U.S. Congress re-asserts itself on int'l policy following 1974 mid-terms?

For example, it might become a focus of Democratic Congressional leaders that the Warsaw Pact has more conventional forces than NATO, but we're relying on nukes as a back-up, whereas the Soviets have a policy of no first strike but full retaliatory strike. Well, that's a messed up situation. That's allowing East Germany and Berlin to be a bit of a hair trigger.

Furthermore, Congressional leaders might be pretty good at playing poker with our allies, allowing and even encouraging more radical members to talk about cutting the defense budget, while quietly communicating to President Ford that most members would support increased troop levels in Western Europe if our allies also make similar commitments.

And let's say this comes to pass and the early '80s are not as dangerous as they were in OTL.

So, Congressional leaders still work with the President, but in a sense they become the dominant branch.

Alright, tell me what else happens.
 
Ford and Brezhnev met in Vladivostok in November 1974. They hammered out the SALT II treaty which was never ratified, in large part because the U.S. Constitution sets a two-thirds requirement for ratification. And there was a fair amount of opposition. For example, I've read that Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Washington state was against ratification because the Soviets weren't letting enough Jewish emigres leave and probably other issues as well.

But, I also understand that both sides continued to follow SALT II, in a healthy ping-ponging relationship of, if you keep following it, I'll keep following it. So, in a sense, chalk one up for OTL.
 
Last edited:
And in 1975, Democratic Congressional leaders may have made a blunder. There was the Church Committee in the Senate and the Pike Committee in the House to investigate intelligence agency abuses. And no question, there were abuses. But, at the end of the day, I think most Americans are still in favor of spying.

Congress perhaps zigged when they should have zagged. Democratic leaders probably would have been much better off with the issue of propping up military dictatorships. This is an issue even many conservatives agree is a bad deal.

And if things go very well, the late '70s and the entire 1980s may be a time when the United States and Soviet Union compete on who can do can the better job of genuine economic development for Third World countries. This would be quite a deal, and would be a type of really high trajectory alt history.
 
Last edited:
Top