hunter s thompson on his way to be remembered as a visionary voice despite making a career out of regurgitating the same camelot mythmaking that everyone already believed
I don't know that the alt history forum is really the best place to get into a discussion on Hunter S. Thompson, but I've always found him to be incredibly overrated. Note that this does not mean bad; I highly enjoy some of his work. However, there is a certain subset of people who hold him in incredibly high regard and consider him the only journalist who ever told the truth, and I just can't get down with that.
 
Last edited:
But isn't the Full Employment Act the biggest legislative victory since The Great Society?
Maybe? From glancing at the OTL version, it seems to be to guarantee employment of 3% or lower for those 20 years or older as well as get a grip on inflation.

While significant, I don't know if it would compete with Great Society. If it was so game changing, I feel OTL Carter would have used it to his advantage. Now maybe Carter just didn't push it in the public's mind that much or maybe the bill wasn't as effective as originally envisioned.
 
I don't know that the alt history forum is really the best place to get into a discussion on Hunter S. Thompson, but I've always found him to be incredibly overrated. Not that this does not mean bad; I highly enjoy some of his work. However, there is a certain subset of people who hold him in incredibly high regard and consider him the only journalist who ever told the truth, and I just can't get down with that.
He was undeniably incredibly skilled at the written word and was also not nearly as smart as he thought he was; his work is more valuable for his prose and turns of phrase than it is for any insight on US history or politics.

Maybe? From glancing at the OTL version, it seems to be to guarantee employment of 3% or lower for those 20 years or older as well as get a grip on inflation.

While significant, I don't know if it would compete with Great Society. If it was so game changing, I feel OTL Carter would have used it to his advantage. Now maybe Carter just didn't push it in the public's mind that much or maybe the bill wasn't as effective as originally envisioned.
The Full Employment Act didn't just do that, it gave citizens the right to sue the government for not providing them with a job- basically enshrining the right to be employed by the federal government. It would have pretty fundamentally transformed the relationship between the American state and American citizens. Carter didn't use it to his advantage because he was fundamentally a moderate who did not believe the government had any business doing what Humphrey-Hawkins said it could do. The same applies to universal healthcare- he had the votes for it and didn't go for it because he simply thought it was a bad idea.
 
In regards to Hunter S. Thompson, it certainly would be interesting to wonder about his perspective on Carter being successfully sidelined, particularly with his original judgment of the man being a ruthless operator ("sheer functional meanness"). There's even a 1977 interview in which HST says Carter is now "eating Russian shoulders right now, instead of Humphrey's".

All that aside, fascinating TL. I admire the ability to get into character displayed here and in previous works like Memory Awake.
 
Maybe? From glancing at the OTL version, it seems to be to guarantee employment of 3% or lower for those 20 years or older as well as get a grip on inflation.

While significant, I don't know if it would compete with Great Society. If it was so game changing, I feel OTL Carter would have used it to his advantage. Now maybe Carter just didn't push it in the public's mind that much or maybe the bill wasn't as effective as originally envisioned.
He was undeniably incredibly skilled at the written word and was also not nearly as smart as he thought he was; his work is more valuable for his prose and turns of phrase than it is for any insight on US history or politics.


The Full Employment Act didn't just do that, it gave citizens the right to sue the government for not providing them with a job- basically enshrining the right to be employed by the federal government. It would have pretty fundamentally transformed the relationship between the American state and American citizens. Carter didn't use it to his advantage because he was fundamentally a moderate who did not believe the government had any business doing what Humphrey-Hawkins said it could do. The same applies to universal healthcare- he had the votes for it and didn't go for it because he simply thought it was a bad idea.
Exactly. This is pretty huge. This also means that Scoop Jackson is going to have the votes for universal healthcare. Humphreycare? So we're going to be looking at a Democratic Party going into the 1978 midterms with pretty major policy initiatives and (if Scoop Jackson doesn't let in the Shah) no international albatross around his neck. Probably no Peace Talks tho.

How is inflation looking?
 
The Full Employment Act didn't just do that, it gave citizens the right to sue the government for not providing them with a job- basically enshrining the right to be employed by the federal government. It would have pretty fundamentally transformed the relationship between the American state and American citizens. Carter didn't use it to his advantage because he was fundamentally a moderate who did not believe the government had any business doing what Humphrey-Hawkins said it could do. The same applies to universal healthcare- he had the votes for it and didn't go for it because he simply thought it was a bad idea.
Ahhh ok. Wouldn’t that lead to a fair amount of useless jobs that would cost the government a lot of money? And could the government fire someone or is there a long and difficult process to do that with the Full Employment Act in Force?
Exactly. This is pretty huge. This also means that Scoop Jackson is going to have the votes for universal healthcare. Humphreycare? So we're going to be looking at a Democratic Party going into the 1978 midterms with pretty major policy initiatives and (if Scoop Jackson doesn't let in the Shah) no international albatross around his neck. Probably no Peace Talks tho.

How is inflation looking?
How do you think that universal healthcare will look like?
Single-payer, public option or Carter’s proposal?
 
Ahhh ok. Wouldn’t that lead to a fair amount of useless jobs that would cost the government a lot of money? And could the government fire someone or is there a long and difficult process to do that with the Full Employment Act in Force?

How do you think that universal healthcare will look like?
Single-payer, public option or Carter’s proposal?
1. Idk... depends on the details of the bill. I bet we just end up with a lot of cleaner parks.

2. Humphreycare (which it hasn't been named yet but it should be, lol) will probably be single-payer. Democrats rejected Nixon's plan in the early 1970s for not being single-payer and they finally have the majority to pass it through.
 
Exactly. This is pretty huge. This also means that Scoop Jackson is going to have the votes for universal healthcare. Humphreycare? So we're going to be looking at a Democratic Party going into the 1978 midterms with pretty major policy initiatives and (if Scoop Jackson doesn't let in the Shah) no international albatross around his neck. Probably no Peace Talks tho.
Yeah, I've long thought that the idea that 1976 was a poisoned chalice (for a dem) is largely cope; Carter was just a bad politician whose agenda was out of step with what his congressional majorities wanted, and that's why he was an unsuccessful President. Anything could happen but the Full Employment Act alone is a massive achievement to take to the American people. If it's paired with healthcare then the progressives should be very happy. It's not clear to me that Carter would have much of a constituency to run against Scoop here just because he personally got screwed over. His best shot- and my prediction- is that Scoop does something very reckless over Iran. Zbig Brzezinski (assuming he's still nsa) wanted to straight up send US troops into Iran to support the Shah- if Scoop does that, then Carter could get quite a following as a peace candidate. Even then, I think he'd have to respect Humphrey and Scoop's domestic achievements to have a shot at winning the general.
 
Yeah, I've long thought that the idea that 1976 was a poisoned chalice (for a dem) is largely cope; Carter was just a bad politician whose agenda was out of step with what his congressional majorities wanted, and that's why he was an unsuccessful President.
I'd be interested to know what @Vidal thought of this idea
 
I'd be interested to know what @Vidal thought of this idea
Vidal definitely likes Carter more than I do but I don't think it's controversial that Carter was inexperienced in political maneuvering and this hurt his ability to pass his agenda through a Congress significantly to his left.
 

Vidal

Donor
I'd be interested to know what @Vidal thought of this idea

I basically agree

Vidal definitely likes Carter more than I do but I don't think it's controversial that Carter was inexperienced in political maneuvering and this hurt his ability to pass his agenda through a Congress significantly to his left.

Inexperienced feels a little like the wrong word to me. IMO Carter was fully aware of the consequences of his actions but he viewed his way as totally correct. He also thought he was acting in the best interests of the nation, and therefore the best political opportunity for the party. That is to say, his priority was ending inflation. He fundamentally differed from his party in how to tackle that problem, and he wasn’t interested in offering pork projects, etc to win their votes.

All of that is to say, his legislative accomplishments are impressive, especially for a one termer, and you’d have to double check me but I think he signed more legislation than any president post LBJ
 
All of that is to say, his legislative accomplishments are impressive, especially for a one termer, and you’d have to double check me but I think he signed more legislation than any president post LBJ
I definitely do have to properly sit down and read His Very Best just to get the other perspective to Reaganland (I read the hostage crisis sections for my job but not the rest sadly)
 
At least Carter won’t fuck up and call Humphrey a hornblower lol. Carter was taking L’s left and right in 1980. Thankfully Humphrey’s civil rights record will actually get the credit it deserves in the long-run. His 1948 speech will be a lot more well-known and I think will be seen up there with some of the most legendary speeches of all time. It’s honestly criminal that his 1948 speech doesn’t get mentioned more when civil rights history gets discussed
 
At least Carter won’t fuck up and call Humphrey a hornblower lol.
Hate to break it to you, man, but...
...Humphrey and Ford debated to two draws — debates unlikely to move the needle for one candidate or another. Carter, however, delivered a knockout performance. It was, perhaps, helped by low expectations. When accepting the Democratic nomination for Vice President, Carter mistakenly called Humphrey, “Hubert Horatio Hornblower!” An unexplainable mishap that haunted the running mate in the earliest days of the campaign. The press questioned if he was cut out for the national stage. Carter proved them wrong...
 
Hubert H. Humphrey signed the Full Employment Act into law.
Maybe? From glancing at the OTL version, it seems to be to guarantee employment of 3% or lower for those 20 years or older
The Full Employment Act didn't just do that, it gave citizens the right to sue the government for not providing them with a job- basically enshrining the right to be employed
Which version of the full employment act passed ITTL? Is the original version of the OTL act archived somewhere?
 
Which version of the full employment act passed ITTL? Is the original version of the OTL act archived somewhere?
I don't have the original act, im taking what it said from reaganland; presumably with humphrey having the bully pulpit he'd be able to get the original version passed

that does remind me though- did the congressional elections go better for the dems than otl? a better ev count could mean more downballot success
 
Which version of the full employment act passed ITTL? Is the original version of the OTL act archived somewhere?
The CBO has the statement given by a Deputy Assistant Director during the 94th Congress when the first version of Humphrey-Hawkins was introduced during the latter half of Ford's Presidency (HR.50)

Some quotes

Programs Under H.R.50
Countercyclical Programs. H.R.50 outlines a number of policy measures that might be implemented to achieve the full employment target. Standard fiscal and monetary measures might be supple- mented by special job-creating policies like public service employment, accelerated public works, grants to state and local governments, and special tax incentives for business. Further, there is a provision for a limited job guarantee for persons able and willing to work and seeking work. Special employment programs are to be enacted to the extent that fiscal and monetary policies are unable to achieve the 3 percent adult unemployment target. Presumably what this means is that supplementary measures are to be used if the inflationary pressures or budget costs associated with using standard fiscal and monetary policy to achieve the unemployment target become unacceptably high.

Special countercyclical measures such as public service employment, special tax incentives, accelerated public works, and special assistance to state and local governments can either provide jobs directly to the cyclically unemployed (as in public employment and public works), or can provide special incentives to private industry and state and local governments to employ more people then they otherwise would have.
Government as Employer of Last Resort
I mentioned that the Employment Act of 1946 fails to provide an enforcement mechanism to ensure that full employment will be achieved. Section 206 of H.R.50 attempts to provide such a mechanism by mandating the federal government to stand as employer of last resort for adult Americans unemployed in ex- cess of the 3 percent goal. It states that adult Americans able, willing and seeking work who are unable to find jobs through other provisions of H.R.50 shall be provided jobs through federally-operated public employment projects and approved non- profit employment projects. This so-called job guarantee is not necessarily unlimited, however. According to H.R.50, the size of the public employment program may be limited as long as adult unemployment is not in excess of 3 percent. Further, eligibility or priority criteria based essentially on need could be established under the provisions of H.R.50.

Two major questions come to mind in connection with the job guarantee program. First, section 2.06 stipulates that the federal job guarantee shall also carry with it a guarantee of the prevailing wage for that type of work in the labor market in which the job occurs. -In the case of construction jobs, they must meet Davis-Bacon Act standards; they must be at least equal to pre-vailing wages paid by a lo'cal government if the local government is the employer. This provision would undoubtedly drive up the average level of wages for the economy as a whole both in government and in the private sector as private employers are forced to compete with the government for workers. To some extent, the inflationary impact would depend on how limited the job guarantee concept is. Theoretically, in a truely unlimited program, the prevailing wage provision would result in a never-ending upward wage spiral. This is because in order to attract workers from the public employment at prevailing wages, private employers have to pay higher wages. But as private employers raise their wages the prevailing wage provision would mean higher wages for public jobs as well. Of course, if the public employment program were strictly limited, then this process would not be able to continue indefinitely. In fact, some workers excluded from the public employment program due to its limited size would take jobs in the private sector at the prevailing wage or even below. However, the prevailing wage provision in the federal job guarantee would un- doubtedly add to the potential inflation impact of H.R.50, unless offsetting anti-inflation measures were adopted. A second problem-is that if these wage standards attract workers from the private sector, the possibility arises that the employer-of-last-resort feature of H.K..50 would result in a large and unwieldly public employment program. At the same time, however, this feature could draw more attention to improving the quality of working life in the private sector. This has been the case in certain European countries that enacted job-guarantee programs in the 1960s
 
Top