THE BEATEN PATH: One Bicentennial and Counting
- Thread starter Enigma-Conundrum
- Start date
Addressing the elephant in the room, here's the basic idea of what's going on with Gravel - at this point, he's a slightly disliked former Senator who has a penchant for intelligence oversight and has his whole thing about the Pentagon Papers. He's got knowledge on the topic and he's recently out of a job, and most importantly he's NOT known as the leftist wingnut we see today because he obviously hasn't run his 2008 and 2020 campaigns. In this world at this time, he's known as a fairly dovish liberal Democrat who deals in the matters of the intelligence community for the most part. Needless to say, we WILL be following Director Gravel, because he's one of the best looks into the Litton years' quirks.
A good comparison for relative controversy would be OTL James Watt’s tenure in Interior, as he was one of our Gipper’s most hardline members and was frankly not just not an environmentalist, but totally anti-environmentalist and frequently drew ire from Democrats due to his hostility. Chances are most Republicans are going to froth at the mouth over every breath Director Gravel takes.
As for the relative progressive-ness of this administration, there certainly are members who skew that way but as we shall see in the coming months and years of TTL, Jerry himself can best be described as a moderate with a progressive streak or two - he skews leftwards when it comes to corruption/lobbying, the secret state (Kennedy’s whole “shred the CIA into a thousand pieces” thing), etc. When it comes to most matters, very much including policy (we’re going to see quite the differentiation between disliking CIA power and not being mildly hawkish, as Jerry isn’t any sort of dove), he's a lot closer to the center. This doesn't make him a centrist, though, at least compared to our centrist Democratic presidents like Clinton and Carter. Classifying Jerry Litton's presidency ideologically will hopefully be quite a lot easier as we go on.
It's a real historic moment for the Litton team, and not to mention a nice overture to the Texas Dems. Real piece of pride there, though, especially as she dished it out on Strom Thurmond in her hearing.
Last edited:
Oh, he 100% would - but not yet in TTL, where he’s still the Serious Man Who Fights For What’s Right. And it does feel like it’s worth stating that he’s probably going to tick off the permanent bosses at Langley quite a lot...
Great job so far Enigma.
Are there any photoshop experts in this thread who might know how to make the Litton Presidential portrait look a little more natural? There are so few photos of the guy, and even fewer coloured ones.
Are there any photoshop experts in this thread who might know how to make the Litton Presidential portrait look a little more natural? There are so few photos of the guy, and even fewer coloured ones.
That’s fairly accurate to say. ITTL he hovers around where Nixon and Ford do in historians’ presidential rankings, only not sinking into the mid-30s because of his handling of Panama (which is judged to be pretty damn good, even if it’s the direct result of his actions on the canal and he totally botched Yaviza). In the general public, if you asked people who Ronald Reagan was, it’s mostly “oh yeah he’s that movie star president” with more politically active folks jabbing at him as a snake-oil salesman who tried to get the nation onto an ideology that failed us BADLY come 1980.
Last edited:
Okay, I find it particularly amusing/sad that Ronnie is regarded as the Snakes Oil Salesman when Lee Atwater is elected President...
Not to delve into President Atwater’s ideology, because that’d give the game up, but it’s all in the messaging and circumstances. The latter doomed Reaganism (but not conservatism, this TL is many things but a wank is not one of them).
Given the quotes from him, it may well be that the "paleo"/ "national"/Kirkite variant of conservatism wins out in the end for the rhetorical and political future of how Conservatives should present themselves rather than Buckleyite Fusionism-Reaganism. After all, people get a lot more excited when you march to the barricades preaching about saving western civilization, upholding nature's laws and nature's god, and defending American Faith and Freedom than about tax policy. As for actual policy enacted, i would assume socially conservative priors plus anywhere economically from a watered-down version of reaganomics with more bread and circuses to avoid the claim of "voodoo" economics to a full on Reformocon vision.
"
The reformocons—a portmanteau for "reform conservatives" that has been in use for several years now—were the subject of two dozen glossy magazine profiles between 2012 and 2016. Their ideology revolved around four planks:
The reformocons—a portmanteau for "reform conservatives" that has been in use for several years now—were the subject of two dozen glossy magazine profiles between 2012 and 2016. Their ideology revolved around four planks:
- The need to reorient conservatism around working class interests
- An argument for decentralizing American politics, ending culture war controversies and economic wrangles by removing these issues from the purview of the federal government
- Policy reforms that unapologetically had an increase in family formation and child-rearing as their goal
- A commitment to gradualist, pragmatic, and wonkish policy solutions to the problems of the day.
Last edited:
Thank you so much! Always glad to hear that people like my work, even if it’s admittedly a bit disorienting. As for what Atwaterism actually constitutes, I couldn’t possibly say, but we will be doing a deeper status check with the GOP soon enough - I would like to cover the actual first months (beyond just cabinetry) of the Litton presidency, what with strong congressional control and a decent mandate - and, as a little treat to y’all before the actual part, he’ll have a Supreme Court vacancy to contend with too.
ACT TWO: Part 2 - The First Months
PRESIDENT LITTON TO ADDRESS NATION ON STATE OF ECONOMY TONIGHT
THE NEW YORK TIMES, February 2nd, 1981
“My fellow Americans, tonight I am coming to you to talk about the state of our economy and what we intend to do to mitigate this crisis. There is no avoiding the direness of our current blend of recession, inflation, and unemployment. We must act quickly, and we must act in the best interests of those most heavily impacted. America is tough, and it has survived far worse than we are seeing today. We will get through this as a nation and community. Tonight, I intend to explain to you the specific actions I will be taking and will be imploring Congress to take and what they will mean for all of you, as Americans. In broad terms, these will include a stimulus spending bill to protect those who have been laid off in the midst of this crisis, tighter monetary policy on the part of Secretary Volcker to curb inflation, and select other wage and price stabilization measures.”
Excerpt from President Litton’s February 2nd televised address to the nation, 1981
“My fellow Americans, I’m going to level with you for a mo’: it’s real bad out there. It’s like when there’s a real nasty dry spell and all the grass dies so your cows can’t eat. It’s a right mess, y’see?”
John Belushi playing President Litton on Saturday Night Live, February 8th, 1981
Perhaps due to the large mandate obtained through the Democrats’ best showing since LBJ’s landslide, the first months of the Litton Presidency carried a frenetic legislative pace to them. Regardless of this, Jerry Litton did not intend to waste the large margins of control in Congress the Democrats held on the primary concern of solely fixing the economy. In particular, though, he set his sights on governmental reform - an issue near and dear to his heart, only matched by the plight of small farmers. The Litton team had considered this issue to be something of an immediate crisis to solve - in their eyes, other proposals would be doomed if the entire might of corporate America could be leveled at them unchecked. As such, the new President sent Ed Turner off to the offices of the most enthusiastic reformers in Congress to talk about the “big two” of government corruption - legislator financial disclosure and lobbying.
NEW DAWN: America Under Jerry Litton, published in 2002
SENATORS CHILES AND LYSEN UNVEIL ANTI-CORRUPTION BILL IN JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE
...the Honesty In Legislation Bill, which has been dubbed the “Hill Bill,” mandates that the President, the Vice-President, all members of Congress, and all cabinet-rank officials file a financial disclosure form yearly, as well as imposing a five-year lobbying ban on the aforementioned officials...
THE WASHINGTON POST, February 15th, 1981
“This bill, if passed, will ensure that every American knows two things: they’ll know who their representatives are being paid by and how much they’re being paid.”
Sen. King Lysen (D-WA) during an interview, February 16th, 1981
Reporter: Mr. President, what is your opinion of the Chiles-Lysen “Hill Bill” which was proposed a few days ago?
Jerry Litton: Well, I’m very pleased to see Congress taking up this matter. I’ve always seen more openness and accountability in government as healthy for our democracy, and I would absolutely sign this bill should Congress pass it. Just between you and me, because there aren’t dozens of cameras here [CHUCKLE], this bill is long overdue.
President Jerry Litton at a press conference, February 20th, 1981
“Look, if we pass this Hill Bill, you can guarantee that you’ll see liberals on the news Monday-morning quarterbacking about years-old donations. They’re going to make big stinks about snippets of financial information with zero context. This isn’t a vaccine for our democracy, it’s a political bludgeon disguised as good health!”
Rep. Dick Cheney (R-WY-AL) on the House floor, February 22nd, 1981
Dan Rather: Liberal members of Congress were derided for quite some time as “De-Facto Democrats” due to their tendency to vote with the Democratic majority and President Litton. What do you say to that?
Lawrence Hogan: Well, I’d argue that’s because Jerry Litton’s early affinity for government reform lined up with us nicely. We figured that exposing corruption in the two major parties with the Hill Act would help us, as people realized we were a better alternative. We liked Birch Bayh’s idea of removing the electoral college, because it would give us a real chance to break through in national elections, even if the Johns had ruined any chance of that.
DR: So it was a matter of pragmatism?
LH: In some respects. In others, we did genuinely agree - of course, the “De-Facto Democrats” line the Republicans trotted out again and again was overblown. We weren’t as friendly with Litton budget proposals, labor reform proposals, or healthcare proposals. Frankly, the entire idea of us as Democrats-In-Waiting was mostly one used to try and inspire that tribalistic partisan spirit to keep our vote totals down with former Republicans.
60 Minutes interview with Fmr. Mathias Campaign Chairman Lawrence Hogan, 1987
HILL BILL PASSES HOUSE 291-144
THE WASHINGTON POST, February 24th, 1981
HILL BILL PASSES SENATE, 62-38
THE WASHINGTON POST, February 26th, 1981
“With this signed into law, we’ve taken our first large step in a long while towards bringing our government back to its people.”
President Jerry Litton signing the Hill Act into law, February 27th, 1981
The Hill Act was a major boost to our fortunes. By getting one of the President’s most broadly popular signature issues through Congress by the end of March, we had shown that we truly meant business, so to speak. The victory also aided us in that it offset the impending division that would come through our economic recovery plans. While the President was sympathetic to the plights of organized labor through the economic crisis, by no means was he willing to take the orthodox New Dealer approach favored by the Vice President and Labor Secretary Douglas Fraser. However, he was also wary of Treasury Secretary Paul Volcker’s intense inflation hawkery, which he viewed as downright dangerous to the unemployed in this nation. Charting a course between these two extremes was the way to go, in his mind. One thing was agreed upon by all sides of the economic disputes, though - Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Chairman and occasional conservative activist, needed to go. It was with the rare consensus in mind that Secretary Volcker was sent to relay Jerry’s message requesting his resignation immediately, even if he couldn’t directly compel Greenspan to resign.
THE LONG EIGHTIES: A Memoir, written by Robert Morgado in 2003
FED CHAIRMAN ALAN GREENSPAN TO RESIGN, CITES FAMILY REASONS
THE NEW YORK TIMES, March 7th, 1981
LITTON NAMES JOHNSON-ERA ECONOMIC ADVISORS COUNCIL CHAIR GARDNER ACKLEY AS NEW FED CHAIR
...Ackley is perhaps most well-known for sounding the alarm on impending inflation in 1966...
THE WASHINGTON POST, March 12th, 1981
Above: Federal Reserve Chairman Gardner Ackley, famed for his role in reviving the economy in the early 1980s.
The Department of Education was next on our list of secondary legislation behind the economic crisis - well, more Congress’ list, but it was an item we agreed on. Needless to say, this would be more controversial than the Hill Act was, as our allies in Congress and a handful of people within the White House spent every moment they could on the morning news explaining it clearly and concisely. By the time we had beat the Republicans to the game on setting the tone, a clear majority believed that this bill was what it was written to do and not the political weapon the Republicans claimed. Beating them to reach through the television into everyone’s homes was key there, and we had made a fatal mistake on the Department of Education - we tipped our hand early, back when we nominated Barbara Mikulski to serve as the last HEW Secretary. We said we would authorize its creation before that was the focal point of debate in Congress, and as such, the opposition was far more organized. In addition, there was no perception of “defending corruption” which was so unique to the Hill Bill - the mantra of state’s rights and small government was all too easy and popular to attach to the Department of Education. Thus, our first truly difficult legislative battle began.
AN UNELECTED OFFICIAL’S GUIDE TO SURVIVING WASHINGTON, written by Timothy Kraft in 2010
“Education isn’t mentioned once in the Constitution. Nowhere is it specified that the federal government has any ability to regulate education. All this is is an excuse to shove the government into our schools to tell us what we can and can’t do! Does anyone here really trust Jerry Litton to teach their kids what they ought to know instead of some liberal nonsense?”
Rep. Frank Drake (R-MS-3) on the House floor, April 22nd, 1981
“The expansion of the government into education, simply put, is another case of a wrongly-understood notion of equality. It’s one that, in its haste to ensure that all are covered, would lead to an overbearing standardization. True equality is not when all are the same, but rather, when all are given the freedom to express their differences. This must be afforded to states and communities to ensure that they can bring their next generations up the way they see fit.”
Op-Ed written in the Washington Post by Fmr. Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), April 24th, 1981
Obtaining the support of the Boll Weevils to create the Department of Education was the greatest concern of the Litton Administration. While not as strident as their Republican counterparts, southern Democrats were still leery of this “intrusive” of an expansion of the government. As such, Jerry Litton turned back to his favored method of mitigating these concerns. He recognized that if they felt one of their people was running this new Department, they would be mollified enough to not launch any serious, concentrated opposition. Hints were dropped to various legislators’ offices, letting them know that the nominee for the new Department would be someone from their area who “understands the issues facing their communities.” While a faction of the most conservative Boll Weevils did ultimately vote against the Department’s creation, enough seemed pleased by the impending nomination of Richard Riley, the education-minded Governor of South Carolina, to vote for it.
NEW DAWN: America Under Jerry Litton, published in 2002
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS, TO BE SIGNED BY PRESIDENT LITTON
THE WASHINGTON POST, April 30th, 1981
RILEY RESIGNS GOVERNORSHIP TO BECOME FIRST SECRETARY OF EDUCATION; LT GOV TURNIPSEED TO SUCCEED HIM
THE GREENVILLE NEWS, May 4th, 1981
Above: South Carolina Governor Tom Turnipseed.
“Y’know, and don’t quote me on this one, when it comes down to it, I gotta thank the President - if he didn’t appoint Dick Riley to Education, I’d be havin’ a much harder fight on my hands come November. He ain’t as squishy as Turnipseed, he’s popular here too. I don’t think I’d be within spitting distance of Dick Riley.”
Comments made by Lee Atwater to Michael Wolff in 1982, later published by Wolff in "Three Days in the Lion's Den" in 2015 following Atwater's death
STEWART TO LEAVE SUPREME COURT JULY 3RD
THE NEW YORK TIMES, June 19th, 1981
LITTON NOMINATES NINTH-CIRCUIT JUDGE SHIRLEY HUFSTEDLER TO SUPREME COURT
...Hufstedler is the first woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court…
THE WASHINGTON POST, July 5th, 1981
HUFSTEDLER CONFIRMED BY SENATE 73-27, BECOMES FIRST WOMAN TO SERVE ON SUPREME COURT
THE NEW YORK TIMES, July 23rd, 1981
Above: Justice Shirley Hufstedler, a Litton appointee and vocal member of the liberal wing of the court.
Jerry Litton’s Supreme Court appointments reveal a relatively sly move made by the Democrats during this period. The President himself was to the right of a majority of Democrats on hot-button social issues, as he and his defenders would not hesitate to tell you. Despite this, the Litton-appointed justices still stand to this day as the most liberal members of the high court to this day. The reason for this is simple and one stated by Timothy Kraft, the Litton administration’s chief strategist, in 1987: “if we get the court, we only need five votes, not hundreds.” In particular, they sought to not only expedite the democratic process through this court-packing, but also ensure that the backlash was not Jerry Litton’s burden to bear. Through this legislative-judicial entangling, the Litton administration was able to score major liberal gains while pretending they weren’t fully supportive of them.
LITTON LIBERALISM: A Moderate’s Lack of Moderation, written by Sean Hannity in 1998
The Republican Party was deeply fractured throughout the early Litton Presidency. Ronald Reagan had left several major divisions in his wake, with the primary cancellations angering the moderates, the conservatives terrified that he had doomed their cause, and the religious right feeling as if they’d never have the ear of the Oval Office again. Thanks to Senator Percy’s bid for President, the moderates had the most organization, but they lacked numbers. While the conservatives had the majority of the congressional caucus, public opinion was deeply against them due to Ronald Reagan’s perception as something of a neo-Hoover at that moment. Finally, while the religious right had a deeply limited presence in Congress, they had powerful public advocates and a veritable army of mobilized supporters, allowing them to put pressure on elected Republicans. While all were united in their opposition to the Litton administration’s policy agenda in theory, the infighting over control of the party scattered them and ensured that they couldn’t effectively fight back at first. This Republican civil war would come to define the modern party and its leadership...
A NEW PATH FOR AMERICA: The Creation of the Sixth Party System, published in 2009
THE NEW YORK TIMES, February 2nd, 1981
“My fellow Americans, tonight I am coming to you to talk about the state of our economy and what we intend to do to mitigate this crisis. There is no avoiding the direness of our current blend of recession, inflation, and unemployment. We must act quickly, and we must act in the best interests of those most heavily impacted. America is tough, and it has survived far worse than we are seeing today. We will get through this as a nation and community. Tonight, I intend to explain to you the specific actions I will be taking and will be imploring Congress to take and what they will mean for all of you, as Americans. In broad terms, these will include a stimulus spending bill to protect those who have been laid off in the midst of this crisis, tighter monetary policy on the part of Secretary Volcker to curb inflation, and select other wage and price stabilization measures.”
Excerpt from President Litton’s February 2nd televised address to the nation, 1981
“My fellow Americans, I’m going to level with you for a mo’: it’s real bad out there. It’s like when there’s a real nasty dry spell and all the grass dies so your cows can’t eat. It’s a right mess, y’see?”
John Belushi playing President Litton on Saturday Night Live, February 8th, 1981
Perhaps due to the large mandate obtained through the Democrats’ best showing since LBJ’s landslide, the first months of the Litton Presidency carried a frenetic legislative pace to them. Regardless of this, Jerry Litton did not intend to waste the large margins of control in Congress the Democrats held on the primary concern of solely fixing the economy. In particular, though, he set his sights on governmental reform - an issue near and dear to his heart, only matched by the plight of small farmers. The Litton team had considered this issue to be something of an immediate crisis to solve - in their eyes, other proposals would be doomed if the entire might of corporate America could be leveled at them unchecked. As such, the new President sent Ed Turner off to the offices of the most enthusiastic reformers in Congress to talk about the “big two” of government corruption - legislator financial disclosure and lobbying.
NEW DAWN: America Under Jerry Litton, published in 2002
SENATORS CHILES AND LYSEN UNVEIL ANTI-CORRUPTION BILL IN JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE
...the Honesty In Legislation Bill, which has been dubbed the “Hill Bill,” mandates that the President, the Vice-President, all members of Congress, and all cabinet-rank officials file a financial disclosure form yearly, as well as imposing a five-year lobbying ban on the aforementioned officials...
THE WASHINGTON POST, February 15th, 1981
“This bill, if passed, will ensure that every American knows two things: they’ll know who their representatives are being paid by and how much they’re being paid.”
Sen. King Lysen (D-WA) during an interview, February 16th, 1981
Reporter: Mr. President, what is your opinion of the Chiles-Lysen “Hill Bill” which was proposed a few days ago?
Jerry Litton: Well, I’m very pleased to see Congress taking up this matter. I’ve always seen more openness and accountability in government as healthy for our democracy, and I would absolutely sign this bill should Congress pass it. Just between you and me, because there aren’t dozens of cameras here [CHUCKLE], this bill is long overdue.
President Jerry Litton at a press conference, February 20th, 1981
“Look, if we pass this Hill Bill, you can guarantee that you’ll see liberals on the news Monday-morning quarterbacking about years-old donations. They’re going to make big stinks about snippets of financial information with zero context. This isn’t a vaccine for our democracy, it’s a political bludgeon disguised as good health!”
Rep. Dick Cheney (R-WY-AL) on the House floor, February 22nd, 1981
Dan Rather: Liberal members of Congress were derided for quite some time as “De-Facto Democrats” due to their tendency to vote with the Democratic majority and President Litton. What do you say to that?
Lawrence Hogan: Well, I’d argue that’s because Jerry Litton’s early affinity for government reform lined up with us nicely. We figured that exposing corruption in the two major parties with the Hill Act would help us, as people realized we were a better alternative. We liked Birch Bayh’s idea of removing the electoral college, because it would give us a real chance to break through in national elections, even if the Johns had ruined any chance of that.
DR: So it was a matter of pragmatism?
LH: In some respects. In others, we did genuinely agree - of course, the “De-Facto Democrats” line the Republicans trotted out again and again was overblown. We weren’t as friendly with Litton budget proposals, labor reform proposals, or healthcare proposals. Frankly, the entire idea of us as Democrats-In-Waiting was mostly one used to try and inspire that tribalistic partisan spirit to keep our vote totals down with former Republicans.
60 Minutes interview with Fmr. Mathias Campaign Chairman Lawrence Hogan, 1987
HILL BILL PASSES HOUSE 291-144
THE WASHINGTON POST, February 24th, 1981
HILL BILL PASSES SENATE, 62-38
THE WASHINGTON POST, February 26th, 1981
“With this signed into law, we’ve taken our first large step in a long while towards bringing our government back to its people.”
President Jerry Litton signing the Hill Act into law, February 27th, 1981
The Hill Act was a major boost to our fortunes. By getting one of the President’s most broadly popular signature issues through Congress by the end of March, we had shown that we truly meant business, so to speak. The victory also aided us in that it offset the impending division that would come through our economic recovery plans. While the President was sympathetic to the plights of organized labor through the economic crisis, by no means was he willing to take the orthodox New Dealer approach favored by the Vice President and Labor Secretary Douglas Fraser. However, he was also wary of Treasury Secretary Paul Volcker’s intense inflation hawkery, which he viewed as downright dangerous to the unemployed in this nation. Charting a course between these two extremes was the way to go, in his mind. One thing was agreed upon by all sides of the economic disputes, though - Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Chairman and occasional conservative activist, needed to go. It was with the rare consensus in mind that Secretary Volcker was sent to relay Jerry’s message requesting his resignation immediately, even if he couldn’t directly compel Greenspan to resign.
THE LONG EIGHTIES: A Memoir, written by Robert Morgado in 2003
FED CHAIRMAN ALAN GREENSPAN TO RESIGN, CITES FAMILY REASONS
THE NEW YORK TIMES, March 7th, 1981
LITTON NAMES JOHNSON-ERA ECONOMIC ADVISORS COUNCIL CHAIR GARDNER ACKLEY AS NEW FED CHAIR
...Ackley is perhaps most well-known for sounding the alarm on impending inflation in 1966...
THE WASHINGTON POST, March 12th, 1981
Above: Federal Reserve Chairman Gardner Ackley, famed for his role in reviving the economy in the early 1980s.
The Department of Education was next on our list of secondary legislation behind the economic crisis - well, more Congress’ list, but it was an item we agreed on. Needless to say, this would be more controversial than the Hill Act was, as our allies in Congress and a handful of people within the White House spent every moment they could on the morning news explaining it clearly and concisely. By the time we had beat the Republicans to the game on setting the tone, a clear majority believed that this bill was what it was written to do and not the political weapon the Republicans claimed. Beating them to reach through the television into everyone’s homes was key there, and we had made a fatal mistake on the Department of Education - we tipped our hand early, back when we nominated Barbara Mikulski to serve as the last HEW Secretary. We said we would authorize its creation before that was the focal point of debate in Congress, and as such, the opposition was far more organized. In addition, there was no perception of “defending corruption” which was so unique to the Hill Bill - the mantra of state’s rights and small government was all too easy and popular to attach to the Department of Education. Thus, our first truly difficult legislative battle began.
AN UNELECTED OFFICIAL’S GUIDE TO SURVIVING WASHINGTON, written by Timothy Kraft in 2010
“Education isn’t mentioned once in the Constitution. Nowhere is it specified that the federal government has any ability to regulate education. All this is is an excuse to shove the government into our schools to tell us what we can and can’t do! Does anyone here really trust Jerry Litton to teach their kids what they ought to know instead of some liberal nonsense?”
Rep. Frank Drake (R-MS-3) on the House floor, April 22nd, 1981
“The expansion of the government into education, simply put, is another case of a wrongly-understood notion of equality. It’s one that, in its haste to ensure that all are covered, would lead to an overbearing standardization. True equality is not when all are the same, but rather, when all are given the freedom to express their differences. This must be afforded to states and communities to ensure that they can bring their next generations up the way they see fit.”
Op-Ed written in the Washington Post by Fmr. Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), April 24th, 1981
Obtaining the support of the Boll Weevils to create the Department of Education was the greatest concern of the Litton Administration. While not as strident as their Republican counterparts, southern Democrats were still leery of this “intrusive” of an expansion of the government. As such, Jerry Litton turned back to his favored method of mitigating these concerns. He recognized that if they felt one of their people was running this new Department, they would be mollified enough to not launch any serious, concentrated opposition. Hints were dropped to various legislators’ offices, letting them know that the nominee for the new Department would be someone from their area who “understands the issues facing their communities.” While a faction of the most conservative Boll Weevils did ultimately vote against the Department’s creation, enough seemed pleased by the impending nomination of Richard Riley, the education-minded Governor of South Carolina, to vote for it.
NEW DAWN: America Under Jerry Litton, published in 2002
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS, TO BE SIGNED BY PRESIDENT LITTON
THE WASHINGTON POST, April 30th, 1981
RILEY RESIGNS GOVERNORSHIP TO BECOME FIRST SECRETARY OF EDUCATION; LT GOV TURNIPSEED TO SUCCEED HIM
THE GREENVILLE NEWS, May 4th, 1981
Above: South Carolina Governor Tom Turnipseed.
“Y’know, and don’t quote me on this one, when it comes down to it, I gotta thank the President - if he didn’t appoint Dick Riley to Education, I’d be havin’ a much harder fight on my hands come November. He ain’t as squishy as Turnipseed, he’s popular here too. I don’t think I’d be within spitting distance of Dick Riley.”
Comments made by Lee Atwater to Michael Wolff in 1982, later published by Wolff in "Three Days in the Lion's Den" in 2015 following Atwater's death
STEWART TO LEAVE SUPREME COURT JULY 3RD
THE NEW YORK TIMES, June 19th, 1981
LITTON NOMINATES NINTH-CIRCUIT JUDGE SHIRLEY HUFSTEDLER TO SUPREME COURT
...Hufstedler is the first woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court…
THE WASHINGTON POST, July 5th, 1981
HUFSTEDLER CONFIRMED BY SENATE 73-27, BECOMES FIRST WOMAN TO SERVE ON SUPREME COURT
THE NEW YORK TIMES, July 23rd, 1981
Above: Justice Shirley Hufstedler, a Litton appointee and vocal member of the liberal wing of the court.
Jerry Litton’s Supreme Court appointments reveal a relatively sly move made by the Democrats during this period. The President himself was to the right of a majority of Democrats on hot-button social issues, as he and his defenders would not hesitate to tell you. Despite this, the Litton-appointed justices still stand to this day as the most liberal members of the high court to this day. The reason for this is simple and one stated by Timothy Kraft, the Litton administration’s chief strategist, in 1987: “if we get the court, we only need five votes, not hundreds.” In particular, they sought to not only expedite the democratic process through this court-packing, but also ensure that the backlash was not Jerry Litton’s burden to bear. Through this legislative-judicial entangling, the Litton administration was able to score major liberal gains while pretending they weren’t fully supportive of them.
LITTON LIBERALISM: A Moderate’s Lack of Moderation, written by Sean Hannity in 1998
The Republican Party was deeply fractured throughout the early Litton Presidency. Ronald Reagan had left several major divisions in his wake, with the primary cancellations angering the moderates, the conservatives terrified that he had doomed their cause, and the religious right feeling as if they’d never have the ear of the Oval Office again. Thanks to Senator Percy’s bid for President, the moderates had the most organization, but they lacked numbers. While the conservatives had the majority of the congressional caucus, public opinion was deeply against them due to Ronald Reagan’s perception as something of a neo-Hoover at that moment. Finally, while the religious right had a deeply limited presence in Congress, they had powerful public advocates and a veritable army of mobilized supporters, allowing them to put pressure on elected Republicans. While all were united in their opposition to the Litton administration’s policy agenda in theory, the infighting over control of the party scattered them and ensured that they couldn’t effectively fight back at first. This Republican civil war would come to define the modern party and its leadership...
A NEW PATH FOR AMERICA: The Creation of the Sixth Party System, published in 2009
Last edited:
AnActualFan
Banned
So we get some much-needed reform and Hufstedler on the court, it seems like Litton is having a successful 100 days. Though that line about labor and healthcare reform interests me, wonder what Jerry will do and how successful he will be in those regards.
ACT TWO: Part 3 - Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs
One of Will Rogers’ most famous political jokes is such: “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” However, following Ronald Reagan’s Presidency, the exact opposite was true - the Democratic Party was, by and large, firmly committed to Jerry Litton as their dashing young leader for a new generation, with only the occasional sore Boll Weevil opposing his initiatives. The Republicans, meanwhile, had suffered nothing less than an implosion following Reagan’s defeat. This intra-party conflict, a struggle for the soul of the Republican Party, would come to dominate the 1980s, with the only thing binding the strains of conservatism together remaining Democratic control and initiatives.
The title of most organized faction within the post-Reagan party belongs to the moderates. Charles Percy’s run for president, and indeed, the turbulent relationship between President Reagan and moderate leaders, meant that both the politicians and the voters were already fairly organized. They believed that Reagan’s ideology came off as callous on a good day and outright cruel, with talks of repealing social security on the campaign trail, on a bad day. Every time he lost to Congress was another reinforcement of this idea, and they sought to distance themselves from a party that they saw as hurtling off a cliff due to the President. Their attempts to distance themselves effectively meant that they were forced to develop their own campaign apparatus, donor network, and platform within the Republican Party. While this was not endearing to many within the party, and saw more than a few moderate incumbents lose primaries to Reaganite candidates, when 1980 went by and the Reagan machinery died with its leader, the remaining moderates had the most organized faction within the directionless party. They had a clear public face in Charles Percy, as well as a sect of voters within the party, if the 1980 primary was worth believing.
To many who aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan, whether during the primary or during his presidency, the problem was of demographics: to be blunt, they thought that the issue was that there were a lot more working and middle class voters than there were upper-middle and upper class. To them, Ronald Reagan wasn’t wrong, he just tried to convince people of an agenda that was correct but politically infeasible. To many conservative leaders, the agenda simply needed to shift, not necessarily change. A robust national defense, mainstream conservative responses to hot-button social issues, and an emphasis on fiscal responsibility without dipping into the territory of “supply-side economics.” While a popular response with a large portion of the party’s voters and elected officials, the challenge presented was convincing skeptics that this was an electable platform - that it wasn’t so irrevocably tied to the still-unpopular Reagan. This would prove to be a major stumbling block for years to come.
Within the minds of a select few, those ardent supporters of Ronald Reagan who made up the evangelical Christian base that was responsible for primary challenges across the board during the Reagan years, the problem was not that Reagan was wrong. It was that, to be blunt, he waffled. He tried to work with Congress instead of taking the uncompromising stance to fight for what was right. Of course, Reagan spent a fair amount of time in combat with Congress regardless, but any concession seemed like Reagan reneging on his views to the hard-right members of the party base. Embodied by a select few, such as Virginia Senator Richard Obenshain, North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, and a smattering of activists such as Phyllis Schlafly, these members of the party would push for an even more conservative platform. Obenshain himself would call for the repeal of many Great Society and New Deal programs, not to mention the “retooling” of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. To the most ideologically rigid, Reagan’s loss was a failure to uphold conservative principles in full, even if the vast majority of the party saw things very differently.
Finally, there is the smallest bloc with the largest wallets - the economic conservatives. Largely disinterested in other issues, the “country club Republicans” were focused on continuing the Reagan-era economic program. Supportive of deregulation, free trade, lower taxes, and limited spending, their goal was relatively simple comparatively: find those within the party, regardless of stances on other issues, who would support their views. Jack Kemp, who held a variety of eclectic libertarian views on issues such as abortion, and Richard Obenshain, who was deeply conservative on all fronts, were both palatable, as they both agreed on these economic policies. So long as they had a foothold, the most stringent of economic conservatives didn't mind the direction of the party elsewhere.
This ensured the party that emerged from its infighting, regardless of ideological direction, would only have leadership that could win bloody political battles. Only those who could outwait, outspend, outfox, and to a degree outcheat their opponents would survive in any position of power. Some even argue that the civil non-war within the Republican Party set the stage for Lee Atwater’s ascendancy to the Presidency, noting his mastery and continuing sophistication of the political guerrilla tactics perfected during this period. This is still a hotly contested position among historians, though, as he, alongside many of the freshman Republicans of the Litton years, did not truly belong to any of the existing factions within the party…
A NEW PATH FOR AMERICA: The Creation of the Sixth Party System, published in 2009
HUMPHREY-HAWKINS BILL PASSES HOUSE WITH TALLY OF 226-209
THE WASHINGTON POST, March 18th, 1981
Vice President Carey’s, and by extension, my role in the Litton White House was often that of enforcer. President Litton never seemed to enjoy being the one to crack the whip over Congress’ back, and seeing as that was about ninety percent of what Hugh did during New York City’s fiscal crisis, he often sent us off to the Congressional offices to bloody noses for him. Such was the case in the passage of the Humphrey-Hawkins Act. Much to the chagrin of more conservative members of the party, who wished to see what they perceived as a centrist President dance to their tune, growing up in Depression-era rural Missouri had shaped the President’s outlook on what unemployment truly meant for the American people. He was deeply supportive of government employment programs like those proposed by Humphrey-Hawkins as a method to boost people out of poverty, as “a job is the easiest path to economic security.” Needless to say, there was almost the expectation that this would be held up by at least one powerful conservative senator. This expectation was made reality when the Vice President and I discussed it with Russell Long, the chairman of Senate Finance and a regular power-broker in Congress. Wasting no time when we sat down in his office, Long rattled off a litany of reasons why he simply couldn’t support any form of the bill with the “reservoir of public employment,” as it was dubbed. It was too expensive, it’d drive inflation up, everything he could think to say. To this, Hugh simply leaned his broad figure towards Long, as if briefly possessed by Lyndon Johnson himself, clawing his way back from Hell to torment the people of Congress one last time. Judging by Long’s reflexive snap backwards, it appears that he saw the same phantom. “Now, Russell. To make myself and the President quite clear, we both don’t see this bill as negotiable. What we’re offering here is a chance to play ball. You play now, at the beginning of the game, we can have a conversation about other matters you might care about when unemployment and inflation are both back at a reasonable level. Otherwise, I know our friend from Wisconsin,” here referring to Gaylord Nelson, quite possibly the most strident environmentalist to reside in Washington since Theodore Roosevelt, “is aching for harsher regulation on oil drilling. On the other hand, Jimmy,” specifically Carter, the Secretary of Energy, “sees domestic oil as vital to bringing our dependence on OPEC down.” Hugh leaned in further, dropping his volume just a touch, the implied threat no less barbed than before. “I trust you to make the right choice, Russell.” With that, Humphrey-Hawkins had avoided its near-certain gutting in the Senate.
THE LONG EIGHTIES: A Memoir, written by Robert Morgado in 2003
HUMPHREY-HAWKINS BILL CLEARS SENATE, 54-46
THE WASHINGTON POST, March 23rd, 1981
PRESIDENT LITTON SIGNS HUMPHREY-HAWKINS ACT INTO LAW, SAYS HE INTENDS TO INVOKE GOVERNMENT-PROVIDED JOB CREATION PROVISIONS TO MITIGATE UNEMPLOYMENT
THE WASHINGTON POST, March 24th, 1981
Above: Senator Muriel Humphrey in her office. Humphrey had been the most prominent advocate of the passage of her late husband's sweeping legislative package.
My father, without a doubt, did his best to be gracious in office. He liked to tell me that “kindness is always worth the time." Even when it came to difficult legislative battles, he would always find room to be decent to people - he asked then-Senator Muriel Humphrey to sit next to him while he signed the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, solely in honor of her late husband. However, this often meant that he was never the one to truly crack down on Congress - he preferred to ask others to do so for him. Vice President Carey (“Uncle Hugh,” as Scott and I knew him), Ed Turner, anyone who could deal with people on his behalf and do the dirty work that would no doubt sour the relationships he had spent eight years in Congress cultivating. “I can’t get them to help us when we most need it if they hate me” was often his justification…
DIALOGUES WITH MY FATHER, written by Linda Litton, published in 2011
LITTON PLANS TO PUSH FOR BILL TO CREATE CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY
...Litton told consumer advocates who visited the White House today that he believes he has an agreement with Speaker O’Neill and Senator Byrd on such a piece of legislation...
THE NEW YORK TIMES, May 14th, 1981
Once we had the actual bill secured, we knew that the creation of the Consumer Protection Agency would need to be sold to the public. It was Jerry himself who came up with the idea of broadcasting it to the nation, perhaps due to his comfort with television as a medium. From there, myself and his speech-writing team had the idea of making it an atypical address. As opposed to making a declaration of policy and explaining its purpose, we would tell a story. We would speak of one person, an example provided to us named Jane, and her hardships. We would show why she would need this agency speaking for her, because otherwise policy gets made without the Janes of the world in mind. It was a very personal way to bond policy to the “ordinary Americans” we spoke of so frequently. While some critics thought the President’s address was bizarre and a tad wooden, for the most part, it appears that the Jane Speech had done what was intended of it, judging by public opinion polls following it.
AN UNELECTED OFFICIAL’S GUIDE TO SURVIVING WASHINGTON, written by Timothy Kraft in 2010
PRESIDENT SIGNS CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY AUTHORIZATION ACT
THE NEW YORK TIMES, May 28th, 1981
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY IS NOT JUST BAD POLICY, BUT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
An Op-Ed written by former Treasury Secretary William Simon, May 28th, 1981
CFA DIRECTOR KATHLEEN O’REILLY NOMINATED AS FIRST CPA ADMINISTRATOR
THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, May 30th, 1981
ELECTORAL COLLEGE ABOLITION AMENDMENT RATIFIED BY VIRGINIA IN SURPRISE
...Governor Howell’s push for the ratification of the amendment has been ongoing for nearly a year now, even going so far as to mention the Bayh Amendment before leaving any press conference. Despite this, he had seemingly limited success, until the House of Delegates voted to ratify by a 51-49 margin and the State Senate by a 27-23 margin in a special session last night. Virginia has become the 21st state to ratify the Amendment, following Maryland, Hawaii, New York, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Maine, Alabama, New Mexico, Michigan, New Jersey, Delaware, Oregon, Illinois, Mississippi, Nevada, and Ohio…
THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH, July 15th, 1981
No less than seven times did either the FAA or PATCO try to walk out on the negotiations, citing imbalanced deals and an impossible set of negotiations. However, then-Secretary of Labor Douglas Fraser, both deeply stubborn and as skilled at union-business negotiation due to his time in the UAW, kept at it. Fraser said later on that “trying to get the FAA to listen to Bob Poli was like trying to start a fire with two damp sticks.” Evidently, though, he eventually created sparks, as the FAA agreed to raise wages, reduce working hours, and allow for earlier retirement.
THE MODERN HISTORY OF AMERICAN LABOR, written in 2003
Jerry had called me to the Oval Office for a meeting out of nowhere, which only meant one thing: it was another of his spur-of-the-moment ideas. He didn’t disappoint my expectations when I walked in, as he immediately began. “Ed, we can’t let this poor kid get thrown in jail for trying to take his own crops back,” Jerry held up the copy of the Kansas City Star, probably the longest-range subscription of the Star, sitting on his desk to show me a story: PUXICO FARMER FACING POTENTIAL JAIL TIME FOR RAID ON DEFUNCT GRAIN ELEVATOR.
“Well, this doesn’t seem like that big of a deal, honestly. It’s a small-scale misdemeanor, and Mr. Cryts...”
“Ed, it shouldn’t be a misdemeanor to take possession of soybeans you grew yourself. Plus, we’ve got an opportunity here to show the rest of the family farmers in this country that are getting gobbled up by big business that we’re on their side, that we won’t let some bankrupt company repossess their hard work.” I mulled it over for a second. Normally one of the President’s flash-in-the-pan ideas needed a bit of cold water tossed on them and a few minutes for him to decide it wasn’t worth pursuing. Even the smartest people don't always have good ideas, and as Jerry is quick to tell anyone, he’s not the smartest person in the room. Truth be told, I do think that’s why he called me in to talk them over - he knew I’d be honest with him and could keep him from spending hours churning on a topic that wasn’t worth his time. This one, though, had a salient point behind it. Pardoning Wayne Cryts would show real action to the small farmers that had elevated Jerry to the House, the Senate, and the White House itself. While our planned agricultural reform bill was slow-moving due to the legal footwork continuously being done by Secretaries Askew and Clinton on what would become the Family Farm Protection Act, this would give them an early sign. With that in mind, and Jerry’s clear impatience weighing down on my moment to ponder, I made a decision.
“This could be very good for us, yeah. I’ll see if I can reach Governor Spainhower to let him know what you’re planning on doing...”
CAMELOT IN CHILLICOTHE: Life With Jerry Litton, written by Ed Turner in 1997
LITTON GIVES FULL PARDON TO PUXICO FARMER, SUPPORTS FIGHT AGAINST “UNFAIR LAW”
...Mr. Cryts is facing potential jail time for raiding a bankrupt grain elevator to retrieve nearly 31,000 bushels of his soybeans, which were lumped with the elevator as assets...
THE KANSAS CITY STAR, August 6th, 1981
Above: Wayne Cryts raiding the grain elevator in 1981.
“We can now project that the Democratic nominee, farm organizer Wayne Cryts, has won the Governor’s race in Missouri.”
Dan Rather on CBS Election Night, November 2nd, 2004
WHITE HOUSE INDICATES THAT LABOR REFORM PACKAGE TO COME SOON
...when asked for comment, Press Secretary Bonnie Mitchell did not elaborate on the potential contents of such a bill…
THE WASHINGTON POST, September 4th, 1981
The title of most organized faction within the post-Reagan party belongs to the moderates. Charles Percy’s run for president, and indeed, the turbulent relationship between President Reagan and moderate leaders, meant that both the politicians and the voters were already fairly organized. They believed that Reagan’s ideology came off as callous on a good day and outright cruel, with talks of repealing social security on the campaign trail, on a bad day. Every time he lost to Congress was another reinforcement of this idea, and they sought to distance themselves from a party that they saw as hurtling off a cliff due to the President. Their attempts to distance themselves effectively meant that they were forced to develop their own campaign apparatus, donor network, and platform within the Republican Party. While this was not endearing to many within the party, and saw more than a few moderate incumbents lose primaries to Reaganite candidates, when 1980 went by and the Reagan machinery died with its leader, the remaining moderates had the most organized faction within the directionless party. They had a clear public face in Charles Percy, as well as a sect of voters within the party, if the 1980 primary was worth believing.
To many who aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan, whether during the primary or during his presidency, the problem was of demographics: to be blunt, they thought that the issue was that there were a lot more working and middle class voters than there were upper-middle and upper class. To them, Ronald Reagan wasn’t wrong, he just tried to convince people of an agenda that was correct but politically infeasible. To many conservative leaders, the agenda simply needed to shift, not necessarily change. A robust national defense, mainstream conservative responses to hot-button social issues, and an emphasis on fiscal responsibility without dipping into the territory of “supply-side economics.” While a popular response with a large portion of the party’s voters and elected officials, the challenge presented was convincing skeptics that this was an electable platform - that it wasn’t so irrevocably tied to the still-unpopular Reagan. This would prove to be a major stumbling block for years to come.
Within the minds of a select few, those ardent supporters of Ronald Reagan who made up the evangelical Christian base that was responsible for primary challenges across the board during the Reagan years, the problem was not that Reagan was wrong. It was that, to be blunt, he waffled. He tried to work with Congress instead of taking the uncompromising stance to fight for what was right. Of course, Reagan spent a fair amount of time in combat with Congress regardless, but any concession seemed like Reagan reneging on his views to the hard-right members of the party base. Embodied by a select few, such as Virginia Senator Richard Obenshain, North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, and a smattering of activists such as Phyllis Schlafly, these members of the party would push for an even more conservative platform. Obenshain himself would call for the repeal of many Great Society and New Deal programs, not to mention the “retooling” of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. To the most ideologically rigid, Reagan’s loss was a failure to uphold conservative principles in full, even if the vast majority of the party saw things very differently.
Finally, there is the smallest bloc with the largest wallets - the economic conservatives. Largely disinterested in other issues, the “country club Republicans” were focused on continuing the Reagan-era economic program. Supportive of deregulation, free trade, lower taxes, and limited spending, their goal was relatively simple comparatively: find those within the party, regardless of stances on other issues, who would support their views. Jack Kemp, who held a variety of eclectic libertarian views on issues such as abortion, and Richard Obenshain, who was deeply conservative on all fronts, were both palatable, as they both agreed on these economic policies. So long as they had a foothold, the most stringent of economic conservatives didn't mind the direction of the party elsewhere.
This ensured the party that emerged from its infighting, regardless of ideological direction, would only have leadership that could win bloody political battles. Only those who could outwait, outspend, outfox, and to a degree outcheat their opponents would survive in any position of power. Some even argue that the civil non-war within the Republican Party set the stage for Lee Atwater’s ascendancy to the Presidency, noting his mastery and continuing sophistication of the political guerrilla tactics perfected during this period. This is still a hotly contested position among historians, though, as he, alongside many of the freshman Republicans of the Litton years, did not truly belong to any of the existing factions within the party…
A NEW PATH FOR AMERICA: The Creation of the Sixth Party System, published in 2009
HUMPHREY-HAWKINS BILL PASSES HOUSE WITH TALLY OF 226-209
THE WASHINGTON POST, March 18th, 1981
Vice President Carey’s, and by extension, my role in the Litton White House was often that of enforcer. President Litton never seemed to enjoy being the one to crack the whip over Congress’ back, and seeing as that was about ninety percent of what Hugh did during New York City’s fiscal crisis, he often sent us off to the Congressional offices to bloody noses for him. Such was the case in the passage of the Humphrey-Hawkins Act. Much to the chagrin of more conservative members of the party, who wished to see what they perceived as a centrist President dance to their tune, growing up in Depression-era rural Missouri had shaped the President’s outlook on what unemployment truly meant for the American people. He was deeply supportive of government employment programs like those proposed by Humphrey-Hawkins as a method to boost people out of poverty, as “a job is the easiest path to economic security.” Needless to say, there was almost the expectation that this would be held up by at least one powerful conservative senator. This expectation was made reality when the Vice President and I discussed it with Russell Long, the chairman of Senate Finance and a regular power-broker in Congress. Wasting no time when we sat down in his office, Long rattled off a litany of reasons why he simply couldn’t support any form of the bill with the “reservoir of public employment,” as it was dubbed. It was too expensive, it’d drive inflation up, everything he could think to say. To this, Hugh simply leaned his broad figure towards Long, as if briefly possessed by Lyndon Johnson himself, clawing his way back from Hell to torment the people of Congress one last time. Judging by Long’s reflexive snap backwards, it appears that he saw the same phantom. “Now, Russell. To make myself and the President quite clear, we both don’t see this bill as negotiable. What we’re offering here is a chance to play ball. You play now, at the beginning of the game, we can have a conversation about other matters you might care about when unemployment and inflation are both back at a reasonable level. Otherwise, I know our friend from Wisconsin,” here referring to Gaylord Nelson, quite possibly the most strident environmentalist to reside in Washington since Theodore Roosevelt, “is aching for harsher regulation on oil drilling. On the other hand, Jimmy,” specifically Carter, the Secretary of Energy, “sees domestic oil as vital to bringing our dependence on OPEC down.” Hugh leaned in further, dropping his volume just a touch, the implied threat no less barbed than before. “I trust you to make the right choice, Russell.” With that, Humphrey-Hawkins had avoided its near-certain gutting in the Senate.
THE LONG EIGHTIES: A Memoir, written by Robert Morgado in 2003
HUMPHREY-HAWKINS BILL CLEARS SENATE, 54-46
THE WASHINGTON POST, March 23rd, 1981
PRESIDENT LITTON SIGNS HUMPHREY-HAWKINS ACT INTO LAW, SAYS HE INTENDS TO INVOKE GOVERNMENT-PROVIDED JOB CREATION PROVISIONS TO MITIGATE UNEMPLOYMENT
THE WASHINGTON POST, March 24th, 1981
Above: Senator Muriel Humphrey in her office. Humphrey had been the most prominent advocate of the passage of her late husband's sweeping legislative package.
My father, without a doubt, did his best to be gracious in office. He liked to tell me that “kindness is always worth the time." Even when it came to difficult legislative battles, he would always find room to be decent to people - he asked then-Senator Muriel Humphrey to sit next to him while he signed the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, solely in honor of her late husband. However, this often meant that he was never the one to truly crack down on Congress - he preferred to ask others to do so for him. Vice President Carey (“Uncle Hugh,” as Scott and I knew him), Ed Turner, anyone who could deal with people on his behalf and do the dirty work that would no doubt sour the relationships he had spent eight years in Congress cultivating. “I can’t get them to help us when we most need it if they hate me” was often his justification…
DIALOGUES WITH MY FATHER, written by Linda Litton, published in 2011
LITTON PLANS TO PUSH FOR BILL TO CREATE CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY
...Litton told consumer advocates who visited the White House today that he believes he has an agreement with Speaker O’Neill and Senator Byrd on such a piece of legislation...
THE NEW YORK TIMES, May 14th, 1981
Once we had the actual bill secured, we knew that the creation of the Consumer Protection Agency would need to be sold to the public. It was Jerry himself who came up with the idea of broadcasting it to the nation, perhaps due to his comfort with television as a medium. From there, myself and his speech-writing team had the idea of making it an atypical address. As opposed to making a declaration of policy and explaining its purpose, we would tell a story. We would speak of one person, an example provided to us named Jane, and her hardships. We would show why she would need this agency speaking for her, because otherwise policy gets made without the Janes of the world in mind. It was a very personal way to bond policy to the “ordinary Americans” we spoke of so frequently. While some critics thought the President’s address was bizarre and a tad wooden, for the most part, it appears that the Jane Speech had done what was intended of it, judging by public opinion polls following it.
AN UNELECTED OFFICIAL’S GUIDE TO SURVIVING WASHINGTON, written by Timothy Kraft in 2010
PRESIDENT SIGNS CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY AUTHORIZATION ACT
THE NEW YORK TIMES, May 28th, 1981
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY IS NOT JUST BAD POLICY, BUT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
An Op-Ed written by former Treasury Secretary William Simon, May 28th, 1981
CFA DIRECTOR KATHLEEN O’REILLY NOMINATED AS FIRST CPA ADMINISTRATOR
THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, May 30th, 1981
ELECTORAL COLLEGE ABOLITION AMENDMENT RATIFIED BY VIRGINIA IN SURPRISE
...Governor Howell’s push for the ratification of the amendment has been ongoing for nearly a year now, even going so far as to mention the Bayh Amendment before leaving any press conference. Despite this, he had seemingly limited success, until the House of Delegates voted to ratify by a 51-49 margin and the State Senate by a 27-23 margin in a special session last night. Virginia has become the 21st state to ratify the Amendment, following Maryland, Hawaii, New York, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Maine, Alabama, New Mexico, Michigan, New Jersey, Delaware, Oregon, Illinois, Mississippi, Nevada, and Ohio…
THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH, July 15th, 1981
HubertHoratioHornblower - April 17th, 2019
Just a little tease of next time
PATCO ON STRIKE: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS WALK OUT
The New York Times, August 3rd, 1981
No less than seven times did either the FAA or PATCO try to walk out on the negotiations, citing imbalanced deals and an impossible set of negotiations. However, then-Secretary of Labor Douglas Fraser, both deeply stubborn and as skilled at union-business negotiation due to his time in the UAW, kept at it. Fraser said later on that “trying to get the FAA to listen to Bob Poli was like trying to start a fire with two damp sticks.” Evidently, though, he eventually created sparks, as the FAA agreed to raise wages, reduce working hours, and allow for earlier retirement.
THE MODERN HISTORY OF AMERICAN LABOR, written in 2003
Jerry had called me to the Oval Office for a meeting out of nowhere, which only meant one thing: it was another of his spur-of-the-moment ideas. He didn’t disappoint my expectations when I walked in, as he immediately began. “Ed, we can’t let this poor kid get thrown in jail for trying to take his own crops back,” Jerry held up the copy of the Kansas City Star, probably the longest-range subscription of the Star, sitting on his desk to show me a story: PUXICO FARMER FACING POTENTIAL JAIL TIME FOR RAID ON DEFUNCT GRAIN ELEVATOR.
“Well, this doesn’t seem like that big of a deal, honestly. It’s a small-scale misdemeanor, and Mr. Cryts...”
“Ed, it shouldn’t be a misdemeanor to take possession of soybeans you grew yourself. Plus, we’ve got an opportunity here to show the rest of the family farmers in this country that are getting gobbled up by big business that we’re on their side, that we won’t let some bankrupt company repossess their hard work.” I mulled it over for a second. Normally one of the President’s flash-in-the-pan ideas needed a bit of cold water tossed on them and a few minutes for him to decide it wasn’t worth pursuing. Even the smartest people don't always have good ideas, and as Jerry is quick to tell anyone, he’s not the smartest person in the room. Truth be told, I do think that’s why he called me in to talk them over - he knew I’d be honest with him and could keep him from spending hours churning on a topic that wasn’t worth his time. This one, though, had a salient point behind it. Pardoning Wayne Cryts would show real action to the small farmers that had elevated Jerry to the House, the Senate, and the White House itself. While our planned agricultural reform bill was slow-moving due to the legal footwork continuously being done by Secretaries Askew and Clinton on what would become the Family Farm Protection Act, this would give them an early sign. With that in mind, and Jerry’s clear impatience weighing down on my moment to ponder, I made a decision.
“This could be very good for us, yeah. I’ll see if I can reach Governor Spainhower to let him know what you’re planning on doing...”
CAMELOT IN CHILLICOTHE: Life With Jerry Litton, written by Ed Turner in 1997
LITTON GIVES FULL PARDON TO PUXICO FARMER, SUPPORTS FIGHT AGAINST “UNFAIR LAW”
...Mr. Cryts is facing potential jail time for raiding a bankrupt grain elevator to retrieve nearly 31,000 bushels of his soybeans, which were lumped with the elevator as assets...
THE KANSAS CITY STAR, August 6th, 1981
Above: Wayne Cryts raiding the grain elevator in 1981.
“We can now project that the Democratic nominee, farm organizer Wayne Cryts, has won the Governor’s race in Missouri.”
Dan Rather on CBS Election Night, November 2nd, 2004
WHITE HOUSE INDICATES THAT LABOR REFORM PACKAGE TO COME SOON
...when asked for comment, Press Secretary Bonnie Mitchell did not elaborate on the potential contents of such a bill…
THE WASHINGTON POST, September 4th, 1981
