The Class of '74 by John A. Lawrence

Author:John A. Lawrence
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Johns Hopkins University Press

9     REVOLUTION OR SKIRMISH?

This was a real reform Congress.—Rep. Abner Mikva (D-IL)

The grandiose plans never got anywhere.—Rep. Jerry Ambro (D-NY)

Bullshit … They were very important changes—decentralizing power in the House, democratizing the House.—Rep. Tim Wirth (D-CO)

Nearly a half century after the election of the Class of 1974, the breadth, success, and implications of its impact on the 94th Congress and American politics remain uncertain and confused. Most frequently, historians have highlighted the removal of the three chairmen—Edward Hébert, Bob Poage, and Wright Patman—as the signature moment of the 94th Congress while exaggerating the Class’s overall assault on the seniority system.1 The actual record of the 94th Congress, and the Class, was more complex.

There was no shortage of contemporary criticism of the new House or its recent arrivals. President Ford, in constant battle with the young reformers over Vietnam, deficits, vetoes, and more, called the 94th “the most unproductive Congress” he had ever seen, and an aide, Jerry Jones, decried it as “an unproductive, lurching mechanism.”2 But such hyperbolic interpretations have misconstrued the record of the Class and the 94th Congress, embellishing a stereotype of its members and distorting their actions while minimizing achievements that had far-reaching implications for the Congress and American politics. As this account has already chronicled, Class members were less the inciters than the co-implementers of changes developed and promoted for years before the election of 1974. “It was a media myth that we fomented the sudden change in procedures,” Phil Sharp acknowledged. “We provided the votes in the final step. [Others] plowed the land, and we helped harvest the crop.”3

Certainly, the House was “in the midst of a historic transition between old and new ways of legislating” that were “virtually unrecognizable” compared to those of the House of the 1950s or 1960s. The internal reforms had shaken up but not completely dislodged the existing power centers and given vast new autonomy to the caucus, junior members, subcommittees, and others who had been previously excluded from much of the decision making, including the minority. Certainly the election of a number of less politically experienced, idealistic, combative members in the Class demanded that attention be paid to a “new breed of Members” who were less willing to tolerate the conservative domination and sluggish nature of the legislative process.4

Given the size and diversity of the Class—which itself should caution against stereotyping—it is not surprising that even its own members voiced conflicting opinions about the record of the 94th Congress. Abner Mikva, a veteran of earlier Congresses where the reform initiatives had been stymied, had no qualms about characterizing the work of the 94th. “This was a real reform Congress,” Mikva declared. Most Class members shared the unbridled assessment of Tim Wirth, who dismissed criticism of the Class as having minimal impact. “Bullshit,” he declared. “They were very important changes—decentralizing power in the House, democratizing the House.”

The harsh evaluations of the 94th Congress were attributable, at least in part, to the unrealistically high expectations created by the wave election that had sent dozens of new faces to Washington.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.