discussion on Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act (1978) is transformative?

In real life, Humphrey-Hawkins did pass in '78, but it didn't really do much.

Let's turn it around and say it doesn't pass, but the discussion regarding it changes things a lot.

For example, people give great job hunting advice: you want to use action words in your resume without overdoing it and you generally want to limit your resume to one page unless you have a lot of direct experience, and so on and so forth, including advice a lot more sophisticated than this.

But what isn't discussed near as much is that there has been an erosion in the number of middle-class jobs.

But what if it were?
 
Let's say John Connolly emphasizes job creation when he runs in the 1980 Republican primary. Let's say in winsome fashion, he visits with a variety of labor, corporate, and governmental leaders. And he matter-of-factly shows people how to look up economic statistics in the newspaper, thereby encouraging and coaching the average voter to raise his or her game. And importantly, this is the kind of thing which can be delegated to and picked up by campaign staff and volunteers. And the campaign can have this aspect of honestly placing an issue on the table and not just pushing talking points.

Just maybe, this pushes Reagan to be more of an economic populist. How much of one Reagan was, is open to debate. But let's say this does push him.
 
Top