Believe it or not, it used to be possible for Democrats to win major statewide races in Idaho. From 1933 to 1951, and again from 1957 to 1981 at least one of Idaho’s senators was a Democrat. The most successful of these Democrats, and indeed the most successful national Democrat from Idaho was Frank Church. Church was a Great Society liberal, and although not the most liberal of Democrats, he was surprisingly liberal for that state. Something to bear in mind, however, is that in the western portion of the state, there was a strong union presence, and this presence helped Democrats win in the 1^st district and could turn the tide statewide. However, the election James McClure to the district in 1966 as well as his reelection indicated that politics were changing in the area. Once Republican Senator Len Jordan decided to retire in 1972, McClure was elected as his successor. Elected as McClure’s successor was 34-year-old charismatic apple farmer and U.S. Marine veteran Steve Symms (1938-2024).

Symms’ slogan during his campaign had been “take a bite out of big government”, and his record proved that he meant it. A libertarian-leaning staunch conservative, he was an almost unbending advocate for free market principles. In his first year, Symms introduced measures to repeal the ban on private gold ownership and to end the Post Office monopoly on delivering first class postage (Ernsberger, Walter, and Morrone). The first cause was successful, the second not. For the latter, Symms staged a race between the U.S. Post Office and letter carriers on horseback to demonstrate the benefits of competition (Clark). While many conservative Republicans were successfully pushed to support Nixon when he was not so conservative, Symms was not among them. He refused to support extending price and wage controls in 1973 and that year sponsored a proposal to prevent government funding of grain sales to the USSR and China, contrary to President Nixon’s position. Ever the fiscal hawk, he offered an amendment reducing the raise of the debt ceiling that passed thanks to support from both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. In 1974, Symms was among the opponents of President Ford’s nomination of Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president. Only three Republican senators had voted against this nomination. Although the 1974 midterms were rough on Republicans, he was sufficiently independent from Nixon to not only avoid consequences numerous other Republicans faced but won reelection by a greater margin than he had won in 1972. Symms was a relentless foe of gun control and abortion, opposed increasing the power of organized labor, pushed against the reach of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration into small businesses, and defended the role of states as opposed to the use of the federal government. His most famous quote was, “freedom has always come from a box. If not the ballot box, and not the jury box, then at last resort, the cartridge box” (Clark). Although liberal critics interpreted this as a call for violence, this was not the gist of Symms’ quote. He was encouraging civic engagement so the cartridge box wouldn’t be necessary, and added “we’re still far from resorting to the cartridge box” (Clark).

1980: Frank vs. Steve

Frank Church had run well in Idaho; in his last reelection in 1974 he won by 12 points against Bob Smith, a Republican of Symms’ ideological persuasion. However, by 1980 problems were mounting for Democratic incumbents. Jimmy Carter had never been popular in western states and his popularity was only declining. Another problem, and a particularly big one for Church, was his leading role in getting the Panama Canal Treaties ratified in 1978. This was nationally unpopular and if anything it played worse in Idaho. Seeing an opportunity, Symms jumped into the race. and the contest between them became known as Frank vs. Steve. They were very different people; Symms was conservative while Church was liberal (although with a few exceptions like his opposition to gun control), Symms could easily relate to common Idahoans and was known for telling sometimes off-color jokes, while Church was eloquent in his speech and serious (Clark). Although Church had a lot of name recognition, accomplishments, the Reagan landslide brought Symms to a one-point victory.

Senator Symms

Senator Symms, much like in the House, could be counted as one of the most conservative senators, pushing for cutbacks in spending and reductions in taxes. In 1981, he sponsored a proposal to reinstate the purchase requirement for food stamps, that recipients had to pay for part of their food stamps, but it was rejected. Interestingly, he did back the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act in 1982, partially rolling back the Reagan tax cuts in the name of reducing the deficit. Symms was mostly a supporter of free trade, but made an exception when he supported import quotas on casein (milk protein) in 1981.

Although an ideologue, Symms was, much like Reagan, a “happy warrior” and was not known to hold grudges. He also had to mind his constituency and deliver for them in Washington, including funds for highways, the Idaho National Laboratory, and the Mountain Home Airforce Base (Stevenson). In 1986, Symms, who could say things off the cuff, responded to the Chernobyl disaster by remarking that it was a pity that it hadn’t been much closer to Moscow (Deseret News). That year, he got a strong challenge for reelection from Governor John V. Evans, and although a number of Senate Republicans lost reelection, Symms prevailed by three points. During this time, he persuaded President Reagan to support his proposal for a 65 mile per hour allowance for rural roads as an exemption from the 55-mile-per hour limit enacted in 1974 to conserve fuel; he argued to Reagan that there was no good reason for the federal government to be telling towns like Nampa, Idaho what speed limit they should enact and that supporting this would be Reagan being Reagan (Clark). Although his amendment was not accepted in conference on the 1986 highway bill, it was adopted in the next Congress. Consistent with his belief in state authority, he voted against the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984. Likewise, Symms frequently voted against civil rights legislation in his time, including having twice opposed extending the Voting Rights Act and voted against the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990.

On foreign policy, he was a Cold War hawk, sponsoring a successful 1982 amendment making it U.S. policy to expose Cuban expansionism and led the successful push to repeal the Clark Amendment in 1985, which had blocked military assistance to the resistance group UNITA to fight against the Marxist Angola government, which was receiving Cuban support. In 1988, he was one of only five senators to vote against the INF Treaty with the USSR, which eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons.

Symms, George Bush, and James A. McClure (R-Idaho) at a 1988 Boise barbecue.

In 1988, Symms made a splash in the presidential election when he stated that he’d heard rumors that there were photos of Kitty Dukakis burning an American flag during the Vietnam War, but later admitted he had no proof (Drew). He was a bane for the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, which he only voted with 2% of the time, but the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action greatly appreciated him as he voted with them 96% of the time, while his DW-Nominate score is a 0.687, making him the most conservative senator in the entire time he served in that legislative body.

By 1991, Symms was considering retirement as numerous personal issues had arisen. He and his wife Fran had separated in 1986 and she divorced him in 1990 over infidelity and his son Dan was being prosecuted for alleged violations of immigration law at the family ranch. Symms decided to retire, and after all he had not intended to be a lifelong legislator. At 54, his career in elective politics was over. In 1992, he married his former aide, Loretta Fuller, and subsequently became a lobbyist. In 2001, he joined up with Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) to form the lobbying group Parry, Romani, DeConcini, & Symms.

On August 8, 2024, Symms died at his home in Leesburg, Virginia, where he had moved after his career in elective office ended. Governor Brad Little ordered flags lowered to half-mast and eulogized him thusly, “Sen. Steve Symms was a true patriot — a military veteran and dedicated public servant whose roots in agriculture helped informed his decisions back in D.C. representing Idaho’s interests,” Little said. “Symms routinely pushed back on government overreach, stood up for the working people of Idaho, and defended the freedoms we hold dear as Americans” (Stevenson). Symms makes it on my list of great conservatives as despite his personal imperfections, he proved a principled voice for libertarian-leaning conservatism and against the scourge of communism around the world.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Clark, T. (2023, August 11). Opinion: Steve Symms; Idaho’s conservative champion. Idaho State Journal.

Retrieved from

https://www.idahostatejournal.com/freeaccess/opinion-steve-symms-idahos-conservative-champion/article_47b8c378-37ab-11ee-bd91-c303eafe23ce.html

Drew, E. (1988, September 5). Letter from Washington. The New Yorker.

Retrieved from

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1988/09/12/letter-from-washington-276

Ernsberger, D., Walter, D., & Morrone, G. (1974, February 1). Libertarian Politics. Reason Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://reason.com/1974/02/01/libertarian-politics/

Stevenson, I.M. (2024, August 13). First a fruit farmer, then Congress. Former Idaho Republican senator dies at 86. Idaho Statesman.

Retrieved from

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article290929109.html

Symms, Steven Douglas. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/14056/steven-douglas-symms

Symms Weighs Senate Retirement as Personal Troubles Mount. (1991, July 7). Deseret News.

Retrieved from

https://www.deseret.com/1991/7/7/18929577/symms-weighs-senate-retirement-as-his-personal-troubles-mount/

The layman thinks of Reagan as a candidate who had two terms as president and had his background as an actor who was in a film with a chimpanzee. People with deeper knowledge know that he had two terms as California’s governor and put forth a major challenge to Gerald Ford’s 1976 run for president. And people with yet even deeper knowledge know that 1976 wasn’t Reagan’s first go at the Oval Office.

Ronald Reagan was a bit of a latecomer to electoral politics. Although he had been attentive to politics since his youth, by the 1960s Reagan had only recently fully come along to conservatism. I already covered the period in which he was a liberal, and his change was not a matter of an on/off switch, it was gradual. Indeed, he had made his debut on the national stage as a political figure at the 1964 Republican National Convention, where he delivered a powerful speech titled “A Time for Choosing”. This speech convinced wealthy California businessmen Holmes Tuttle and Henry Salvatori to press Reagan to run for governor in 1966, which he agreed to. This would be his first election victory, at the age of 55. By contrast, Lyndon B. Johnson had first won a Congressional election at 29, John F. Kennedy at 29, Richard Nixon had won at 33, and Gerald Ford at 35. Reagan’s victory and his time as governor was inspiring for conservatives nationwide. Something interesting to note about Reagan as well is that he had a hidden mentor during the 1960s. This was none other than a retired Dwight Eisenhower, who had watched Reagan’s speech on TV and saw tremendous potential in him (Kopelson). He would mentor him from 1965 to 1968, giving him pointers on public speaking and how to run for public office. As early as June 1967, merely six months into his first political office, he left the door open for a presidential run in 1968, stating, “If the Republican Party comes beating at my door I won’t say ‘Get lost, fellows’” (Moore, 58). Back in 1968, presidential nominations didn’t work the way they do today. It was entirely possible for someone to win no primaries and come out ahead at the national convention. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have since made sure that the result is not in doubt by the time of convention.

Although Reagan was not technically running early in the game, he still got votes in early Republican primaries as a “favorite son” of California and won that primary, Nixon, who was running a full campaign, dominated. Indeed, throughout much of 1968 he denied that he was a candidate (Moore, 61). Another figure who had entered the race late, although not as late as Reagan officially would (August 5th), was Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, the ultimate symbol of liberal Republicanism at the time. Interestingly, despite their ideological differences, Governor Reagan and Governor Rockefeller were friends and they had a shared concern about Nixon’s temperament being a hindrance to him serving as president and to the Republican Party (Shirley, 12-13). Thus, they agreed to coordinate a strategy to try to deny Nixon, possibly pulling off what the Blaine and Sherman factions did to prevent President Grant’s return in 1880. Rockefeller’s best chance was to pull delegates away from the Northeast while Reagan’s best chance was to pull delegates away from the South. Reagan campaigned against the Great Society, the 1968 gun control law, and the Johnson Administration’s failure to win the Vietnam War (Moore, 63). His campaigning pushed Nixon’s rhetoric to the right to secure the Republican nomination, and although he easily had the biggest lead on delegates, Reagan actually had the plurality of primary votes while coming third in delegate count.

As Reagan biographer Craig Shirley (2005) concluded about his first bid,”The California Governor’s 1968 attempt to win the Republican nomination was ill-conceived, ill-timed, and too little, too late” (13). Indeed, his entry came when prominent conservatives including Barry Goldwater had already endorsed Nixon. However, there is an alternative positive view of his run. Glen Moore (1992) of Columbus State University writes, “…there were more positive than negative results from Reagan’s first presidential campaign. He gained valuable experience that helped him strongly challenge President Gerald [R]. Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976” (65)

References

1968 Republican Party presidential primaries. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries

Kopelson, G. (2016, April 30). ‘The Speech’: When Reagan Electrified America, and Transformed It. National Review.

Retrieved from

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/ronald-reagan-dwight-eisenhower-1964-time-choosing-barry-goldwater/

Moore, G. (1992). Ronald W. Reagan’s Campaign for the Republican Party’s 1968 Presidential Nomination. Columbus State University.

Retrieved from

Shirley, C. (2005). Reagan’s revolution: the untold story of the campaign that started it all. Nashville, TN: Nelson Current.

Ulysses S. Grant, the first president to try for a third term.

President Donald Trump and his supporters have now and again teased the idea of him having a third term despite the existence of the 22^nd Amendment limiting presidents to two terms and the 12^th Amendment which does not allow someone to run for vice president if they are not permitted to serve as president, thus putting the kibbutz on the idea of running Trump has VP and flipping once whoever is elected president resigns. The talk about third term Trump, from him, his supporters, and Trump’s opponents, is simply twaddle. I don’t dismiss the notion that he could influence the next Republican president through social media, private calls, etc., but president for a third term he will not be. Only one president in American history has served beyond Washington’s two-term precedent, and that was Franklin D. Roosevelt. After his presidency, Roosevelt’s foes managed to secure the support to make his break the last from tradition with the aforementioned 22^nd Amendment. However, he was not the only president to seek a third term, and he wasn’t the first to do so. I will not include Roosevelt in this post as he was successful and I will also not include Woodrow Wilson thinking he could run again in 1920 despite having suffered a massive stroke only to be rebuffed by party bosses, as he never actually got to candidate stage. The first to seek a third term was Republican Ulysses S. Grant.

1880: Grant’s Final Run

When Rutherford B. Hayes ran for president in 1876, he promised to serve only one term, and he kept his promise, thus leaving the Republican field open. The Stalwart faction of the Republican Party, which was led by New York Senator Roscoe Conkling and opposed civil service reform, had done quite well under the Grant Administration, and thus wanted to run him again. After his presidency, Grant with his wife Julia had gone on a two and a half year tour around the world, where he gained much greater understanding and insight into foreign relations, and even mediated a dispute between Japan and China (National Park Service). Both him being out of the country and perhaps enough time passing for people to not think about or think less about the corruption that happened during the Grant Administration helped his prospects. Conkling himself was bullish on Grant, “nothing but an act of God could prevent Grant’s nomination” (National Park Service). However, given how well known his support of Grant was, his strong pride and ego, and that the Stalwart faction was closely tied with Grant, many came to reasonably believe that Conkling’s power would rise under a third Grant Administration, and many Republicans didn’t want that. Furthermore, Maine Senator James G. Blaine, who sought civil service reform (although he wasn’t nearly the reformer as popularly thought), and Secretary of the Treasury John Sherman (General Sherman’s brother) also sought the Republican nomination. Furthermore, Although the Stalwart faction was considerable and in the first round of balloting Grant got the most votes, he did not make the threshold to win. In order for the Blaine and Sherman factions to block the Stalwarts, they had to unify behind a candidate, and they found one in Congressman James Garfield, to this day the last sitting member of the House to win both a presidential nomination and an election. Garfield had delivered a powerful nominating speech for Sherman, but rather than convincing voters to support him, it convinced them to support Garfield. Garfield came out with the nomination. Conkling had said nothing short of an act of God would prevent Grant’s nomination, and it is ironic that given his high estimation of himself that it was Conkling who was a major reason why Grant did not get the nomination.

1912: The Bull Moose Run

When Theodore Roosevelt left office in 1908, he did so with some regret; regret that he had promised not to run for another term in 1904. Nonetheless, he at the time of leaving believed that President Taft would continue his moderate path of progressive reform. However, he learned of certain key conflicts within the GOP while abroad, and found himself increasingly displeased with his successor. His sources of dissatisfaction included how Taft addressed tariff reduction, the Ballinger-Pinchot affair over conservation, and his legalistic rather than case-by-case basis for regulating trusts. In 1912, Roosevelt put himself forth for the Republican nomination, but Taft and party conservatives had control over party machinery and managed to deny him his effort to return to office. Instead of bowing out for the election, he ran for president on the Progressive Party ticket, also known as the Bull Moose Party. The 1912 platform would call for numerous reforms, such as initiative, referendum, and recall for direct democracy, numerous labor reforms, called for easing the process for adopting amendments to the Constitution, women’s suffrage, unemployment and old age insurance, and restrictions on courts striking down legislation. With Roosevelt’s entry, Taft’s reelection was doomed, and party conservatives focused on clamping down on controlling party machinery. The real election became Wilson vs. Roosevelt, and Wilson knew it, focusing his attacks on Roosevelt. Some conservatives in the GOP thought Wilson preferable to Roosevelt at the time as at least he seemed less radical at the time. Wilson prevailed, and would do so again in 1916, in which he again focused his attacks on Theodore Roosevelt.

1952: Truman Tests a Third-Term Run

The 22^nd Amendment interestingly exempted the sitting president from the block on running for more than two terms, thus President Truman could legally serve again. Truman did have interest in running again, but there were several issues. First, he was unpopular, having an only 22% approval rating at the start of 1952 due to the US being in a stalemate on Korea, a set of unpopular price controls he enacted in the name of economic stability, and increasing unemployment and inflation (Glass). Second, there had been some significant corruption scandals within his administration, particularly with the IRS. Third, a compelling alternative was rising in Senator Estes Kefauver (D-Tenn.). Kefauver was a folksy liberal populist who although he was not the best orator, he was second-to-none on one-on-one voter interactions who often donned his trademark coonskin hat and had gained acclaim for his televised hearings on organized crime. In this author’s opinion, he is one of the few Southern Democrats of this period who would still carry appeal for Democratic base voters today. In the March 1952 primary in New Hampshire, the earliest indicator of where the Democratic race was going, Truman lost to Kefauver. Such a poor showing convinced him it was time to hang up his hat. Interestingly, it turns out Kefauver would not net the nomination in 1952 nor would he ever, the closest he got was winning the VP nomination in 1956.

1968: Johnson’s Half-Hearted Hurdle

Although Johnson’s run would not be technically a third term as he had only served the last year of JFK’s term, he was eligible as the 22^nd Amendment allows for a president to serve a maximum of ten years in office. His “run” was not particularly enthusiastic given his declining popularity but also his health. His health habits had long been poor, smoking two to three packs a day, having a fatty diet, exercising little, and heavy drinking, and this produced a heart attack that was the most severe one could have without dying in 1955. After this, he dropped smoking, improved his diet, started exercising more, and rationed his alcohol. During his presidency, a computer had analyzed his and his family’s medical history and determined that he would not live past 64 (Time Magazine). Furthermore, the old New Deal coalition was coming apart, the 1966 midterms being the first indicator, and the Democratic Party was splitting into factions. However, in early 1968 the only candidate who had risen to challenge Johnson was Minnesota’s Senator Eugene McCarthy, who was running on an anti-Vietnam War platform. Once again, New Hampshire would figure in faltering a president from getting a third term. Although McCarthy was not considered a big name in Washington, his campaign ginned up an unexpected level of enthusiasm from the youth, particularly college students. While Johnson did win the March primary, he did so by the unexpectedly low margin of 7 points. This indicated that Johnson was indeed beatable, and on March 16^th, Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.) announced his candidacy. McCarthy wasn’t a heavy-hitter for Democrats, but Kennedy was. On March 31^st, Johnson announced his withdrawal from reelection, leaving an open primary. He commented on his health, “I’m going to enjoy the time I’ve got left. When I go, I want to go quick. I don’t want to linger on the way Eisenhower did” (Time Magazine). Although Johnson had been compliant with the orders of his doctors, he resumed his old ways of heavy smoking, eating, and drinking in 1971. This resulted in the computer turning out to be right; Johnson died of a heart attack on January 22, 1973 at 64, which would have only been two days after another term would have ended for him.

References

Glass, A. (2019, March 29). Truman declines to seek another term, March 29, 1952. Politico.

Retrieved from

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/29/truman-declines-to-seek-another-term-march-29-1952-1238358

Medicine: The Heart of LBJ. (1973, February 5). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6840691/medicine-the-heart-of-l-bj/

Progressive Party Platform of 1912. The American Presidency Project.

Retrieved from

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/progressive-party-platform-1912

Ulysses S. Grant and the Presidential Election of 1880. National Park Service.

Retrieved from

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/ulysses-s-grant-and-the-presidential-election-of-1880.htm

Congressman J. William Fulbright

As early as 1943, Americans as well as their politicians were thinking about what would happen in the post-war world. Most were haunted by the failure of international law to stop Axis aggression, and believed something stronger and more permanent than the League of Nations must be established, and must have the United States as an active player. Spearheading the resolution stating America’s postwar aims was Representative J. William Fulbright (D-Ark.), a freshman who was known as an intellectual proponent of internationalism.

Rep. Robert Sikes (D-Fla.) gave his support, Mr. Speaker, to win the war is not enough. We need not go far back in memory to recall another time when we fought and won a war against aggressor nations, a war to make the world safe for democracy. We thought we gave democracy to the world. Then we turned our backs, and in nation after nation freedom exploded into anarchy, dictators reaped the benefit of America’s good intentions. We must think ahead, for we cannot endure the horror and cost of war every 25 years. Human lives are too precious to be sacrificed in vain. This time we must also win the peace. If we are to win the peace, it is not a day too soon to start laying the groundwork for a peace that is lasting and just. Today as never before the world looks to this Nation for leadership. If we again refuse to accept the mantle of world leadership, it must fall to other shoulders, and world policies will again be shaped by other hands. God forbid that they be the hands of another Hitler, but wishful thinking will not make them friendly hands or kind hands” (Congressional Record, 7718).

Rep. Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.), who would later serve as Senate Republican leader, announced his support, “I favor collaboration, organized justice, the curbing and prevention of military aggression, the disarmament of Axis Powers, a clarification of peace aims now before it is too late, a strong United States Army and Navy, the use of constitutional processes, and the preservation of our national interests. Why not say so in language that all can understand? Must language be used to obscure rather than reveal our intent? Peace will come from the bottom up, not from the top down and the time is here to let the people know what we mean that they might speak their minds” (Congressional Record, 7709).

Opponents

Rep. Frederick C. Smith (R-Ohio), one of the most if not the most conservative member of the House, voiced opposition to the Fulbright Resolution on Constitutional grounds, stating, Mr. Speaker, I am impelled to vote against the Fulbright resolution that Congress favor the setting up of international machinery with power to establish and maintain peace among the nations of the world. It seems to me the lower House is attempting here to perform a function which does not properly belong to it. The subject matter of this resolution deals specifically with treaties. The Constitution definitely vests in the President the “power to make treaties,” but only “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” I think this is sufficient reason for voting against this resolution. The phrase in the Fulbright resolution, “international machinery with power adequate to establish and maintain * * * peace among the nations of the world * * * participation by the United States therein,” can mean but one thing, namely, creation of an international police force, with the United States participating, for maintaining an armed peace among the nations of the world. In my opinion, this is no time for the United States to be making any such commitments as this. There are entirely too many unknown factors at this juncture to safely undertake the formulation of so far-reaching and revolutionary a policy as this would involve. Moreover, those of us who take the position that the peace treaty should be made in strict conformity with the Constitution can hardly be consistent when at the same time we vote for the Fulbright resolution. It would be wholly incongruous to attempt to stand on constitutionalism in the writing of the peace, on the one hand, and to vote for the Fulbright resolution, on the other, since this resolution seeks to perform a duty which the Constitution vests exclusively in the upper Chamber. It may be expected the Senate will uphold its constitutional prerogative” (Congressional Record, 7708).

Despite Smith’s objections, this resolution was adopted 360-29 on September 21st, and it is rather interesting to point out some of the dissenters here:

Malcolm Tarver (D-Ga.), not a usual opponent of FDR’s foreign policy who opposed a number of New Deal measures. His opposition is rather curious, but if he was going the Constitutionalist route, it would have been based on Smith objecting to the House acting on such a matter.

Jessie Sumner (R-Ill.), the first woman to be reelected to the House from Illinois, and an extreme conservative.

Clare Hoffman (R-Mich.), a constant thorn in the side of President Roosevelt who badly wanted him indicted for sedition.

Roy Woodruff (R-Mich.), a former Bull Moose Progressive turned arch-conservative.

Harold Knutson (R-Minn.), a tax expert who had voted against the U.S. declaring war on Germany in 1917.

Daniel Reed (R-N.Y.), another tax expert, had voted against every major New Deal initiative that attracted ideological controversy.

William Lemke (R-N.D.), an agrarian radical who had run for president on the Union Party ticket in 1936 who got a bit more conservative in his later years.

The Senate Resolution

Senator Tom Connally

The Senate’s corresponding resolution was the Connally Resolution, sponsored by Tom Connally (D-Tex.). Support was overwhelming, and many non-interventionists were won over.

Senator David Walsh (D-Mass.) gave a reserved argument for, and he had opposed the Versailles Treaty and had been a non-interventionist. He stated, “I in tend to vote for the resolution. It is obvious that a vote against the resolution would be tan t amount to a denial of any willingness to cooperate with other free nations in the post-war world. Such a denial would in my opinion misrepresent the sentiments of the American people, and would misrepresent my own sentiments. But let there be no misunderstanding of the nature of the resolution and of my position in supporting it. The resolution is an offer – not a commitment. It is expressive of a desire for a just and honorable peace, and of a willingness to cooperate in its maintenance. But as to what is a just and honorable peace and as to ways and means for its maintenance, those are questions which cannot possibly be decided until the terms and conditions are resolved, and until the post-war international organization is translated from the realm of theory to the realm of fact” (Congressional Record, 9203).

Senator Carl Hayden (D-Ariz.), who had been consistent in his support of President Roosevelt’s foreign policy before Pearl Harbor, backed the resolution while expressing an understanding of the limit of its impact: “Mr. President, I intend to vote for Senate Resolution 192 as revised by the Committee on Foreign Relations, but I desire to make it perfectly clear that I know just what I am voting for. It is a simple resolution which does nothing more than express the idea that the Senate favors the establishment of a just peace throughout the world and is willing that the United States shall assume a fair share of the responsibility for the maintenance of such a peace. It does not bind any Senator to vote for or against any treaty, in whole or in part, which may hereafter be submitted to the Senate to implement this general declaration. And above all, even though adopted by a unanimous vote, the resolution does not amend the Constitution of the United States by merely repeating some of the words of the supreme law of the land” (Congressional Record, 9206).

Senator William Langer (R-N.D.) spoke in opposition, “Mr. President, when the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations introduced his resolution, we were urged to vote for

it because it was said to be so elastic that it could be construed to mean anything. That had a familiar sound to me. It reminds me of one of those smooth, slick salesmen we men in the West are so familiar with, who in the old days used to get some farmer behind the barn and give him a drink of rot gut, and get him to sign a contract to buy a $7,000 or $8,000 threshing machine and threshing engine. They would get him to sign the contract; and when the farmer said, “There is some fine print on the back

of this contract,” the smooth, slick salesman would say, “Oh, that does not mean anything.” When I was Governor, we finally got rid of those practices, by North Dakota statute “ (Congressional Record, 9201).

Langer’s words did not amount to much, as the vote came out 85-5 in favor of the Connally Resolution on November 5, 1943. The only senators who joined him in opposition were:

. Hiram Johnson (R-Calif.), one of the leaders of the opposition to the Versailles Treaty and Theodore Roosevelt’s running mate in 1912.

. Henrik Shipstead (R-Minn.), an old-time progressive who had returned to the Republican Party, become more conservative, and was resolutely against the U.S. taking the role of world policeman.

. Burton Wheeler (D-Mont.), one of the leaders of the opposition to FDR’s foreign policy before World War II and had come out early against his “court packing plan”.

. Robert R. Reynolds (D-N.C.), one of the few Southern non-interventionists who had a bad habit of associating himself with disreputable figures.

. Robert La Follette Jr. (P-Wis.) paired against the resolution. He had consistently opposed FDR’s pre-World War II foreign policy and his father, La Follette Sr., had been one of the irreconcilables in the Versailles Treaty debate. The communists later smeared him as a Nazi sympathizer.

Interestingly, unlike the House in which the vote had more of a core of hardcore conservatives, the only senator who was a hardcore conservative by this point who voted against was the aging Johnson, considerably past his old progressive days.

This resolution reminds me of the Emancipation Proclamation. Although the measure didn’t have immediate practical effect, it had a strong symbolic effect and much like the Emancipation Proclamation set the tone for the narrative of the War of the Rebellion from then on, the Fulbright and Connally Resolutions set the tone for the direction of the United States after World War II, which became the creation of the United Nations. The votes, as well as the DW-Nominate scores of the voting politicians, are included. A checkmark is a pair or announcement in favor and an “X” is a pair or announcement against.

Fulbright Resolution

Connally Resolution

References

Collaboration for Postwar Peace. (1943, November 5). Congressional Record, 9174-9222. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Retrieved from

Participation in World Peace. (1943, September 21). Congressional Record, 7705-7729. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Retrieved from

https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1943/09/21/house-section