Jerry Ford doesn’t rescue American presidency (1974-77), Congress asserts itself more

5_1_2018_51eudfswhkl--sx329-8201_c1-0-2933-1710_s885x516.jpg

2018 book

Okay, reverse this Rumsfeld thesis.
 
Last edited:
main-qimg-0807f53c697a188d9a8cfc1b6fef2902

Stagflation
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-stagflation-occur-in-the-70s-Why-didnt-it-happen-in-2009

Oh, my God, it’s such a “mystery”! [sarcasm] XD

This is supply shock stagflation such as that caused by the Oct. ‘73 OPEC embargo which led to a 4-fold increase in the price of oil. Obviously, I don’t think it’s particularly difficult to explain at all.

And, yes, Congress could have taken the lead, holding hearings, and learning along with the American public.
 
https://books.google.com/books?id=Y...ed by poor harvests around the world"&f=false

“ . . . inflation worsened dramatically in 1973, mainly because of an explosion in food prices caused by poor harvests around the world. . . "
So, there was already agriculturally-driven inflation going on.

Well, of course, a modern economy has a number of things going on at the same time.

=========

And it’s not like Congress can come up with a master plan, or anything of the sort.

But Congress can come up with a solid medium step.

And then see how this works, thereby providing yourself with feedback and real live data. And take the next smart medium step.
 
Never studied Rumsfeld much, but in the past two decades a lot about the man and his thinking has filtered in. I'm getting the sense he was the sort of guy who could overthink a problem or event, making his view and choice of action much more complex than necessary.
 
. . . sort of guy who could overthink a problem or event, making his view and choice of action much more complex than necessary.
plus, I think Rumsfeld tended to become enamored by his own thinking and reactions, thus adding yet another layer of complexity.

Be that as it may . . .

I mainly want to focus on how much Congress could have really taken the reins of power post-Watergate.
 
ap731223029_wide-05e5992d09b5a8b4bd431d63b01ab9b481300065-s1300-c85.jpg


Dec. 23, ‘73 in New York City

https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...rab-oil-embargo-the-old-rules-no-longer-apply

And what Congress has on its side is numbers. A number of members of Congressional committee can dive in and try to learn these issues along with the American public (lawyers tending to be social studies types afterall, and not math or science as their first strength).

For example, the graph in the second post from the top can be explained as, When you have an abrupt increase in the price of oil, of course our overall economy can do less. And this is likely to be jarring in a number of ways.
 
Last edited:
plus, I think Rumsfeld tended to become enamored by his own thinking and reactions, thus adding yet another layer of complexity.

Be that as it may . . .

I mainly want to focus on how much Congress could have really taken the reins of power post-Watergate.

That boils down the the charscter of the leaders, the likely leaders, and Congress as a whole. Remembering the ABSCAM scandal I am trying to recall how much of the public attitude towards Nixon's collapsed Presidency was directed at Congress as well. Sam Nunn came off as a hero, but many others not so much 1973-74.
 
OTL: Congress did assert more power when Nixon was weakened during Watergate.

ATL: Congress keeps doing this even when Nixon resigns and Ford assumes the presidency on Aug. 9, 1974.

That boils down the the charscter of the leaders, the likely leaders, and Congress as a whole. . .
Point well taken. And some committee heads are known to be heavy drinkers. Not good for public confidence.

I guess I’d ask this, what personnel changes would we need to see to have at least a one third chance of having an ascendant Congress?
 
Last edited:
Cant help there. I've forgotten most of any use of that Congressional era. All I really remember is when Jimmy Carter backed the FBIs sting operation on the Congress critters. Folks were not surprised, & some of us were disappointed it did not dig deeper & wider.
 
. . . when Jimmy Carter backed the FBIs sting operation on the Congress critters. Folks were not surprised, & some of us were disappointed it did not dig deeper & wider.
Well, you know as well as I do that institutions tend to go with the smallest minimum changes, almost as if it were a self-preservation instinct.

That is, we’re miles away from the Japanese approach of continuous improvement called kaizen, which truth be told now that Japanese corporations are older and more mature (and a lot bigger!), even they may not follow that much anymore.

I mean, look at some of the quality problems Toyota has had in the last ten years or so.

And huge, jarring, wrenching changes may not leave the institution in a better place. So, the clear better alternative is to make a set of smart, medium changes. See how this goes. And then, on the basis of this info feedback, make another set of smart medium changes.
 
Last edited:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/timeline.com/amp/p/3c29a8b47ad1

‘ . . . At 2 a.m. on October 9 [1974], the congressman’s swerving limousine was pulled over by park police near Washington’s Downtown Mall. Annabel Battistella a.k.a Fanne Foxe, a.k.a the Argentine Firecracker, a 38-year-old exotic dancer, bolted from the car, ran down the road yelling in alternating English and Spanish, and leapt into the Tidal Basin in front of the Jefferson Memorial. . . ’
You might remember at least reading about this, the stripper jumping into the fountain.

And this was Congressman Wilbur Mills who was Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, meaning any legislation involving money, as the article says, “arguably the most powerful politician in the country.” Or, at least one of them.

And per my ATL, exactly one of the Congressional leaders who needs to show the American people they’re more responsible, more game-on, and more knowledgeable and engaged with the issues important to the public.

RR-Fanne-74-10-11-0.jpg


https://www.therialtoreport.com/2018/07/15/fanne-foxe/

RR-Fanne-74-10-11-3.jpg


Not exactly a promising start!
 
Last edited:
So what does a weak, congressionally-dominated president look like? What sort of amendments are likely to pass if faith in the institution falters this much?
 
. . . What sort of amendments are likely to pass . . .
Nothing as fancy as Constitutional amendments! :p

More I envision the growth of informal power in which Congress receives higher confidence and/or popularity ratings from the public than does the president.

Now, one institutional aspect is that Congress used to have what I think was called the legislative veto. A committee could basically tell a regulatory agency, no, that’s not what we meant in the law, you have to do it this other way. Around (?) 1981, the Supreme Court said Congress couldn’t do this anymore (that fine-tuning regulation would require whole new legislation passed by both Houses, etc).
 
Top