Fascinating Politics

How They Voted: The Marshall Plan

General George C. Marshall, the namesake of the Marshall Plan

The Marshall Plan, initially proposed by General George C. Marshall, was, along with the creation of the UN, the culmination of the postwar bipartisan foreign policy, which departed dramatically from the pre-World War II popular view that the US should stand independent of the international community. While the 80th Congress was dubbed the “Do-Nothing Congress” by President Truman, the truth was that they were “do nothing” in the sense that they didn’t do what he wanted on domestic issues and pushed what they wanted. On foreign policy, however, bipartisanship was going strong. Indeed, President Truman championed it and two Republicans were the primary sponsors in Senator Arthur Vandenberg (R-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Charles Eaton (R-N.J.), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The measure allocated $13.3 billion in aid in capital and materials (the equivalent of $130 billion today) to reconstruct 16 war-torn European nations. Despite the support of the Republican leadership, a lot of opposition remained among the conservative base. In the Senate, the most significant effort to reduce the scope of the bill was an amendment sponsored by Robert Taft (R-Ohio), to cut the first year of funding from $5.3 billion to $4 billion, which failed on March 12th on 31-56 (R 23-24, D 8-32). The Marshall Plan was approved the next day 69-17 (R 31-13, D 36-4). One of the “yeas” was Senator Taft, who reluctantly concluded the measure was needed. The House followed up with an easy approval of 329-74 (R 171-61, D 158-11, ALP 0-2) on March 31, 1948. The conference report was adopted by voice vote in the Senate while the House adopted on a similar margin on April 2nd.

The strongest support came from the East, with nearly all Democrats and Republicans in favor. The exceptions were Senators John J. Williams (R-Del.) and Albert W. Hawkes (R-N.J.) and Representatives T. Millet Hand (R-N.J.), black radical Adam Clayton Powell (D-N.Y.), Ralph W. Gwinn (R-N.Y.), Dan Reed (R-N.Y.), and Robert F. Rich (R-Penn.). Williams, Hawkes, Gwinn, Reed, and Rich were among the most conservative members of Congress while Powell was a black radical who was critical of Truman’s anti-communist focus on foreign policy. Also from New York who opposed were the two American Labor Party representatives, Vito Marcantonio and Leo Isacson, being sympathetic to the USSR. There were no opponents from New England.

The West Coast was all for it with the sole exception of John Phillips (R-Calif.), a staunch conservative who represented the Southeastern portion of the state. At the time, Republicans had the edge on numbers in the delegation, with only two of the six senators being Democrats, whereas today its all six who are Democrats.

Opposition mostly consisted of Midwestern Republicans, who were the strongest group in opposition to internationalism. 41% of Midwestern senators opposed the Marshall Plan, and in the 80th Congress Scott Lucas of Illinois stood as the lone Democrat. In the House, all Midwest Democrats except George Sadowski (D-Mich.), who opposed from the left, were for. 71% of Illinois Republicans, 63% of Indiana Republicans, 25% of Iowa Republicans, 33% of Kansas Republicans, 50% of Michigan Republicans, 43% of Minnesota Republicans, 100% of Nebraska Republicans, 50% of North Dakota Republicans, 32% of Ohio Republicans, 50% of South Dakota Republicans, and 25% of Wisconsin Republicans were opposed. The most odd example of opposition among the Midwestern Republicans was Senator Joseph Ball (R-Minn.), who had a record of supporting interventionist policies before Pearl Harbor and beforehand had an internationalist record. He balked at the cost and wanted a stronger anti-communist orientation to the measure.

The Mountain States

In the states between the Midwest and West Coast, there was mostly support for the Marshall Plan. The only representative who voted against was J. Edgar Chenoweth (R-Colo.) while three senators opposed; Henry Dworshak (R-Idaho), Glen Taylor (D-Idaho), and George Malone (R-Nev.). Dworshak and Malone opposed from the right, while Taylor, who was the running mate of Progressive Henry Wallace in 1948, was from the left, wanting more accommodation with the USSR.

The Border States

In the Border States (Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, and West Virginia), we see a lot of opposition from Republicans and only two dissents from Democrats. Kentucky is the most favorable state, with only the near-death John Robsion (R-Ky.) of the Appalachian region in opposition. All elected officials from Maryland are in support, but in Missouri 67% of Republican representatives are opposed while one of its two Republican senators, James P. Kem, stands opposed. In Oklahoma, Republican Senator Edward H. Moore is opposed, as are Representatives George Schwabe (R-Okla.) and Ross Rizley (R-Okla.). The two Democrats in opposition in the region were from Oklahoma in Glen Johnson of the 4th district and Toby Morris in the 6th district. In West Virginia, the Democrats favor while Republican Senator W. Chapman Revercomb is in opposition and the Republicans split in the House delegation.

The Dixie Opposition

Most Southern Democrats stayed true to their pre-World War II stances on interventionism in support of the Marshall Plan. However, there was a small pool of dissenters from Dixie.

Senators

Olin Johnston (D-S.C.), who while he was one of the more liberal Southerners who went to bat for organized labor, was a frequent critic of foreign aid.

W. Lee O’Daniel (D-Tex.), who was the only person in the Texas delegation to oppose the Marshall Plan. By this point he had become completely alienated from his own party and was voting in line with the most conservative of Republicans.

Harry F. Byrd (D-Va.), who was one of the staunchest fiscal hawks in the whole Democratic Party and voted almost entirely in line with conservative Republicans by this point.

Representatives

John S. Wood (D-Ga.), who would head up the House Committee on Un-American Activities from 1949 to 1953 and had been at the scene as a driver during the 1915 lynching of Leo Frank to transport his body to the morgue. He had also briefly been a member of the second KKK.

Henry Larcade (D-La.), who had one of the friendliest records to the domestic agenda of the 80th Congress among Democrats.

Otto Passman (D-La.)., a first-termer who would have a reputation as a leading critic of foreign aid in his 30 years in office.

John Rankin (D-Miss.), the House’s loudest bigot who had started his career on the political left but shifted to the right.

Graham Barden (D-N.C.), a conservative who would chair the House Education Committee.

Robert L. Doughton (D-N.C.), who was the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee who had sponsored Social Security.

W.J. Bryan Dorn (D-S.C.), a man who in his career would be counted among the conservatives of his party but later move in a liberal direction on some issues, including anti-poverty program funding and busing as a means of school desegregation.

Burr P. Harrison (D-Va.), the only of the state’s crop of conservative Democrats to follow Senator Byrd.

References

Congressional Supplement. (1948, July). Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Click to access 1948.pdf

Duignan, P.J. & Gann, L.H. (1997, October 30). The Marshall Plan. Hoover Institution.

Retrieved from

https://www.hoover.org/research/marshall-plan

Marshall Plan. National Archives.

Retrieved from

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marshall-plan

The Marshall Plan: Design, Accomplishments, and Significance. Congressional Research Service.

Retrieved from

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R45079/R45079.3.pdf

Fascinating Politics

Great Conservatives from American History #28: Daniel A. Reed

I have written before about the concept of politicians being bridges from one era of American politics to another due to the longevity of their service. They are the ones who can best answer questions about what people back then would have thought of politics that resemble ours. One such case is Daniel Alden Reed (1875-1959) of New York.

Reed was a number of things as a person; teetotaler, college football coach, and attorney for New York State. As an attorney, he went after violators of liquor laws and was supportive of Prohibition. In 1918, Reed was elected to Congress representing upstate New York, with his district being centered in Dunkirk. He was a strong supporter of income tax reduction and of high tariffs. Indeed, he represented the strong conservatism of his region. Reed even looked the part, per the New York Times (1959), “Mr. Reed even looked like an Old Guard Republican. His tall, erect frame carried a stern visage topped by pure-white hair. His dress was strictly conservative.”

As a strong supporter of the pro-business conservative Republicanism of the 1920s, Reed was naturally one of the most dogged opponents of the New Deal. He opposed all of the major First 100 Days legislation and he was one of the minority of legislators who voted against Social Security, darkly warning that because of this law “the lash of the dictator will be felt, and 25 million free American citizens will for the first time submit themselves to a fingerprint test.”(Kapur). In 1938, Reed voted against the Fair Labor Standards Act. He did have a softer spot for veterans as although he voted against the Patman Bonus Bill in 1935, he eventually gave in and voted to override President Roosevelt’s veto in 1936. Despite FDR being highly popular in the 1930s, Reed still won by over 10 points even in the tough 1936 election in which he carried all states save Maine and Vermont and House Republican numbers were reduced to 88.

On foreign policy, Reed remained consistent in his non-interventionist beliefs. He voted against all of the major pre-Pearl Harbor measures, and after World War II voted against aid to Greece and Turkey and the Marshall Plan. Reed even went as far as to oppose U.S. entry in to the United Nations. He was also an unrelenting opponent of price, rent, and wage controls and supported all efforts to curb the power of organized labor, which had substantially grown after the passage of the Wagner Act of 1935.

Reed, Civil Rights, and Federal vs. State Authority

One of Reed’s first votes in Congress was in support of women’s suffrage, but on civil rights for blacks, his record was more mixed.

In 1922 and 1937, he voted for anti-lynching legislation, but he proved one of the most consistent Republican opponents of anti-poll tax legislation, including being one of only four House Republicans to vote against the 1942 bill which only covered general elections and not primaries. Reed also voted against a compromise Fair Employment Practices bill in 1950, but also voted against a establishing a segregated VA hospital the following year and supported the 1956 civil rights bill as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1957. This included opposing a weakening jury trial amendment to the latter. On other issues surrounding state and federal issues, he sided with the states in his support for a local option to rent control in 1949, the Knowland Amendment to the 1950 Social Security bill, the Tidelands bill in 1953, the Anti-Preemption bill in 1958,

Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee

With Dwight Eisenhower’s 1952 victory followed a Republican Congress, and this elevated Reed to the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee. Reed was not a “modern Republican” touted by Eisenhower, and was keen on ending the excess profits tax and cutting income taxes. He called the excess profits tax “iniquitous, unfair, unjust, destructive; a cancer on the economy of the country” (Hill). President Eisenhower’s allies then tried to bypass his committee to extend the excess profits tax for six months as the president wanted, much to his consternation, as he wanted it to expire on June 30, 1953, as originally scheduled. Reed agreed to hold hearings and he was outvoted in committee. The billl passed 325-77 on July 10th, retroactively extending it, with Reed being among the nays. Despite their differences on what sort of Republicanism ought to be practiced and on excess profits, Reed shepherded major tax reform signed into law by President Eisenhower in the form of the Revenue Act of 1954 as well as the Social Security Act Amendments of 1954. Despite his working with Eisenhower, he continued supporting the traditional high tariff line of the Old Guard Republicans, continued opposing foreign aid legislation, and opposed federal aid to education. Indeed, he led efforts to rein in presidential authority on tariffs, and on February 18, 1955 his effort failed 199-206 to make the president follow U.S. Tariff Commission recommendations. On June 11, 1958, Reed tried to kill an extension of the Reciprocal Trade Act outright, but this failed 146-268. However, he dissented from his fellow conservatives in opposing the creations of the Cox and Reece Committees to investigate tax-exempt institutions.

In 1958, Reed backed his friend Minority Leader Joe Martin (R-Mass.) for another term as Republican leader but he was narrowly defeated by Charles Halleck (R-Ind.) due to big losses in the 1958 midterms as well as President Eisenhower not putting his thumb on the scale. Reed would not live long in the next Congress; although he had taken doctor’s orders seriously in addressing his 1956 heart attack, he did not address a pain in his foot until he could no longer walk. It turned out that Reed had developed a serious infection, and it was serious enough to require amputation (Hill). He agreed to the amputation but died of a heart attack on February 19, 1959 before it could occur. Former Speaker of the House Joe Martin (R-Mass.) praised him, “He was a man of great courage, like a mighty oak never yielding to the tempest” (Hill). The ideological assessments of Reed are consistent; he sided with the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 90% of the time, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) 6% of the time, and his DW-Nominate score stands at 0.547. Indeed, in seven of the twelve years he was assessed by ADA he scored a 0%.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Voting Records

Hill, R. (2023). Daniel A. Reed of New York. The Knoxville Focus.

Retrieved from

https://www.knoxfocus.com/archives/this-weeks-focus/daniel-a-reed-of-new-york/

Kapur, S. (2014, April 4). Remember When Republicans Said Social Security And Medicare Would Destroy Freedom Too? Talking Points Memo.

Retrieved from

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-social-security-medicare-freedom

Reed, Daniel Alden. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/7781/daniel-alden-reed

Rep. Daniel Reed, 83, Dies in Capital. (1959, February 20). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Fascinating Politics

The Nixon Midterm: 1970

Richard Nixon campaigning in Florida, 1970.

Although the Democrats were still considerably ahead in the House, Nixon had hopes that he could defy the trend of midterms against the president’s party. He campaigned aggressively on social issues and stumped for Republican candidates across the country. Notably, the President’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography concluded that pornography did no societal or individual harm and called for abolishing anti-obscenity laws for adults. a conclusion that the Nixon Administration as well the U.S. Senate disagreed, with the chamber voting 60-5 (notably, future presidential candidates Walter Mondale and George McGovern were among the dissenters) to disagree with the report. President Nixon railed against obscenity numerous times in 1970 and tried to connect Democrats to anti-war protesters and obscenity. Nixon stated, “So long as I am in the White House, there will be no relaxation of the national effort to control and eliminate smut from our national life” (Weaver). Vice President Spiro Agnew also went on the attack. He put the election in stark ideological terms, “One issue dominates this election: Will the radical-liberalism that controls the Senate of the United States prevail in the nation? Or will America be led into the future by the moderates, centrists and conservatives who stand behind the President of the United States?” (Time Magazine) He accused Democrats of appeasing anti-war protesters, if not being like them. Although Nixon had successfully and quietly completed school desegregation in 1970, he actively campaigned against the use of busing to achieve desegregation, an issue that had more national impact than pushing against the South’s Jim Crow system. Democrats ran against the Republicans for the increasing inflation and unemployment occurring and on the Vietnam War. The Democrats critiqued what they dubbed “Nixonomics” (Apple).

Predictions for the Senate in September from the New York Times were that Democrats would gain Senate seats in Illinois and New York, and that Republicans would gain in Florida, Ohio, and Tennessee. California, Indiana, and Vermont were considered toss-ups. Democrats were expected to hold in Maryland and Texas, although an outside risk to Maryland’s Tydings was not discounted. Time Magazine (1970), which reported closer to the election, considered Maryland and Wyoming reasonably certain holds, that Ohio and Tennessee looked like Republican pickups, and that Florida and Texas looked like Democratic holds. Time Magazine also reported that Democrats were ahead in Connecticut and Vermont with the Republican slightly ahead in Indiana.

The Results

The direction of the midterms followed historical norms in 1970, although Republicans lost less than the usual seats at 12.

Nick Begich (D-Alaska) won the open seat vacated by Republican Howard W. Pollock against future Senator Frank Murkowski. Begich along with House Majority Whip Hale Boggs (D-La.) would die in an air crash in Alaska in 1972 that was never recovered.

Jeffery Cohelan (D-Calif.), who represented Berkeley, lost renomination to staunch anti-Vietnam War socialist Ron Dellums, who won the election.

The seat vacated by John Tunney (D-Calif.) in his successful run for the Senate was won by Republican Victor Veysey.

In Colorado, Denver’s longtime Democratic representative Byron Rogers lost renomination to Craig Barnes, producing a divide among Democrats sufficient to give Republican Mike McKevitt a victory.

In Connecticut, Republican Robert Steele won the election to succeed the late Democrat William St. Onge in the 2nd district. However, this was counterbalanced by the victory of Democrat Ella Grasso in succeeding Republican Thomas Meskill in the 6th district, who left office for his successful gubernatorial run.

E. Ross Adair (R-Ind.), ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and one of the House’s leading critics of foreign aid, was defeated by Democrat J. Edward Roush. He had been in office for 20 years.

In Kansas, Republican Chester Mize of the 2nd district lost reelection to Democrat William R. Roy. Roy would come close to unseating Senator Bob Dole in the 1974 election.

William Cowger (R-Ky.) was defeated in the Louisville-based 3rd district by Democrat Romano Mazzoli, who would sponsor with Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) the Simpson-Mazzoli law on immigration in 1986. Cowger would die of a heart attack less than a year after his defeat at the age of 49.

In Maryland, Democrat George Fallon of the 4th district (Baltimore), who had served since 1945, lost renomination to Paul Sarbanes, who would later have a long career in the Senate. Democrat Goodloe Byron succeeded Republican J. Glenn Beall, Jr. in the 6th district, who had vacated his seat to successfully run for the Senate. This wasn’t much of a victory for Democrats, as Byron was a conservative. In the 7th district, Samuel Friedel, who had served since 1953, lost renomination to Parren J. Mitchell. Friedel was Jewish while Mitchell was black, reflecting a shift in preferences among the district’s Democrats. Mitchell won the election.

Philip J. Philbin (D-Mass.) was denied renomination by Father Robert Drinan, and lost a bid to retain his seat running as an Independent. Philbin, who had served in office since 1943, was considered insufficiently liberal and his support for the Vietnam War, despite his vote for the Cooper-Church Amendment, had cost him among young Democrats. Drinan would be the only Catholic priest to serve in Congress.

In Minnesota, Republican Odin Langen of the 7th district lost reelection to Democrat Robert Bergland.

In Montana, Democrat Arnold G. Olsen of the 1st district lost reelection to Republican Richard Shoup.

In Nebraska, Omaha’s Republican Glenn Cunningham lost renomination to John Y. McCollister, a more conservative figure, who won the election.

In New Mexico, Republican Ed Foreman of the 2nd district lost reelection to Democrat Harold Runnels. This wasn’t much of a victory for Democrats as Runnels was a conservative.

Allard Lowenstein (D-N.Y.), noted anti-Vietnam War activist who famously succeeded in making a big enough impact to influence Preisdent Johnson’s decision not to run for reelection, was defeated by Republican Norman F. Lent. Tragically, Lowenstein would be murdered in 1980 by a former protege.

Adam Clayton Powell (D-N.Y.) was defeated for renomination by Charles Rangel. Having served since 1945, voters had grown tired of his absenteeism and ethics issues.

Leonard Farbstein (D-N.Y.) was defeated for renomination by Bella Abzug, a loud feminist radical, who won the election.

Richard Ottinger (D-N.Y.), who vacated his seat to run for the Senate, was succeeded by Republican Peter Peyser. A moderate, Peyser would grow more liberal with time and eventually switched to the Democratic Party.

Martin B. McKneally (R-N.Y.), facing corruption charges, was defeated for reelection by John G. Dow, who he had defeated in 1968.

Daniel Button (R-N.Y.), the last Republican to have represented Albany in Congress, was defeated for reelection by Samuel Stratton, whose district had been merged with his.

Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) won an open seat vacated by Democrat Richard McCarthy, who sought the Democratic Senate nomination. He would be known as a prominent supporter of individual tax cuts and would be Bob Dole’s running mate in the 1996 presidential election.

In North Dakota’s 2nd district, Republican Thomas Kleppe retired to run for the Senate and was succeeded by Democrat Arthur Link.

William H. Ayres (R-Ohio), a moderate who was the ranking Republican on the House Veterans Affairs Committee and the House Education and Labor Committee and had represented Akron for 20 years despite it being heavily unionized, was defeated for reelection by Democrat John Seiberling, who ran on an explicitly liberal and anti-Vietnam War platform. The Kent State shooting played a significant part in boosting Seiberling’s campaign against Ayres. As of 2026, Ayres is the last Republican to represent Akron.

Michael Feighan (D-Ohio), who had served in Congress since 1943, was defeated for renomination by Charles Carney, who won the election.

South Dakota was a notable surprise, with both Republican incumbents retiring and being succeeded by Democrats Frank Denholm and James Abourezk, the latter being of the George McGovern type.

In Utah, Democrat K. Gunn McKay won the election to succeed Republican Laurence J. Burton, who ran for the Senate unsuccessfully against incumbent Ted Moss.

In Virginia, retiring Democrat John O. Marsh of the 7th district was succeeded by Republican J. Kenneth Robinson. This wasn’t much of a loss for Democrats, as Marsh had been a conservative and would later switch to the GOP, serving as President Reagan’s Secretary of the Army.

In Washington, Republican Catherine May lost reelection to Democrat Mike McCormack in the 4th district. Today, Washington’s 4th, based in the east, is one of the state’s two safe Republican districts.

Henry C. Schadeberg (R-Wis.), a staunch conservative from the 1st district (which would later be represented by Paul Ryan), was defeated for reelection by over 20 points by Democrat Les Aspin, who would become known as a skeptic of military spending and would serve as President Clinton’s first Secretary of Defense.

In Wyoming, Republican John S. Wold vacated his seat to run unsuccessfully for the Senate, and was succeeded by Democrat Teno Roncalio, who had previously served during the Great Society Congress.

The Senate

Although Republicans didn’t win the Senate, they did have a net gain of two seats.

In California, Republican Senator George Murphy was defeated for reelection by Democratic Congressman John Tunney, son of pro boxer Gene Tunney. Murphy was compromised because although an operation to remove part of his larynx saved his life from throat cancer, he was rendered unable to speak above a whisper for the rest of his life, a serious disability for a U.S. senator and a sad fate for a man once renowned for his singing voice.

In Connecticut, Democrat Thomas J. Dodd was severely compromised because of his 1967 censure by the Senate for using campaign funds for personal expenses. He was defeated for renomination but tried for reelection as an Independent, which resulted in the victory of Republican Congressman Lowell P. Weicker Jr., at the time a moderate.

In Illinois, Republican Ralph Tyler Smith, seeking to finish the term of the late Senator Everett Dirksen, lost the election to Democrat Adlai Stevenson III.

In Maryland, liberal Democrat Joseph Tydings lost reelection to moderate Republican Congressman J. Glenn Beall, Jr., in a major upset. Tydings had defeated Beall’s father for reelection in 1964.

In New York, Republican Charles Goodell, who had been appointed to the Senate by Governor Nelson Rockefeller after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, had faced considerable headwinds in his own party. Although as a representative, Goodell had a moderately conservative record, as a senator he rivaled his fellow senator Jacob Javits in liberalism. The election was a three-way-race between Goodell, Democratic Congressman Richard Ottinger, and Conservative James L. Buckley. The Nixon Administration surreptitiously supported the election of Buckley, the only one of the candidates who supported Nixon on the Vietnam War. Because the liberal vote split between Goodell and Ottinger, Buckley was elected.

In Ohio, Republican Congressman Robert Taft Jr., grandson of President William Howard Taft, won an open Democratic seat, defeating Democrat Howard Metzenbaum. Metzenbaum would win in a rematch in 1976.

In Tennessee, Republican Congressman Bill Brock defeated Democrat Albert Gore Sr. for reelection. This was one of the major victories for the Nixon Administration given Gore’s Southern liberalism and his support for the Cooper-Church Amendment. Brock had labeled Gore “the third Senator from Massachusetts” for fundraising at a Kennedy event in Virginia (Time Magazine).

Although not a change in party for the seat, a notable election nonetheless was the Texas Senate election, which saw Democrat Lloyd Bentsen defeat Republican Congressman George H.W. Bush. In 1988, Bush would win the presidency and Bentsen would be the Democratic nominee for vice president. Democrat Vance Hartke would hold in Indiana as would Republican Winston Prouty in Vermont, and Democrat Lawton Chiles kept the Florida seat.

Notable Lasts

The election of Mike McKevitt to represent Denver would be the last time the city would elect a Republican to Congress.

The election of J. Glenn Beall, Jr. in 1970 was the last time a Republican defeated a Democratic Senate incumbent for reelection in Maryland.

This was the last election in which Utah would elect a Democrat to the Senate, reelecting Ted Moss.

In this election Wyoming would return Democrat Teno Roncalio to the House. To this day, he is the last Democrat to have represented the Bighorn State in the House and was succeeded by Dick Cheney in the 1978 midterms. This was also the last time that Wyoming’s voters would elect a Democrat to the Senate in their vote to reelect Gale W. McGee.

Overall, President Nixon and the Republicans did considerably better than average on this midterm, and shows that indeed the best defense can be a good offense. As the midterms approach, I can easily see Republicans campaigning against radicalism and trying to tie Democrats to far leftists like Hasan Piker.

References

Apple, R.W. (1970, September 13). Two Parties Pick Definitive Issues for Senate Race. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Nation: The Republican Assault on the Senate. (1970, October 25). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6838217/nation-the-republican-assault-on-the-senate

Weaver, W. (1970, October 25). Nixon Repudiates Obscenity Report as Morally Void. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Fascinating Politics

Alvin O’Konski: The Badger State Hybrid

In the 1930s, the Progressive Party came to power in Wisconsin. They were a liberal offshoot of the Republican Party, breaking away because the Republicans didn’t want to support the New Deal. However, starting in 1938, Republicans were regaining power, and 1942 was another year of loss, with Progressive incumbent Bernard J. Gehrmann losing reelection to journalist and educator Alvin Edward O’Konski (1904-1987).

O’Konski was a Republican, but would prove to be his own man in office. He said of himself that “I’m a New Deal Democrat domestically and a rabid conservative internationally” (McConaughy, 130). His mix of politics constituted quite a balancing act for his primarily Scandinavian working class district in the state’s northwest. As part of his international conservatism, he was an in-demand speaker for anti-communist ethnic groups and this was one of the things he became most known for. O’Konski also had an early accomplishment as she was one of the coauthors of the G.I. Bill of Rights in 1944. Although independent, O’Konski largely got behind the conservative domestic agenda of the 80th Congress with his support for tax reduction, anti-communist domestic legislation, and the Taft-Hartley Act and, consistent with his stated stance on foreign policy, voted against aid to Greece and Turkey as well as the Marshall Plan. He would nonetheless be one of the more supportive Republicans of the Truman Administration’s domestic policy, voting for a mandatory Fair Employment Practices Committee, middle-income housing aid, upholding price and rent controls, and against removing the natural gas from the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission. However, he proved a reliable Republican vote for the classic issue of tariffs, opposed the Brannan Plan (guaranteed minimum income for farmers), and supported the Knowland Amendment restricting federal authority over state unemployment compensation. O’Konski’s record on organized labor was, despite his support of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, mostly favorable. He had opposed the Smith-Connally Act in 1943, opposed the Case bill in 1946, supported revising the Taft-Hartley Act in 1949, opposed the 1959 Landrum-Griffin substitute to labor reform legislation, and in 1965 he supported repealing the “right to work” provision of the Taft-Hartley Act. A change in administration to one of his party, if anything, boosted his independence.

O’Konski and Eisenhower

Congressman O’Konski was not known for towing the party line as previously noted, and this wouldn’t change under President Eisenhower. Indeed, he was to Eisenhower’s left on domestic policy but far to his right on foreign policy with his refusal to support foreign aid. Life Magazine profiled O’Konski as one of the Eisenhower Administration’s Republican dissenters, noting “O’Konski opposes Eisenhower on taxes (he wants to increase personal exemptions), is against foreign aid, against reciprocal trade, against raising postal rates, against the farm program, against increasing the debt limit. He favors the Bricker Amendment” (McConaughy, 130). Indeed, Eisenhower’s farm program sought to reduce price supports and thus make agriculture more oriented to the free market, which met with opposition from several Wisconsin politicians interested in propping up the dairy industry, including Senator Joseph McCarthy. When Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson cut dairy price supports, O’Konski demanded his resignation (McConaughy, 130). In 1957, he ran for the Republican nomination to succeed the late Joseph McCarthy, but lost.

Federal vs. State Authority

On the matter of federal vs. state authority, O’Konski frequently sided with federal. He voted against the 1953 Tidelands Bill, against the 1958 and 1959 anti-preemption bills, and against the 1964 bill restricting the jurisdiction of federal courts in state legislative apportionment cases. However, O’Konski also backed local option for rent control in 1949, as previously noted supported the 1950 Knowland Amendment, and supported block grants for anti-crime programs in 1967. Speaking of federal vs. state relations…

O’Konski on Civil Rights

By and large Congressman O’Konski supported civil rights legislation. A curious vote, however, was his vote against final passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, although in his case it was certainly on the grounds that it was not strong enough, as he had voted against weakening the bill with a jury trial amendment. He supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, including opposing a Republican substitute to the latter. He supported both the proposed Civil Rights Act of 1966 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 but had voted to strike the fair housing section from the former. Consistent with what organized labor wanted, O’Konski voted to kill the Philadelphia Plan in 1969. He also drew the line at using busing as a means of school desegregation. This was a civil rights record that satisfied both the want of the north for civil rights legislation to end Jim Crow but also fit the views of socially conservative union members.

O’Konski and the Sixties

During the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, O’Konski was one of the most favorable to their domestic agendas in the GOP. He supported expanding the House Rules Committee to ease passage of legislation, the accelerated public works program, supported a strong minimum wage increase, and was one of the few Republicans to support bringing the Administration’s education bill to the House floor for consideration. He would also support federal aid to mass transit, food stamps, and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Although O’Konski supported Medicare, he also supported the Republican substitute. By contrast, on foreign policy, he could not be counted for the Democrats at all and opposed President Kennedy’s Trade Expansion Act.

Interestingly, O’Konski had a particularly loud voice on issues regarding the District of Columbia. He was one of the leading opponents of D.C. home rule, motioning to kill the home rule bill in 1965. He also opposed a mass transit system for the city on cost grounds, but he changed his mind. O’Konski’s combination of support for New Dealish domestic policies and his ultra-conservatism on foreign policy was a winning combo for his Fond du Lac based district, him often winning reelection by double digits, even in the difficult years of 1958 and 1964. However, he was not invincible, and the Nixon years would prove it.

Decline of Support for O’Konski

Although O’Konski had won yet another blowout election victory in 1968, his margin was cut massively for the 1970 election. He won reelection by less than three points, his worst performance so far. What made for the decline? After all, he had been keeping up with his record of anti-communism with his support for Nixon’s approach to the Vietnam War and his independence from the GOP on numerous domestic issues. The truth is as they say, politics is local, and O’Konski had fatefully backed the U.S. Navy’s Project Sanguine, that sought to install thousands of antenna in northern Wisconsin’s forests and furthermore President Nixon’s wheat deal with Russia had angered farmers (Time Magazine, 1972). Matters got worse for him when Wisconsin lost a district in the 1970 census, which resulted in his district being merged with that of Democrat Dave Obey, who was highly popular in his district. Making matters worse yet again, George McGovern was polling pretty well in this new district, him being even with Nixon, and even O’Konski himself said that “it’ll be the toughest race I have ever had. No question about that” (Time Magazine). And indeed it was, on Election Day 1972, Obey won by over 25 points, ending O’Konski’s 30-year career. Ideological assessments of him are pretty consistent: he sided with the liberal Americans for Democratic Action 45% of the time, the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 53% of the time, and his DW-Nominate score stands at 0.067. All measures I employ thus place him, on average, in the center. O’Konski died of heart failure on July 8, 1987, at the age of 83.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Voting Records

Alvin O’Konski, 83, Former Congressman. (1987, July 9). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

McConaughy, J.L. (1954, June 21). While Eisenhower Proposes, The Old Guard Disposes. Life Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://books.google.com/books?id=bVMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125#v=onepage&q&f=false

O’Konski, Alvin Edward. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/7046/alvin-edward-o-konski

The House: Pick of the Biennial Races. (1972, November 5). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6875678/the-house-pick-of-the-biennial-races

Fascinating Politics

The Failed Confirmation of Lewis Strauss

One of the more controversial figures to have worked in the federal government was Lewis Strauss. Strauss’s career in government began as a young man when he volunteered his services to Herbert Hoover in 1917 for the Belgian Relief Commission and then participated in Hoover’s efforts to feed Europe after World War I. His work under Hoover got him into working on Wall Street, where he made his fortune in the 1920s. Strauss was wedded on both a partisan and ideological basis to the Republican Party, and had been a strong opponent of the New Deal. During World War II, Strauss served in the U.S. Navy but in a desk position due to his poor eyesight, but his work was of enough merit to get him the rank of rear admiral the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit. During the Truman Administration, he was tapped to serve on the Atomic Energy Commission, where he was a frequent dissenter to the others, who were Democrats. One success that Time Magazine (1959) credits him with was pulling out all the stops to get the government to set up an atomic test detection system when other AEC commissioners would not support it, which resulted in us knowing that the Soviets had detonated an atomic bomb in 1949. He also successfully pushed, over the objections of physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, the development of the H-Bomb, although he was far from the only person to push this. The U.S. did beat the Soviets by nine months in testing the H-Bomb (Time Magazine). However, his way of going about things got him a reputation for competence and intelligence but also arrogance and ruthlessness. Time Magazine (1959) described the contrast in perspectives between supporters and opponents, “In the eyes of friends, he is brilliant, devoted, courageous and, in his more relaxed moments, exceedingly charming. His enemies regard him as arrogant, evasive, suspicious-minded, pride-ridden, and an excessively rough battler.” Indeed, Oppenheimer would be on the receiving end of Strauss’s rough battling due to personal differences, political differences, and national security concerns with him being denied renewal of his security clearance in 1954 due to his ties to communists, which included Strauss successfully lobbying FBI director J. Edgar Hoover to conduct surveillance on him, which included illegal wiretapping. However, he was far from alone in the push against Oppenheimer. The Defense Department as well as President Eisenhower himself were working against him. Strauss also crossed western senators in his successful effort to block the Atomic Energy Commission from constructing nuclear power plants (leaving this to the private sector) and his efforts at pushing private over public power, but again this was not all Strauss; Eisenhower and his Budget Bureau were behind this push (Time Magazine). Strauss served as Eisenhower’s chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and was initially going to bow out of public service in 1958. However…

In October 1958, Strauss was tapped to serve as acting Secretary of Commerce by President Eisenhower, after the resignation of Sinclair Weeks, and was sworn in on November 13th. He did have to be confirmed to serve as the actual Secretary of Commerce, and he had made enemies on Capitol Hill. One figure he had repeatedly crossed on policy was Senator Clinton Anderson (D-N.M.) on policy and had really done it when he implied in a speech that the senator and other critics of him not releasing research information on atomic energy research projects to them did not understand the relationship between atomic energy and national security. Anderson came up with a strategy on defeating his nomination to hold weeks of hearings, reasoning, “I thought if the committee members saw enough of him, he would begin to irritate them, just as he has me” (Time Magazine).

The source of Strauss’s defeat, although most commonly publicized based on the film Oppenheimer as his role in denying the renewal of his security clearance, there were more factors at play in his defeat. One was his pushing of private over public power, which displeased Democratic senators in the west as previously mentioned, but another was his highly defensive and condescending attitude. Indeed, it was a bad sign for him when his nomination was only narrowly favorably reported out of committee on a 9-8 vote. President Eisenhower was resolute in supporting Strauss’s nomination and would not back down even if Strauss offered to back out (Time Magazine). In the face of opposition led by Anderson and freshman Senator Gale W. McGee (D-Wyo.), Strauss refused to admit any errors on his part. Time Magazine (1959) observed that had he given even a little ground, he would likely have been confirmed. Another factor was that the Democrats, who had won a blowout victory in 1958, were repeatedly facing Eisenhower’s veto pen for their proposals, thus one way they could assert some authority was by denying his nomination.

Supporters of Strauss’s nomination spoke out:

Andrew Schoeppel (R-Kan.) said of him that he is “personifying a philosophy of government which some feel impelled to combat and destroy. Mr. Strauss quite simply is a conservative…He has always stubbornly resisted anything which seemed to him to be an undue encroachment by the Legislative Branch” (CQ Press).

Prescott Bush (R-Conn.) criticized the efforts against his nomination as “The campaign of character assassination” (CQ Press).

Hugh Scott (R-Penn.) condemned the campaign against him, stating, “In all my career I have never before witnessed such a well-planned attempt at legislative lynching….(Yet) in 16 days of hearings I saw no evidence to justify an adverse recommendation on this nomination. Lewis Strauss’ competence, patriotism and excellent background were never challenged” (CQ Press).

Some supporters, such as Rep. Steven Derounian (R-N.Y.) and Sen. Scott (R-Penn.), alleged anti-Semitism in the opposition to Strauss (Time Magazine).

Opponents of Strauss

Opponents of Strauss, who wrote the minority report on his confirmation, charged Strauss with “deception,” telling “unqualified falsehoods” and creating “myths” about his own achievements (Time Magazine). As noted before, Anderson and McGee were the chief foes, and they were helped by certain pro-Strauss industrialists who lobbied heavily for him and in a way that was seen as unseemly. Also a boon for opponents of his nomination was that Strauss insisted on cross-examining hostile witnesses and senators which fueled more opposition to him (U.S. Senate).

When the nomination looked like it was going to be close, Republican senators were desperately flown in to cast votes. However, it was to no avail; on June 19, 1959, Strauss was rejected 46-49. The Democratic vote on his nomination was 15-47 and the Republican vote was 31-2. His nomination President Eisenhower was deeply disappointed, calling his rejection the “second most shameful day in Senate history” (the first was the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial) (Drury). The two Republican dissenters were Maine’s highly independent-minded Margaret Chase Smith and aging populist maverick William Langer of North Dakota. The Democratic supporters of his nomination were Arkansas’ John McClellan, Connecticut’s Thomas Dodd, Florida’s Spessard Holland, Georgia’s Richard Russell, Louisiana’s Allen Ellender, Mississippi’s James Eastland and John C. Stennis, New Mexico’s Dennis Chavez, Ohio’s Frank Lausche, Oklahoma’s Robert S. Kerr, Rhode Island’s John O. Pastore, South Carolina’s Strom Thurmond, Tennessee’s Albert Gore, and Virginia’s Harry F. Byrd and Willis Robertson. To emphasize how rare confirmation rejections of cabinet nominees are, the last one to have been rejected was Charles B. Warren for Attorney General in 1925 and the next to be rejected would be John Tower for Defense Secretary in 1989. Strauss never served in another position in government and published his autobiography, Men and Decisions, in 1962. Strauss died on January 21, 1974, of cancer at the age of 77.

References

Drury, A. (1959, June 19). Senate Rejects Strauss, 49-46, at Night Session. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Senate Rejects Lewis Strauss Confirmation. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/nominations/strauss-nomination-rejected.htm

Strauss Nomination. CQ Almanac 1959. CQ Press.

Retrieved from

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal59-1334314#_

The Administration: The Strauss Affair. (1959, June 14). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6827665/the-administration-the-strauss-affair

Fascinating Politics

Great Conservatives from American History #27: John W. Byrnes

1944 was a disappointing year for the GOP. Although it was believed FDR was going to win reelection, it was believed for a time that Republicans would win control of the House, but instead the Democrats made gains. One of the places in which Republicans made gains, however, was in Wisconsin’s 8th district, centered in Green Bay, with Democrat LaVern Dilweg, who had played for the Green Bay Packers, losing reelection to John William Byrnes (1913-1985). He proved strongly fiscally conservative, siding wholesale with the domestic agenda of the Republican 80th Congress but willing to accept the bipartisan foreign policy that came with the postwar era, including voting for aid to Greece and Turkey and the Marshall Plan. However, he did not support foreign aid for poor nations through Point IV aid and voted for some foreign aid cuts. Byrnes also stood strongly for free market policies, supporting significant efforts to limit and end controls on prices and rents. In 1949, he was among the World War II veterans who spoke out against Rep. John Rankin’s (D-Miss.) pension bill for World War I and World War II veterans, which was intended to make the Social Security expansion proposed by President Truman fiscally impossible. Byrnes stated, “This legislation is dishonest…In ten years, our veterans will be shouldering half the nation’s tax burden…I am unalterably opposed to this bill. It is no hot potato as far as this member is concerned” (Time Magazine, 1949). In 1952 and 1953, he differed with the Conservative Coalition in its support for creating a committee to investigate tax-exempt institutions, which became known respectively as the Cox and Reece Committees. Byrnes continued his record of domestic conservatism during the Eisenhower Administration but supported increased foreign aid.

Byrnes Moves Into Leadership

In 1959, Byrnes was recognized as a strong voice on policy within the GOP with him being tapped to head up the House Republican Policy Committee. He stood as a staunch opponent of the Kennedy Administration’s domestic agenda while supporting foreign aid measures. In 1963, he rose to the position of ranking Republican on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. An inflation hawk, he was the chief opponent in the House of the Kennedy tax reduction bill and pushed an unsuccessful proposal to cancel the tax cuts unless spending was not expected to exceed $98 billion in fiscal 1964. Byrnes also supported reducing spending to reduce the debt, being a confirmed opponent of the Keynesian approach that the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations were taking. That year, he made a risky admission; that in 1960 that after helping the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation get a favorable ruling from the IRS that he had purchased stock in the company and done so without knowing it was discounted, and subsequently moved the money to a scholarship fund (Fein). However, honesty paid off and he survived. Although he and Chairman Wilbur Mills (D-Ark.) disagreed on numerous issues regarding taxes and revenue, they had an effective working relationship and were able to produce compromises. Byrnes also opposed special loopholes and privileges in the tax code, and pushed to reduce them in his chief legislative accomplishment, the Tax Reform Act of 1969. In 1965, Byrnes would have to resign his post as head of the Republican Policy Committee due to a change in Republican rules that barred Republicans from holding both ranking positions and party leadership positions.

Byrnes and Civil Rights

Interestingly, Byrnes’ greatest difference with the civil rights position was on taxation; he was an opponent of repealing the poll tax by legislative means, and voted against doing so in 1945, 1947, and 1949. He thought this should be done by amending the Constitution, and true to this view he voted for the 24th Amendment in 1962. He would otherwise support the major civil rights laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. In 1971, Byrnes was one of 24 representatives to vote against the Equal Rights Amendment.

Byrnes and the Great Society

In 1965, Byrnes opposed Medicare being mandatory, but the Democratic majority was too great for a Conservative Coalition victory on the matter. Indeed, he was by and large an opponent of LBJ’s Great Society, opposing the Economic Opportunity Act, federal aid to education, rent subsidies, and mass transit aid. Byrnes voted against the initial version of the Social Security Act Amendments that included Medicare but voted for the conference report.

Byrnes and Nixon and the End

In 1969, Byrnes was the point man on the Revenue Act of 1969, and in some ways bent his traditional ways for President Nixon. For instance, he voted for the Family Assistance Plan in 1970 for guaranteed minimum income for families, a considerable departure from what Republicans had stood for in Democratic administrations. However, Byrnes was not simply a nodding head for Nixon. Both he and Ways and Means Committee chairman Wilbur Mills (D-Ark.) were staunchly opposed to revenue sharing, which was championed by Nixon, and Byrnes voted against. He said of the matter, “Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I believe most sincerely that with the pleasure of spending public funds there should also be the odium of collecting them” (Time Magazine, 1971). However, the objections of Byrnes and Mills weren’t enough against the pressures of the Nixon Administration and numerous governors who were wanting fiscal relief for their states. Byrnes also stood with Nixon on Vietnam War policy, opposing efforts to set timetables for troop withdrawals and opposing the Cooper-Church Amendment to pull troops from Cambodia and Laos. He opted not to run again in 1972. The interpretations of Byrnes’ record are consistent; he sided with the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 84% of the time, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action 15% of the time, and his DW-Nominate score stands at 0.328. On January 8, 1985, Byrnes suffered a massive stroke at Central Wisconsin Airport on the way to a medical check-up and was reported to be in critical condition. He did not recover, dying four days later at the age of 71 at St. Joseph’s Hospital. The year after his death, President Ronald Reagan, who shared Byrnes’ opposition to revenue sharing, completed the program’s repeal.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Voting Records

Byrnes, John William. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/1371/john-william-byrnes

Fein, E.B. (1985, January 14). Ex-Rep. John W. Byrnes Is Dead; Republican Was Tax Law Expert. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

John W. Byrnes, Former Representative, Dies. (1985, January 17). The Los Angeles Times.

Retrieved from

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-01-17-me-7747-story.html

The Congress: Rankin’s Revenge. (1949, February 28). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6602178/the-congress-rankins-revenge/

The Nation: Pros and Cons of Revenue Sharing. (1971, January 31). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6843587/the-nation-the-pros-and-cons-of-revenue-sharing/

Fascinating Politics

H. Alexander Smith: The Garden State’s Grand Old Internationalist

After World War II, a new class of Republicans gained prominence; those who believed that the Republican Party needed to embrace internationalism and hold to Senator Vandenberg’s “politics stops at the water’s edge” line and tone down their opposition to New Deal policies. This sort of Republican, the sort that President Eisenhower called a “modern Republican”, fit New Jersey’s Howard Alexander Smith (1880-1966) to a tee.

As a young man, Smith attended Princeton University, where he was educated by none other than Woodrow Wilson, who he said was “the greatest teacher I ever had” and that he inspired him to enter public service (The New York Times). He subsequently attended Columbia University to earn his law degree. Smith was also in his early years influenced by progressive reformer Jacob Riis’ book, “How the Other Half Lives” on slum conditions, by the time he pursued a political career he had come to believe that increased domestic government was dangerous to individual freedom (The New York Times). Despite his view of Woodrow Wilson, Smith would not join his party. However, Wilson did impact his support for internationalism. Smith would have a long experience with foreign policy, with him working for Herbert Hoover under the United States Food Administration to feed the population of Europe after World War I. Although Smith made a lot of his money as a New York City attorney, he would move to New Jersey and served as executive secretary for Princeton University during the 1920s and be a lecturer from 1927 to 1930. His political career, however, did not start until he became active in the state’s GOP as treasurer of the New Jersey Republican State Committee. Smith would eventually serve as the head of New Jersey’s Republican Party and was a member of the Republican National Committee from 1942 to 1943.

During World War II, Smith’s chance at elected office came when Senator W. Warren Barbour died on November 22, 1943, and he ran to finish his term in 1944. He had a close race against Congressman Elmer Wene, but prevailed by under 2 points. As a senator, Smith quickly established himself as one of the chamber’s leading Republican internationalists on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In 1948, he sponsored with Rep. Karl Mundt (R-S.D.) the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act, permitting the State Department to make international broadcasts, one of these being the Voice of America. He broadly followed the conservative line on matters of taxes and organized labor. Smith was a staunchly religious man, praying every morning on matters from public policy to where he should vacation and maintaining a journal (Inboden).

In 1950, Smith led the fight against including foreign aid programs in budget cuts; he was successful in preventing a cut in Marshall Plan assistance but the Senate rejected his effort to exempt Point IV aid. Although Smith initially opposed a loan to Francoist Spain in 1949, the following year he voted along with most senators for a loan; the Korean War had since begun. In 1951, he figured prominently in the “Great Debate” over how many troops the U.S. could commit to Europe without Congressional authorization as part of NATO, and opposed the limitation adopted by the Senate. However, the following year Smith voted to limit presidential authority to participate in NATO military planning. He had a difficult vote when in 1951, he was the deciding vote on whether the Senate would proceed with the nomination of Philip Jessup as a delegate to the UN General Assembly. Jessup had been one of the State Department officials critical of Nationalist China and had bought the narrative pushed by the communists that they were democratic. Smith had strongly supported Nationalist China and his decision became more complex after Senator Joseph McCarthy had accused Jessup of being a conscious agent of the communist conspiracy. Smith reasoned in his decision, “I have known Philip Jessup for many years and I have absolute confidence in his integrity, ability and loyalty to his country. I am convinced that he has not and never had any connection with the Communist Party” but added, “the real issue raised by Dr. Jessup’s nomination in the light of past and present events is the approval or disapproval of our overall Far Eastern policy. Dr. Jessup has been identified with those forces in and outside the Administration which were responsible for the Far Eastern policy which has led to the present crisis. He was editor of the China white paper…He participated in the unfortunate events which led to the summary dismissal of General MacArthur. He is the symbol of a group attitude toward Asia which seems to have been proven completely unsound. This is not a case of mere difference of opinion. This is an issue that may well involve the future of Asia and the world” (Time Magazine). Therefore, despite pressures on him to rebut McCarthy’s accusations by voting to confirm, Smith voted to reject the nomination. Truman, however, gave him a recess appointment. However, Smith was far from a supporter of McCarthy’s style. He voted for the nomination of Charles Bohlen as Ambassador to the USSR in 1953, to which McCarthy led the opposition, and opposed McCarthy’s 1953 effort to cut foreign aid to nations that trade with Red China. He would unsurprisingly vote for McCarthy’s censure. Smith initially opposed the St. Lawrence Seaway and successfully motioned to kill its construction in 1948. However, President Eisenhower’s support for the Seaway may have moved him to vote for the 1954 Wiley-Dondero Act to construct it. That year, consistent with his internationalism, he opposed the Bricker Amendment to restrain what the president could do with executive orders, which failed Senate ratification by one vote.

Although Smith’s record was mostly supportive of civil rights measures, he was also cautious, believing that using force to achieve desegregation was unwise, stating, “you’ll never do it with paratroopers” (The New York Times). Although he voted against the jury trial amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 he voted for Anderson-Aiken-Case Amendment, deleting the section permitting the Attorney General to enter into civil suits for preventative relief in civil rights cases, even if all remedies had not been exhausted. On revelations of union corruption, in 1958 Smith supported most proposals to curb the power of organized labor. By contrast, his considerably more liberal Republican colleague Clifford Case opposed the 1958 proposals. That year, Smiith sided with the Eisenhower Administration in its opposition to the Anti-Preemption bill to curb the Supreme Court’s authority to review state anti-subversive laws.

By 1957, Smith was 77 years old and conflicted on retirement. On one hand, he was cognizant of his aging but on the other he wanted his party to avoid a bruising primary, but ultimately his age as well as Congressman Robert Kean announcing his run motivated his dropping out. All three metrics I like to use paint a picture of a moderate: he sided with the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 61% of the time, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action 40% of the time, and he has a DW-Nominate score of 0.159. Smith no doubt fit the mold of the “modern Republican” or the “country club Republican” His nephew, Peter H. Dominick, would serve in the House as a Republican from Colorado from 1961 to 1963 and then senator from 1963 to 1975. Sadly, Smith’s son, H. Alexander Jr., predeceased him in 1964. Smith died of a stroke on October 27, 1966 at the age of 86.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Voting Records

Inboden, W. (2008). Religion and American foreign policy, 1945-1960. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Retrieved from

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/religion-and-american-foreign-policy-19451960/guided-by-god-the-unusual-decisionmaking-of-senator-h-alexander-smith/0A45A8602B5E4B9EBDFFEB1040FAEFA6

H. Alexander Smith, 86, Dies. (1966, October 28). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Smith, Howard Alexander. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/8635/howard-alexander-smith

The Congress: Difficult Vote. (1951, October 28). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6886457/the-congress-difficult-vote/

Fascinating Politics

How a Liberal Organization Saw Pre-New Deal Pols

Adolph J. Sabath (D-Ill.), who served in Congress from 1907 until his death in 1952.

The subject of political ideology throughout American history and its changes has been of boundless interest to me. And in the course of this, there’s a lot of oversimplifications, a lot of misunderstandings, and misconceptions. In the course of research, I find a useful exercise to be to look at legislators who served over long periods of time and how they voted. Looking at their records at the start of their career and the end of their career can be illuminating, and most useful to looking at the latter end of careers in this case are the ratings of the liberal Americans for Democratic Action. I am in particular interested in comparing records of this longstanding liberal group to legislators who served before 1933, when FDR came into office and really shaped the liberalism that we understand today. ADA’s ratings go back to 1947, and the longest serving legislator at its start was Democrat Adolph Sabath of Chicago, who had been serving since 1907. Sabath, by the way, was a staunch New Deal defender and proved very liberal in the final years of his career. Another notable long-term figure when we look at change is Alabama’s J. Lister Hill. Hill first started serving in Congress in 1923, and during the Truman Administration he proves one of the South’s big liberals, but later on his record is soured by ADA standards as they come to focus more on civil rights issues and other social issues, and it is true that Hill also moved a bit to the right in his later career as Alabama was moving to the right.

Sam Rayburn of Texas also presents an interesting case study, for this is a legislator who sticks loyally to President Truman’s agenda for domestic liberalism and internationalism even though you would by some aspects of his earlier record not think him a champion of liberalism. Indeed, although Rayburn supported a lot of Woodrow Wilson’s agenda, he voted against the Keating-Owen Act in 1916 to regulate and restrict child labor, repeatedly voted against women’s suffrage, and voted against the Child Labor Amendment in 1924. By contrast, you have Daniel Reed of New York, who was considered a massive champion of traditional Republicanism. He voted for women’s suffrage in 1919 and voted for the Child Labor Amendment in 1924. However, Reed was one of the most down-the-line foes of the New Deal and anything that smacked of it, as well as stood as a staunch opponent of foreign aid programs, and his record remained to the right until his death in 1959. Yet another figure of interest is Roy Woodruff, who you would not tell by him having four “zeroes” by ADA that his first term was as a member of Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party.

I have created a document that lists legislators, their party affiliation, their state, the year they started serving in Congress prior to 1933, and their rates of agreement with ADA by year. The last year listed is 1975, the last in which Congressman Wright Patman (D-Tex.), who started serving in 1929, served a full year. This should be illuminating as to ideology and what’s more how ADA was seeing the South.

Legislators Who Served Before New Deal, ADA ScoresDownload



* – Sam Rayburn’s (D-Tex.) is listed as 73 for 1953 and not 82 as presented in ADA’s records because Rayburn actually voted against, not for, Hawaii statehood in 1953.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Voting Records

Rayburn, Samuel Taliaferro. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/7753/samuel-taliaferro-rayburn

Reed, Daniel Alden. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/7781/daniel-alden-reed

Fascinating Politics

Contesting Senate Elections in the 1920s

William S. Vare (R-Penn.), whose right to serve in the Senate was successfully contested.

When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, it set three requirements for being a senator, they are as follows:

“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen” (U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3).

After the War of the Rebellion, requirements were added that senators not have engaged in rebellion or treason. For conservatives on this issue, these were all that were required for seating. The circumstances of state elections were a state matter, whether widespread voting irregularities or violations of campaign finance law had occurred or not, and that any investigations should occur after, not before seating. For the ever-reform minded progressives, this would simply not do, and the 1920s in particular was a time for challenging elections. In that decade, there were seven contests of Senate elections. These were of Truman Newberry of Michigan, Earle Mayfield of Texas, Thomas Schall of Minnesota, Sam Bratton of New Mexico, Smith Brookhart of Iowa, William Vare of Pennsylvania, and Frank Smith of Illinois.

Truman Newberry: The Price of Crossing Henry Ford

Although the election happened in 1918, the case of Truman Newberry dragged into the 1920s. President Wilson had recruited Ford to run for the Senate to advance his message for peace and the League of Nations. He ran for both the Democratic and Republican nominations, believing that the Michigan public would overwhelmingly embrace him, the esteemed automaker. However, only the Democrats nominated him, with another wealthy individual, Truman Newberry, winning the Republican nomination. Ford was peeved that the Republicans didn’t nominate him, and although the race was close, Newberry won. He had spent a lot of money financing attacks against Ford’s pacifism, his anti-Semitism, and having allegedly engaged in extraordinary efforts to prevent his son Edsel from being drafted (U.S. Senate, Newberry). Newberry proved to be a staunch conservative who proved a thorn in Wilson’s side, including on the League of Nations. However, Newberry’s campaign had received and spent over $175,000, far above the $3,750 limit imposed by Michigan state law as well as the Federal Corrupt Practices Act on primary spending (U.S. Senate, Newberry). Although Newberry claimed ignorance of illegal campaign contributions and spending, that is not what the evidence indicated. He was indicted on November 29, 1919 along with 134 associates and convicted of violating the Federal Corrupt Practices Act on March 20, 1920, but he appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 in Newberry v. United States that the section of the Corrupt Practices Act that covered state primaries was unconstitutional and 9-0 that the judge in the case had given erroneous jury instructions (U.S. Senate, Newberry). Republicans in the 67th Congress managed to block an effort to unseat Newberry and

voted 46-41 that he was the elected senator from Michigan. Republicans asserted that his Navy service in New York City at the time of the primary precluded extensive knowledge about campaign spending, the Democratic minority disagreed, asserting that he knew full well (U.S. Senate, Newberry). the 1922 midterms promised a much more difficult Senate and progressive Republicans were keen on joining with Democrats to oust Newberry. Thus, he opted to resign instead of facing a grueling battle.

In the end, Ford did get his way. Newberry was out, and his successor was James Couzens. Although Couzens was a Republican, he was on the party’s progressive wing and was formerly vice president of Ford Motors, thus far more palatable to Henry Ford. Newberry would never run for public office again and Couzens would remain in the Senate until his death in 1936.

Schall vs. Johnson: Bull Moose v. Farmer-Labor

On April 28, 1923, Minnesota’s longtime Republican senator, Knute Nelson, died at the age of 80. Nelson had been a moderate conservative, but the Minnesota GOP was getting a challenge from the state’s Farmer-Labor Party, which was an economically progressive break-away from the GOP, and they succeeded in electing Magnus Johnson. However, Republicans picked a strong candidate for a full term in Thomas D. Schall, who had a history as a Bull Moose Republican, and he defeated Johnson by less than 8,000 votes in the 1924 election. Johnson challenged the election, claiming excessive campaign spending, scurrilous allegations against him, . The testimony of eight pro-Johnson witnesses did not produce any evidence connecting Schall to wrongdoing, and the investigating committee unanimously recommended that he be seated, and the Senate agreed (U.S. Senate, Schall). Schall would serve in the Senate until he was killed when a motorist accidentally struck him in 1935, and Magnus Johnson served a term in the House from 1933 to 1935, dying in 1936.

Mayfield vs. Peddy: A Quixotic Challenge

In 1922, the Senate election in Texas was Democrat Earle B. Mayfield against George E.B. Peddy, who was running both as a Republican and an Independent. Once the primaries were over, the winner was not in doubt as at the time statewide races (and indeed most other races in Texas) the winner was going to be a Democrat. On Election Day, Mayfield was elected, with strong support from the Ku Klux Klan, with 2/3’s of the vote. What was Peddy’s case for challenging the election? He challenged the procedures of the Democratic primary, excessive expenditures, voter fraud, and cited KKK involvement (U.S. Senate, Mayfield). However, Mayfield’s lead was insurmountably strong, even if there were shady practices he was going to be the winner in the general election given that the state was still part of the “Solid South” at the time. The Senate dismissed the challenge. Mayfield’s electoral fortunes had risen with the Klan, and they fell with the Klan too. He was defeated for renomination in 1928 by Congressman Tom Connally, who ran against him on an anti-Klan platform.

Brookhart vs. Steck: Progressive Republican vs. Moderate Democrat

In this case, the Senate outright rejected the election result and seated Democrat Daniel Steck. This was in part the product of Democratic partisanship but also in part the product of infighting between the conservative and progressive factions of the Republican Party. The controversy began when Brookhart, who had been elected in a special election to succeed William S. Kenyon, was running for a full term as a Republican. However, instead of endorsing Republican nominee Calvin Coolidge, he endorsed Progressive Robert La Follette of Wisconsin and campaigned for him after his nomination. This enraged many rank-and-file Iowa Republicans, who considered this trickery. The election reflected Republican faction tensions in this historically Republican state, with Brookhart only winning in official returns by around 800 votes to Democrat Daniel Steck, who was running as a moderate. Some conservatives in the GOP preferred reducing their majority by one because they found Steck ideologically preferable. In this case, despite the voters having voted for Brookhart, the full Senate voted to seat Steck. This was interestingly not a party-line vote, and there were seven Democrats who voted for Brookhart, including Mississippi’s Hubert Stephens, who wrote in defense of Brookhart’s election. A majority of Republicans voted for Brookhart, even a number of dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, although this was not out of sympathy for the views of Brookhart, rather because they did not believe the Senate should be rejecting winners of the state’s vote. In 1926, Brookhart successfully rebuked the Senate’s ruling on him when he defeated incumbent Albert B. Cummins for renomination and was elected. There is no better revenge than success, and there was no challenge that time.

The Republican establishment would ultimately oust Brookhart in the 1932 nomination contest, but the seat would be won by Democrat Louis Murphy, with Brookhart running as an independent Progressive candidate. Whether Brookhart would have won as a Republican in 1932 we can only speculate.

Bratton vs. Bursum: A Nothing-burger Challenge

Although New Mexico had been a Republican state when it was first admitted, by the 1920s Democrats were starting to gain power, and 1924 promised to be a close election between incumbent Holm O. Bursum, a high-tariff conservative Republican, and Judge Sam G. Bratton, a progressive Democrat. On Election Day, although New Mexico easily voted for President Coolidge, they did not do likewise for Bursum, with Bratton winning by 2.5%. Bursum challenged the election, claiming voter fraud. He claimed that eligible Indians were denied the vote while aliens, minors, college students voting from outside of their homes, and ex-cons were illegally allowed to vote (U.S. Senate). Although the Senate pushed Burusm to produce his evidence of such wrongdoing, he delayed for weeks and when he finally presented his evidence, although it reduced Bratton’s margin of victory, it fell far short of the irregularities alleged and Bratton kept his seat. Bursum would not seek public office again while Bratton would resign from the Senate in 1933 to accept a presidential appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Democratic dominance of New Mexico would follow, with Republicans only making consistent gains starting in the late 1960s.

The Senate Contends with Big City Political Machinery: The Cases of Vare and Smith

Big city politics have had a reputation for corruption, and this was certainly the case with the Republican machines existing in Philadelphia and Chicago in the 1920s. In 1926, Congressman William S. Vare, the head of the Philadelphia machine, had defeated incumbent George W. Pepper for renomination. Pennsylvania was a very Republican state at that time and had not voted for a Democrat since 1856. The Democratic challenger was former Secretary of Labor William B. Wilson. The official results put Vare over the top with 54.6% of the vote as opposed to Wilson’s 43.1%, which was a respectable result for a Democrat at the time. It should also be noted that Wilson was leading until Philadelphia was counted (Hill). There was considerable doubt in the outcome and many did not want Philadelphia’s boss to be senator. The doubt in the Senate election in Pennsylvania was such that the state’s progressive Republican governor, Gifford Pinchot, refused to certify the election, instead stating that Vare “appears” to have been elected (Hill). However, Pinchot was finishing his term, and his successor, John Fisher, certified Vare.

The other highly contested race was Republican Frank L. Smith’s win with 46.9% of the vote, with Democrat George E. Brennan netting 43.1% of the vote. Smith had defeated incumbent William B. McKinley, who died shortly after his loss, on the issue of the U.S. joining the World Court. He received considerable campaign contributions from the controversial Samuel Insull, the holding company baron who played a major role in setting up America’s electrical grid. The problem? Smith chaired the Illinois Commerce Commission, which regulated utilities. This led to allegations of corruption by Smith, that he was giving Insull an easy ride in exchange for campaign financing. Senator Thaddeus Caraway (D-Ark.) took up the mantle against him. Obtaining information about spending on the Illinois race was not so cut-and-dry for the Senate, as the case of Newberry v. United States put primary campaigns out of the reach of regulation by the Senate and Illinois had no law capping campaign expenditures (U.S. Senate, Smith).

Vare and Smith were elected with strong support of corrupt political machines and extensive evidence was presented of illicit voting practices and excessive campaign financing. Conservatives held that because Vare and Smith met Constitutional requirements that they should be seated and then investigations into their elections proceed, but the fiercely independent William Borah (R-Idaho) was not having it, stating that the Senate had the right to deny them seating and considered doing so acting in the Senate’s preservation (Hill). Although the Senate concluded that despite voting irregularities that Vare had won the election, but that such widespread irregularities and excessive campaign spending had tainted his victory. Vare spoke in his defense, “How unfair and unjust my accusers have been in attempting to twist mere clerical irregularities and technicalities into acts of political fraud and conspiracy!” (Hill) Both were denied seating, although neither Wilson nor Brennan were ruled the winners. Ultimately Pennsylvania Republican Joseph Grundy, a prominent and staunchly conservative industrialist and lobbyist, was appointed interim senator while in Illinois, Republican Otis Glenn won the special election against future Chicago mayor Anton Cermak. The stress of the investigation broke Vare’s health, and he suffered a stroke on August 2, 1928, from which he never fully recovered. Although Vare tried to get back in as a Republican in 1930, the Republican organization turned on him and selected James J. Davis, Secretary of Labor under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, instead. Curiously, Vare would attempt a comeback by running for the Democratic nomination for the Senate in 1932, but he suffered another stroke, ending any prospects of return. He died of a heart attack on August 7, 1934.

References

Expulsion Case of Truman Newberry of Michigan. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/expulsion/102TrumanNewberry_expulsion.htm

Hill, R. (2026, March 15). The Boss of Philadelphia: William S. Vare of Pennsylvania. The Knoxville Focus.

Retrieved from

https://www.knoxfocus.com/archives/this-weeks-focus/the-boss-of-philadelphia-william-s-vare-of-pennsylvania/

The Election Case of Daniel F. Steck v. Smith W. Brookhart. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/contested-senate-elections/105Steck_Brookhart.htm

The Election Case of Frank L. Smith of Illinois. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/contested-senate-elections/110Frank_Smith.htm

The Election Case of George E.B. Peddy v. Earle Mayfield. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/contested-senate-elections/103Peddy_Mayfield.htm

The Election Case of Holm O. Bursum v. Sam G. Bratton of New Mexico. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/contested-senate-elections/107Bursum_Bratton.htm

The Election Case of Magnus Johnson v. Thomas D. Schall. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/contested-senate-elections/106Johnson_Schall.htm

The Election Case of William B. Wilson v. William S. Vare of Pennsylvania. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/contested-senate-elections/109Wilson_Vare.htm

Fascinating Politics

Gaylord Nelson: Father of Earth Day

We have come to that time of year again, Earth Day. This day was the brainchild of a prominent liberal senator from Wisconsin, Gaylord Anton Nelson (1916-2005). 1958 proved, as I have written in the past, a massive boon for liberals. One of the victors was State Senator Gaylord Nelson, who was elected Wisconsin’s governor. As a state, Wisconsin had not been historically strong for Democrats. Indeed, it was considered shocking when Grover Cleveland won the state in 1892, and the liberal lane for decades was occupied by the progressive wing of the Republican Party, which came to prominence with the rise of Robert La Follette. Indeed, Democrats would not be able to make sustainable gains in the state until the 1950s, and Nelson’s victory was only the second time in the 20th century that a Democrat was elected governor. He had been in the State Senate since 1948, and had a reputation as a staunch liberal, and indeed he won on a strongly liberal platform. As governor, he along with Senator William Proxmire and future Governor Patrick Lucey were the fathers of the modern Democratic Party in the Badger State. He established a state Youth Conservation Corps, based off of the Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression, and the Outdoor Recreation Acquisition Project, which resulted in the purchase of 1 million acres for public parks. Nelson was not overwhelmingly popular at this time, and he was limited in what he could do because both houses of the legislature still had a Republican majority. In 1960, he clinched reelection by three points. Nelson’s second term would serve as a platform for the next office he wanted: Senator.

Winning Against Wiley

By 1962, Wisconsin’s longtime senior senator, Alexander Wiley, was 78 years old and past his prime. Nelson took advantage both of the age difference and Wiley’s increasing irritability by energetically campaigning across the state and attacking the conservative aspects of his voting record. On Election Day, Nelson won by 5 points. The Democratic class of ‘62, which included George McGovern, was quite a liberal one indeed, and Nelson proved one of the most liberal senators. A staunch supporter of civil rights legislation, he was present at the August 28, 1963 March on Washington in which King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial. He backed the Great Society to a hilt, and although he voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution he was an early critic of the Vietnam War. Nelson could at times vote a conservative position on foreign policy, such as voting to cut foreign aid in 1965. After a resounding reelection by 23 points in 1968, Nelson proved among the staunchest foes of the Nixon Administration. In 1973, he was one of only three senators to vote against the confirmation of Gerald Ford as vice president. However, Nelson’s foremost legacy was on the environment. In September 1969, he delivered a speech in Seattle in which he proposed the creation of Earth Day as a grassroots demonstration in response to the January and February 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill which was the worst spill in US history at the time, with the first Earth Day happening on April 22, 1970. Nelson recalled the idea came to him after reading about nationwide teach-ins against the Vietnam War, “It suddenly dawned on me, why not a nationwide teach-in on the environment?” (Thulin) Unsurprisingly, he was one of the strongest champions of environmental regulations. Nelson dismissed the notion that economic development should take precedence over environmental protection, stating, “The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around” (Nelson).

In 1970, Nelson held hearings on the safety of birth control pills, with many witnesses testifying their concerns that the pill could be causing cancer. The result of the hearings was a new law that warnings of potential side effects now had to be included on the labels. Although a staunch liberal like Senator George McGovern (D-S.D.) and a supporter, he declined an offer to be his running mate. In 1974, for many Wisconsinites, his opposition to Nixon was looking pretty good, and he was reelected by his largest margin yet, 26 points, against future Congressman Tom Petri.

The 1980 Election

Nelson’s rise to high political office came in the excellent liberal year of 1958, but 1980 was for Republicans what 1958 had been for Democrats. The political climate had substantially changed since his landslide reelection in 1974, and Nelson was swept away in the Reagan wave, losing by two points to former Congressman Bob Kasten. His ultra-liberalism was shown in multiple measures; he sided with the liberal Americans for Democratic Action 94% of the time, the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 8% of the time, and has a -0.567 from DW-Nominate, making him one of the most liberal senators of his day. In 1995, President Clinton awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his service and efforts for environmental protection, and the proclamation for the award read, “As the father of Earth Day, he is the grandfather of all that grew out of that event: the Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Water Drinking Act’ (The New York Times). And it wasn’t just Democrats who praised him. Republican Melvin Laird, who as a conservative representative from Wisconsin had frequently disagreed with him, praised his service, “Gaylord’s contributions in the fields of conservation reform and environmental improvement are a living memorial to him” (The New York Times).

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Voting Records

Gaylord Nelson, Former Senator Who Founded Earth Day, Dies at 89. (2005, July 3). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Medicine: The Pill on Trial. (1970, January 25). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6816452/medicine-the-pill-on-trial/

Nelson, G. (2002). Beyond Earth Day, fulfilling the promise. Madison, WI.: University of Wisconsin Press.

Nelson, Gaylord Anton. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/10816/gaylord-anton-nelson

Thulin, L. (2019, April 22). Earth Day. Smithsonian Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-oil-spill-50-years-ago-inspired-first-earth-day-180972007/