. Enough butterflies so that the hostages aren’t taken.

But that wouldn't change the fact that Iran is a major US ally, remember that half of all global US army sales went to Iran before the Shah was thrown out. Carter might do a better job in this scenario, but I don't think the general course of his presidency would be changed much.
 
I see only two ways to avoid the hostage situation: vacate the embassy before the revolution; or not have the Shah in the U.S. for medical treatment.
 
I see only two ways to avoid the hostage situation: vacate the embassy before the revolution; or not have the Shah in the U.S. for medical treatment.

Ironically this would hurt Carter politically, since he actually got a huge popularality boost after the hostages were taken and this allowed him to trounce Kennedy in 1980. It was only after Eagle Claw failed that Kennedy saw some meaningful success in the later primaries and the public started to turn on Carter. Without the hostages crisis, Kennedy achieves greater success in the early primaries - although it's up in the air as to whether or not he ultimately beats Carter.
 
. . . Russell Long, as an oil Democrat, New Deal Democrat, and Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, ran circles around Carter in delaying tactics in committees and sub-committees to stop his energy policy of deregulation and consolidation of energy-related decision-making for months, if not years. . .
On the face of it, deregulation and consolidation seem like conflicting goals, but sometimes a package of policy does this. Don’t know the answer myself, do think it’s worth diving into.

Russell Long of Louisiana is an interesting figure in his own right!

Your point is very well-taken that reforms such that, for example, energy which is slightly more expensive in a way which better reflects actual costs may make the overall economy work better. But, the benefits of this will be diffusely felt while disadvantages to oil-producing states such as Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas will be acutely felt.

Does California count as an oil-producing state?
 
Last edited:
On the face of it, deregulation and consolidation seem like conflicting goals, but sometimes a package of policy does this. Don’t know the answer myself, do think it’s worth diving into.

Russell Long of Louisiana is an interesting figure in his own right!

Your point is very well-taken that reforms such that, for example, energy which is slightly more expensive in a way which better reflects actual costs may make the overall economy work better. But, the benefits of this will be diffusely felt while disadvantages to oil-producing states such as Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas will be acutely felt.

Does California count as an oil-producing state?
To specify, Carter wanted to deregulate oil prices, but centralize the decision-making process of the federal government when it came to energy by creating the Department of Energy, among other things. Long was opposed to the deregulation of oil prices, and since the centralization of the decision-making process was inextricably tied to price deregulation in Carter's bill, he opposed it as well.

As for California, I don't know the voting record of the Senators and Representatives on Carter's policy (and earlier policy by Gerald Ford). While California definitely counts as an oil producing state, I don't know if the California politicians of the time voted as a more standard oil producing state (no pun intended) such as Texas.
 
. . . conservative ideas . . .
Another pattern is having an idea believed fairly widely by the general public, and then the debunk, and you stand pat at the debunk. The skepticism toward global warming would be a classic example of this.

And I'd say this is a human trait. Once we read or hear a debunk, we usually move onto something else.
 
Last edited:
Top