Dan Rostenkowski

The House of Representatives in the immediate aftermath of "Watergate" is a particular interest of mine. I have delivered a number of academic papers on that era. As I continue to research the area, I have been reading about some of the key players. One was Dan Rostenkowski - whose career of over 30 years in the House, is very interesting. He was in the latter years the powerful Chair of the Ways and Means Committee. Richard E Cohen wrote in the 1990s a biography of Rostenkowski, which I just finished reading on my kindle. I do have photocopies of part of the book made when I was in Washington researching Whips (Rostenkowski was Deputy Chief Whip in the 95th and 96th Congresses - and was a member of the Whip team for most of his congressional career).

His career ended with conviction and imprisonment following the House Post Office Scandal.

It's a very readable book, and if you want to learn more about him - I'd encourage you to read the book. I have also watched a couple of oral histories in the C-SPAN archive, in which he is interviewed by Richard Norton Smith.

The 1970s

A large part of my current research concerns the House of Representatives during the 1970s, particularly the 94th Congress. It was an interesting time on Capitol Hill, but of course what happened there reflected wider issues in society. I've been undertaking background reading as well as specific research into particular events and individuals. So it was exciting to hear that C-SPAN had recorded and broadcast an event at the American Historical Association, which took place earlier this month. It focused on the 1970s - and I spent yesterday evening watching the programme.

The broadcast can be viewed here - I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

American Hustle

I have to be honest - I didn't even read any reviews of this film. The title itself could have been designed to switch my "off" button. Then a newspaper article about Congress mentioned that the film was set around a congressional scandal called "Abscam", suddenly I was interested. For my whips study, one of the challenges for 'whips' that I identified was scandal - in their pastoral role whips have to deal with the aftermath of scandal, and a number have involved certain whips themselves. Abscam was important for my studies because it created a major problem for the institution of Congress - with the first expulsion of a member for a very long time; and a number of members going to jail. Some of the characters had been members of the whips organizations. My current work into the 94th Congress also involved members of that Congress' freshman group. I had to go and watch the film!

I went on Friday (after watching "12 Years a Slave" a film I will discuss in a forthcoming post). I thoroughly recommend "American Hustle". It was a satisfying film on a number of levels.

There are some super "comedy" moments in this film. "Comedy" is probably my favourite genre - and this is an entertaining film. Secondly, I like the soundtrack. I'm a big Duke Ellington fan, and homage was made to him. As a teenager in the late seventies the "contemporary" music in the film was of my era. (I've bought the soundtrack!)

On a deeper level this was a film about the psychology of individuals attempting to manipulate others. An understanding of behaviour is essential for both politics and law - and while there is more in this "review" for my Law Students - on that ground alone law and politics students should pay careful attention to this film.

At an even deeper level this film is about the abuse of power. As Acton said - "Power tends to corrupt...absolute power corrupts absolutely". This is a story of corruption and abuse of power. The people ensnared in this sting operation, may not have even regarded themselves as corrupt. They (at least the politicians involved) may have considered that they were helping their constituents - that the money involved was necessary to ensure that they could continue helping their constituents (running for office was costly then - it is even more so then - and without election or re-election you can do little). But it was corrupt - and the message I stress to my law students - and to anyone else who will listen - is that the human mind is very good at persuading itself that what is in the interests of the individual is also in the best interests of everyone else. Blindness towards one's own wrongdoing is horrifyingly widespread. The "expenses scandal" at Westminster proved that. I was working there during the period of revelations - and spoke to people who just couldn't understand that what they had done - which seemed reasonable and justified to them - was seen by everyone else as outrageous.

The film also raises the issue of "entrapment". Would the people convicted have committed the crimes - if they hadn't been invited and encouraged to do so by undercover law enforcement officers? The whole issue of entrapment is something for law students to reflect upon. I remember looking at the issue while I was studying for my law degree - and the issue is rarely far from the news (even this week the UK news has involved the activities of undercover police officers and there role in the "crimes" of groups they infiltrated).

So - well worth the price of a cinema ticket. Of course, I wanted to get a bit more background - so consulted contemporary reports of the scandal (a reason why I'm so pleased that I was persuaded to subscribe to the New York Times (digital), which gives access to that paper's archives). I also bought and have almost finished "The Sting Man: The True Story Behind the Film American Hustle" by Robert W Greene. I read it using the Kindle App on my iPad - but saw it was on sale this morning at the Waterstones bookshop in Midsummer Place, Milton Keynes.

Of course the film has taken some liberties. Characters are merged - and the character's names have been changed, but as I think I'll be going back to see it again.

Bob Edgar

Bob Edgar was one of the Democratic freshmen in the 94th Congress ('the Watergate Babies'). This week he passed away suddenly. This interview was recorded in 2011.



A newspaper in his old district (The Delaware County Daily Times) published an obituary which said -

“He was a great American. He was a great Delaware Countian who left a legacy of good work of helping people in this county,” said Delaware County Democratic Party Chairman David Landau on Tuesday afternoon.

The Methodist minister defied Delaware County’s Republican-dominated politics in 1974 when he beat then-Delaware County District Attorney Steve McEwen for Pennsylvania’s 7th District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives by 17,000 votes. Dubbed a “Watergate baby,” Edgar was part of the Democratic sweep of Congress in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal and subsequent resignation of President Richard Nixon… The Delaware County Democrat represented the district for six terms until 1986 when he left to make an unsuccessful bid for Republican incumbent Arlen Specter’s U.S. Senate seat, an experience that reportedly fueled his frustration with the undue influence of money in politics.

“To maintain himself all those terms was extraordinary. He was someone who earned the respect of Republicans and Democrats alike. One of the true hallmarks of his tenure was that he was independent and he didn’t treat people differently because of their party affiliations,” said Landau , a volunteer for Edgar’s successful 1984 re-election campaign against Republican Curt Weldon.

Thomas Judge Sr., the former longtime chairman of the Delaware County Republican Party, called Edgar a gentleman and a great congressman after learning of his death on Tuesday afternoon.

“He was very, very conscientious,” said Judge. “We only disagreed once a year and that was in November. He did a very good job as a congressman. I thought the world of him.” inued...

1

2

3

4

See Full Story

Judge noted that he could always call Edgar for help and advice on a variety of matters. “Whenever I called him, he would help me out,” said Judge.

Although he was a liberal and a pacifist, Edgar was a member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee where he fought for Vietnam veterans suffering from exposure to the toxic defoliant Agent Orange and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, among other advocacy efforts he championed for U.S. veterans.

“He was certainly a person who was an idealist. He was a man of great faith and had values he tried to act on in legislation,” said Landau.

He was the President of 'Common Cause'.

President Ford

My recent reading has concentrated on the House of Representatives in period 1972 to 1977. Obviously the Watergate scandal and the impeachment process has figured large - but there is an interesting tale to tell during the 94th Congress. In the aftermath of Watergate the Democrats scored amazing sucesses in the November 1974 elections. They held 289 of the 435 seats in the House - supposedly a veto-proof majority - yet  President Ford was able to thwart many of their plans.

The President's strategy was to veto legislation that the Democrats had been able, with their large majorities in both the House and Senate, to pass through Congress. It was on overriding the vetoes that the Democrats were caught out.

In the first session of the 94th Congress (1975) there were 17 vetoes - 4 were overridden : 6 were sustained by the House; 1 by the Senate: and there was no attempt to override 6.

In the second session (1976) there were 20 vetoes (the last five were 'pocket vetoed' - again only 4 were overidden : 1 was sustained by the House : 5 were sustained by the Senate and no attempt was made to override 5.

The problem for the Democrats was that the caucus was divided - and Ford exploited the divisions. Sometimes it was southern conservatives who refused to help override Ford's veto - sometimes it was Democrats from the Eastern cities.

Happy New Year

2010 is finally on its way out - and 2011 beckons. I'd like to wish you a very happy New Year - and look forward to your visits to this blog. I have a lot planned for this blog in 2011. There will be almost a month in which the posts will come from Washington DC - as I undertake interviews and research into a couple of areas that I will be writing about during the year. If you haven't viewed (I use a lot of videos) some of my previous posts from Washington - do visit Washminster archive [Blog Archive - on right hand side]. My visits were in

September 2007
May 2008
October/November 2008 (for the Election Campaign)
January 2010

I also did some pieces on the history of Washington in August 2008.

I will be continuing my series on particular Congresses - so far 93rd (1973-5 - the Watergate investigations) & 94th (1975-77 the Watergate Babies) - and Parliaments - 45th (1970-74)

and we will look in detail at the new rules for the House of Representatives, to build on the ones discussed this year - I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII,

There will be more material particularly relevant to Law and Politics students - so do pass on the details of this to any friends who are studying. Most of all, I'll be commenting on the events of 2011 as they happen.

94th Congress

1974 was a dramatic year in American politics (it was pretty dramatic in the UK too - with two General Elections!). President Nixon was brought down by the Watergate Scandal - and President Ford's honeymoon came to a sudden end when he pardoned the former President. The Elections on November 4th brought in a wave of young Democrats - the "Watergate Babies". The Democrats gained a net of 49 seats in the House of Representatives and 5 seats in the Senate.

The new Congress met for the first time on 14th January 1975. The Democratic caucus had agreed a number of rule changes in December, including

• stripping the Democratic members of the Ways & Means Committee of their power to make committee assignments (a power held since 1911). Instead the Steering & Policy Committee - a partly elected & partly leadership appointed body - got the power.
• making the election of all Chairs by secret ballot. This was to be automatic
• nominations of Appropriation sub-committee Chairs had to be approved by a caucus vote
• the Speaker was given the power to nominate all Democratic members of the Rules Committee

In January the freshman class invited all the Chairs of committees to meet them. In the first few days of the new Congress three Chairs were not re-elected! (see post on Wright Patman)

Later in the Congress both parties in the House of Representatives opened their party meetings (Democrats - Caucus; Republicans - Conference). In the Senate the filibuster rule was modified on March 7th - bring the number required down from 67 to 60 (2/3rds to 3/5ths). It was supposed to reduce the impact of the filibuster! As a recent Washminster post outlines - it was not successful - and new moves may come in 2011.

Despite the large Democrat majority in the House, there were problems in getting legislation through. Partly this was due to internal divisions within the Democratic caucus - something President Ford was able to exploit in his use of vetoes. Farrell notes that "By Election Day, 1976, Ford would veto 59 bills and have but 12 vetoes overridden."

At the November 1976 the Democrats gained one seat in the House and one seat in the Senate.

Wright Patman

When the 94th Congress first met in January 1975, the Dean of the House was Wright Patman, a Democrat from the first district of Texas (In the North East corner of the State - including the towns of Marshall, Paris, and Texarkana). He had served in the House since January 1929. He was a supporter of FDR's New Deal and his first piece of legislation was  the Veteran's Bonus Bill, which required the immediate payment of a bonus promised to World War One veterans. It didn't pass during the Hoover Administration - but eventually passed in 1936.

He chaired the Committee on Banking and Currency from 1963 to 1975, but was one of the first victims of rule changes in the Democratic Caucus. That year they voted to make all nominees for committee chairmanships subject to automatic, secret ballot election by the caucus. This was the end of the 'Seniority System'. The Freshmen Group [new members elected to the House that had not been members of the House in any earlier Congress] invited all the Chairs to address their group - some performed better than others. (Edward Hebert made the mistake of patronisingly calling them 'boys and girls' in his 'interview'). Three existing Chairs failed to be re-elected. The 81 year old Patman was one of them.

Patman's committee had played an important role in the early stages of the Watergate affair. It sought to trace the money found on the burglars to the Committee to Re-Elect the President. The initial letter containing the details of the staff investigation is available here. The inquiry was shut down. Patman's efforts may have influenced the later inquiries which blew the scandal apart.

Wright Patman died on March 7th 1976.

Chris Dodd says farewell to Congress

Chris Dodd first came to Congress as one of the "Watergate Babies" in January 1975. He now retires after 6 years in the House and 30 years in the Senate.

Explaining the 1974 Midterms

As part of my background reading for my studies on whips - I've been looking at the Watergate and post-Watergate Congresses. At its centre is the November 5th 1974 landslide for the Democrats - which brought in the freshman class known as the "Watergate Babies". In the aftermath of the Watergate hearings; the resignation of President Nixon and President Ford's pardoning of his disgraced predecessor, Democrats gained 49 House and 4 Senate seats. How significant was the scandal in producing this result?

The conventional wisdom is that "voters treated [the Midterm election] as a referendum on Watergate and the economy."

Jacobson and Kernell however have contended that "the strategic decisions of candidates and contributors, guided by expectations about how Watergate and the economy would affect electoral odds, had an important effect on 1974 election results quite independent of voters' direct reactions to national issues" - in other words, expectations of a public reaction brought forward better candidates and more funding to take advantage of a likely swing to the Democrats. The anticipation of a win, caused the win!

There is an interesting debate on the issue in "American Political Science Review" Vol 80 No 2 (June 1986) - which is available via JSTOR (access from most academic institutions) - 'Interpreting the 1974 Congressional Election'. Another interesting article on voter attitudes at the time can be found in 'Watergate and the 1974 Congressional Elections' (McLeod, Brown & Becker) POQ 41 (1977) pp181-195.