Although the Democratic Party was rising in Oregon in the 1950s with the party switch of progressive Republican Wayne Morse and the defeat of Republican Senator Guy Cordon for reelection in 1954 by Democrat Richard Neuberger, the Republicans managed to get a star in their corner: the young Mark Hatfield (1922-2011). He made his way up through the Oregon State Legislature and was a progressive Republican. Hatfield most notably as a state legislator got passed and signed into law legislation barring racial discrimination in public accommodations and was a critic of the methods of Senator Joseph McCarthy. In 1956, he was elected Secretary of State, and this positioned him well for a gubernatorial run.
As a consequence of his maverick tendencies, Hatfield was not popular with the national GOP, which wouldn’t support him in his bid for governor in 1958. However, the motivation to win for the state GOP overrode such issues. What’s more, one of the state’s prominent Democrats made a big mistake. Five days before the election, Senator Wayne Morse accused Hatfield of lying in his testimony in a civil case surrounding his accidentally running over a young girl who had darted across the road as a teenager, a charge regarded as an especially low blow by the voters of Oregon. Arguably because of the national GOP’s lack of support and sympathy votes after Wayne Morse’s attack, that year at 36 years old he defeated incumbent Democrat Robert Holmes, one of the few bright spots in a catastrophic year for the Republican Party. Hatfield, whose pitch for growing the state was “Payrolls and Playgrounds”, proved popular with voters and he convincingly won reelection in 1962 by double digits. This was an impressive accomplishment for an Oregon politician, for he was the first to serve two full terms in the 20th century.

In 1966, Hatfield ran for the Senate to succeed Maurine Neuberger and faced Democrat Robert Duncan. Duncan was supportive of LBJ’s execution of the Vietnam War, and Hatfield was an early opponent of the Vietnam War. He was again helped by Wayne Morse, but this time in the form of an endorsement for his stance, as opposition to the Vietnam War had become his obsession. In 1968, Hatfield backed Nixon for president, seeing him as the best way to exit the Vietnam War quickly at the time and Nixon apparently considered making him his vice presidential nominee. However, this appears per Nixon’s memoirs to not have been a serious consideration; he was considered too liberal by party conservatives. Hatfield would quickly differ with the Nixon Administration on many questions, especially on Vietnam. In 1970, Hatfield sponsored with George McGovern (D-S.D.) the “End the War” Amendment, cutting off funding for the Vietnam War. This amendment was unsuccessful, but he became a popular figure in the peace movement. He also sponsored with Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) in the same year a proposal for an all-volunteer army, which although unsuccessful, would be implemented later by the Nixon Administration.

In 1971, Hatfield was suffering from popularity issues in Oregon because of his perceived lack of attentiveness to the state’s interests, so he hired Gerry Frank as chief of staff, who helped him to right the ship, and instead of serving on the Foreign Relations Committee he accepted a committee assignment on Appropriations, a post that would prove valuable to Oregonians in the future (Lloyd). This course correction worked, and Hatfield beat back Wayne Morse’s attempt to return to the Senate in 1972. Hatfield became a popular and admired figure in Oregon due to his principled stances; he was anti-war, anti-death penalty, and pro-life. He was a strong supporter of civil rights measures across the board. Hatfield was interestingly enough an evangelical whose strong Christian beliefs motivated his political views.

Holding the Purse Strings

The 1980 election produced a Republican majority in the Senate, and this made Hatfield the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee from 1981 to 1987. In this role, he used his position to steer a lot of federal money to Oregon. Although his critics regarded his allocations as “pork”, Hatfield would justify it as Oregon got little money in national defense spending, which is what the Reagan Administration was pushing for. What’s more, he told Senator Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) that Washington used to get all the money when Senator Warren Magnuson (D-Wash.) was chairman, saying to him, “now I’m chairman. And now Oregon is getting all of the money” (Lloyd). Hatfield was also a bit of an awkward chairman for President Reagan as they were at cross-purposes on defense spending, but he wasn’t an obstructionist. Thus, Hatfield wouldn’t attempt to block measures in committee but would argue and vote against them on the floor. Sometimes he would also help Reagan with budget cuts, he backed tax reduction, and supported oil deregulation. Hatfield did clash with the Reagan Administration on efforts to curb busing and in his veto of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988.

Ethics Issues

Despite his public reputation for integrity, which was such that some detractors sarcastically referred to him as “St. Mark”, in 1984 journalist Jack Anderson revealed that his wife, Antoinette, had gotten $55,000 in real estate and decorating fees from a Greek financier who had recruited Senator Hatfield to support a trans-Africa oil pipeline (Lloyd). However, Hatfield was able to resolve this scandal by donating the money to charity and he was reelected by an overwhelming margin that year. In 1992, he was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting and failing to report gifts to the tune of nearly $43,000 between 1983 and 1988, most from Dr. James B. Holderman, former president of the University of South Carolina (CQ Press). While Hatfield was chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Congress granted $16.3 million to the university. He was also cited for three unspecified travel reimbursements. However, due to finding no evidence of criminal violations or intent from Hatfield, the committee didn’t recommend any formal discipline by the Senate. For context, the Senate Ethics Committee in its ruling had regarded Hatfield’s shortfall as worse than four of five of the “Keating Five” (CQ Press).

The New Republican Majority

After the 1994 midterms, Hatfield was again chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but he was in many ways out of step with the Republican majority’s agenda, and no instance highlighted this more than his vote against the Balanced Budget Amendment, which was decisive in its defeat in the Senate. Adding to the pressure for Hatfield to vote differently, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) was trying to make this a centerpiece of his 1996 presidential campaign.

In 1996, Hatfield decided at 74 years old to retire from politics, not wishing to be a doddering old senator propped up by his aides. Unlike many former legislators who stay in Washington D.C., he would return to Oregon and teach government at the George Fox University as well as at the Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University. I think I can safely say that the Republican Party today has no one serving in the House or Senate who is as liberal as Mark Hatfield was. Although he would be on board with today’s GOP on abortion, there wouldn’t be many other things he would be in accord with them on. His lifetime MC-Index score is a mere 32%. In declining health for years, Hatfield died on August 7, 2011, at 89.

Hatfield is without doubt considered one of the greats of the history of Oregon politics. His obituary in The Oregonian called him “Oregon’s first statesman”, and he is one of numerous historical figures who would have no place in today’s politics.

References

Cloud of Scandal Hovers Over Capitol Hill. CQ Almanac 1992.

Retrieved from

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal92-1106962

Lloyd, M. (2011, August 8). Mark O. Hatfield, Oregon’s first statesman, dies at Sunday at 89. The Oregonian.

Retrieved from

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2011/08/mark_o_hatfield_oregons_first.html

Mahoney, B. (2022). Mark O. Hatfield. Oregon Encyclopedia.

Retrieved from

https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/hatfield_mark_o_1922_/

Recently Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was censured by the House entirely on party lines over his pushing of the Trump/Russia collusion narrative. Critics of the House majority either seem to think that the Trump/Russia collusion was true or that Schiff was being censured as petty retaliation for action against Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). I’ve got news for those folks for the latter. People have been censured for smaller things than this. One of them was Rep. William Bynum (D-Ind.).

The Reed Congress

The results of the 1888 election gave Republicans unified government for the first time since the Grant Administration, and Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed (R-Me.) aimed to make the most of it. He dramatically increased the power of the speaker and did so primarily by eliminating the disappearing quorum, in which members who were physically present would literally not answer their names as a way of denying the House the ability to conduct business. This would result in a ridiculous number of roll calls in which names were called out. Thus, with a small majority, Reed needed all the Republicans he could get, and this was proving a difficult task. Thus, one day he just counted people as present whether they answered their names or not. This resulted in a cacophony of protest from Democrats, Democrats trying to hide behind desks, and one kicking a door down to escape. Reed’s power consolidation led to his critics calling him “Czar Reed”. One representative was particularly heated in his condemnation of Reed’s rule. Minority Whip William D. Bynum (D-Ind.) angrily weighed in against “the arbitrary, the outrageous, the damnable rulings of the Chair” (Tuchman). However, although Bynum’s anger at the Speaker is cited as the cause of his censure, on further investigation I discovered this isn’t actually true. The issue actually related to a prominent Pittsburg resident.

Bynum spoke on the House floor against James Campbell, who had been accused of forgery, calling him a “liar and a perjurer” (The Sunday Herald). Republican Thomas Bayne read into the Congressional Record Campbell’s letter defending himself and called for Bynum’s remarks to be removed. Bynum, in response, called Bayne “the sewer through which this attack of Campbell made its way into the record” and upon objection changed it to “conduit pipe” and went on to say regarding Bayne that “I want to say now that I accept and am willing to believe that I have as great confidence in the character of Mr. Campbell as I have in the character of the gentleman who makes this attack upon me” (The Sunday Herald).

For this insult to another member, the Republican majority voted to censure Bynum for “unparliamentary language” on May 17, 1890, on a party line vote. The Democrats would win the House in 1890, but Bynum would lose reelection in the Republican sweep of 1894. Ironically, he would himself dissent from the Democratic Party come 1896 when they nominated William Jennings Bryan, instead running the party organization of the “National Democratic Party”, which supported the Gold Standard. President McKinley would in 1900 appoint him to the commission codifying U.S. criminal laws, where he would serve until 1906.

References

To Adopt the Last Part of the Resolution Regarding the Censure of William D. Bynum. (P. 4864). Govtrack.

Retrieved from

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/51-1/h174

Tuchman, B. (1962). Czar Of the House. American Heritage, 14(1).

Retrieved from

https://www.americanheritage.com/czar-house

Uproar in the House. (1890, May 18). The Sunday Herald.

Retrieved from

Click to access 0138.pdf

The victorious Democratic leaders: Speaker Sam Rayburn & Majority Leader LBJ.

The 1958 midterms don’t usually get a whole lot of attention, but they were in truth quite a turning point for conservatism vs. liberalism. The 1950s have been seen as a politically conservative period, which had at least been true in Congress. Conservatives had considerable strength for the past two decades, with it being particularly strong in the 78th, the 80th, and the 82nd and 83rd Congresses. In the Senate, the Democrats had only a 49-47 majority before this election, and after they had a commanding 62-34 lead, only to turn into a 65-35 lead after the addition of Alaska and Hawaii to the Union. This was the most severe blow the Conservative Coalition had experienced since its rise in the 1938 midterms and would set the stage for the liberal politics of the 1960s.

The following Senate seats either had Republicans defeated or retiring Republicans were succeeded by Democrats:

California – William Knowland (R) (MCI: 71%) retired to run for governor, succeeded by Rep. Clair Engle (D) (MCI: 22%).

Connecticut – William Purtell (R) (MCI: 61%) was defeated for reelection by former Rep. Thomas Dodd (D) (MCI: 19%).

Indiana – William Jenner (R) (MCI: 96%) retired, Vance Hartke (D) (MCI: 10%) defeated Harold W. Handley (R) to succeed him.

Maine – Frederick Payne (R) (MCI: 52%) was defeated for reelection by Governor Edmund Muskie (D) (MCI: 5%).

Michigan – Charles Potter (R) (MCI: 75%) was defeated for reelection by Phil Hart (D) (MCI: 1%).

Minnesota – Eugene Thye (R) (MCI: 57%) was defeated for reelection by Rep. Eugene McCarthy (D) (MCI: 2%).

Nevada – George Malone (R) (MCI: 84%) was defeated for reelection by Howard Cannon (D) (MCI: 37%).

New Jersey – H. Alexander Smith (R) (MCI: 63%) retired, former Rep. Harrison Williams (D) (MCI: 6%) defeated Rep. Robert Kean (R) to succeed him.

Ohio – John W. Bricker (R) (MCI: 98%) was defeated for reelection by former Rep. Stephen Young (D) (MCI: 18%).

Utah – Arthur Watkins (R) (MCI: 86%) was defeated for reelection by Frank Moss (D) (MCI: 10%), who benefited from the entry of Republican J. Bracken Lee, who ran as an Independent to Watkins’ right and won 26.4% of the vote.

West Virginia – W. Chapman Revercomb (R) (MCI: 84%) was defeated for reelection by Rep. Robert Byrd (D) (MCI: 28%), John Hoblitzell (R) (MCI: 76%) was defeated for election to a full term by former Rep. Jennings Randolph (D) (MCI: 25%).

Wyoming – Frank Barrett (R) (MCI: 87%) was defeated for reelection by Gale W. McGee (D) (MCI: 17%).

The following Senate seats had retiring Republicans succeeded by more liberal Republicans:

Pennsylvania – Edward Martin (R) (MCI: 90%) for Rep. Hugh Scott (R) (MCI: 53%), who defeated George M. Leader (D).

Vermont – Ralph Flanders (R) (MCI: 62%) for Rep. Winston Prouty (R) (MCI: 56%), who defeated Frederick J. Fayette (D).

Additionally, with the two states of Alaska and Hawaii being added to the union, the following senators were elected:

Alaska

Bob Bartlett (D) (MCI: 14%)
Ernest Gruening (D) (MCI: 16%)

Hawaii

Oren Long (D) (MCI: 5%)
Hiram Fong (R) (MCI: 52%)

Among the defeated or retired who were solid or ultra-conservatives were Jenner, Malone, Bricker, Martin, Watkins, Revercomb, and Barrett. Moderate conservatives defeated or retired were Knowland, Potter, and Hoblitzell. The moderates defeated or retired were Purtell, Payne, Thye, Smith, Ives, and Flanders. Every senator who defeated or succeeded another senator, with the exception of replacing Irving Ives (MCI: 47%) with Kenneth Keating (MCI: 54%), was more liberal and often considerably more liberal than his predecessor. Every single one of the new senators would support the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and Medicare and all won reelection in 1964 save for Kenneth Keating, who lost reelection to RFK, and Clair Engle, who died of a brain tumor. Democrats adding 15 seats provided a solid liberal base in the Senate for over two decades. Particularly notable was the defeat of Payne in a state that had previously had a registration ratio of 3 to 1 Republican…his opponent Edmund Muskie had as governor made massive inroads with voters for the Democratic Party (U.S. Senate).

The House: A Triumph for Liberalism

The Democrats increased their lead in the House from 234-201 to 283-153 lost 48 seats, which solidified their position in the majority until 1994. Democrats won a lot in the Midwest, gaining three seats in Illinois, six in Indiana, three in Iowa, two in Kansas, one in Michigan, two in Nebraska, one in North Dakota, three in Ohio, and two in Wisconsin. In New England, they defeated all six Republican representatives in Connecticut, won a seat in Maine, won a seat in Massachusetts, and won a seat in Vermont. The latter result was particularly jarring as William Meyer was the first Democrat to win an election to Congress from the state since before the Republican Party’s founding in 1854. This would be a temporary victory for them, as Rockefeller Republican Robert Stafford would defeat him in 1960, but it would prove a portend of the future. In Massachusetts, Republican Richard Wigglesworth was succeeded by Democrat Jimmy Burke, a hilariously shameless figure on spending and taxes who I’ve written about before (but from an electoral standpoint, was he wrong?). The seat would never again be held by a Republican. Also, the two Republicans (Silvio Conte and Hastings Keith) who kept seats being departed by retiring Republicans (John Heselton and Donald Nicholson) were more liberal than their predecessors. This election also hit home for President Eisenhower, as his district’s representative, Pennsylvania Republican S. Walter Stauffer, lost reelection to Democrat James M. Quigley (Time Magazine).

Another interesting tidbit was that moderate conservative Republican John J. Allen of California narrowly lost reelection to ultra-liberal Democrat Jeffery Cohelan. The district he lost covered Berkley and Oakland. To this day, Allen is the last Republican to represent these cities in Congress and today they are represented by Barbara Lee, one of the most liberal members of Congress.

Gubernatorial Elections

In these elections, Democrats gained a net of six governorships.

Democratic Gains

Alaska – William A. Egan (D) defeated John Butrovich (R) in the state’s first gubernatorial election.

California – Pat Brown (D) defeated Senator William Knowland (R) to succeed Goodwin Knight (R).

Maryland – J. Millard Tawes (D) defeated Congressman James Devereux (R) to succeed Theodore McKeldin (R).

Nebraska – Victor Andersen (R) was defeated for reelection by Ralph Brooks (D).

Nevada – Charles Russell (R) was defeated for reelection by Grant Sawyer (D).

New Mexico – Edwin Mechem (R) was defeated for reelection by John Burroughs (D).

Ohio – C. William O’Neill (R) was defeated for reelection by Michael DiSalle (D).

South Dakota – Ralph Herseth (D) defeated Phil Saunders (R) to succeed retiring Joe Foss (R).

Wisconsin – Vernon Thomson (R) was defeated for reelection by Gaylord Nelson (D).

Wyoming – Milward Simpson (R) was defeated for reelection by John J. Hickey (D).

Republican Gains

Arizona – Paul Fannin (R) defeated Robert Morrison (D) to succeed Ernest McFarland (D).

New York – Averell Harriman (D) was defeated for reelection by Nelson Rockefeller (R).

Oregon – Robert D. Holmes (D) was defeated for reelection by Mark Hatfield (R).

Rhode Island – Dennis J. Roberts (D) was defeated for reelection by Christopher Del Sesto (R).

Causes & Consequences:

For causes, the economy was in a recession in 1958, and this led to many Republicans being turned out of office, with President Eisenhower not being popular at the time. Although the primarily worked against Republicans, in New York it worked against Democratic Governor Averill Harriman, who was defeated by Nelson Rockefeller, providing a major boost to the latter’s profile. Another factor was simply the good looks of candidates themselves, as the more attractive candidates were consistently winning (Time Magazine). There was also the perception that the US was behind in the Cold War because of the launch of Sputnik. Also, organized labor was heavily mobilized to turn out for this election, and they did in droves to fight “right to work” proposals in certain states as well as the Eisenhower Administration’s support of such proposals. Such a proposal on the ballot in Ohio was widely believed to be the deciding factor in the defeat of Bricker, who had a history as a popular governor and VP nominee, was previously believed to be unbeatable (Hill).

After this election there were leadership changes in both chambers. In the House, the Republicans voted their leader Joe Martin of Massachusetts out in favor of Charles Halleck of Indiana. In the Senate, William Knowland of California had been their leader, and the Republicans elected whip Everett Dirksen of Illinois in his place although Rockefeller Republican John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky made a spirited run for the post.

The South

Before this time, Northern and Southern Democrats were fairly evenly divided, but with Northern Democrats now outnumbering Southerners by almost two to one, this would distinctly disadvantage them on the direction of the party (U.S. Senate). Most notably, the party would become bolder on civil rights. Among the senators newly elected in 1958, only Robert Byrd of West Virginia would vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

References

Hill, R. John W. Bricker of Ohio. The Knoxville Focus.

Retrieved from

https://www.knoxfocus.com/archives/this-weeks-focus/john-w-bricker-of-ohio/

Mid-term Revolution. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/parties-leadership/1958-midterm-revolution.htm

What the 1958 Elections Mean. Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,938001,00.html

Maryland’s 6th district has been one of the less liberal and Democratic districts in the state, even with the redistricting from the 2010 census that made the area lean Democratic. From 1943 to 1959 it was represented by Republicans J. Glenn Beall Sr. and DeWitt Hyde, who were both moderate conservatives. However, 1958 was a pretty bad midterm for the GOP and they lost all three of the Maryland House seats they held. The only one they won back in 1960 was the 6th, and Charles McCurdy “Mac” Mathias (1922-2010) was their champion.

Moving to the Rockefeller Wing Early

Although Mathias criticized incumbent John Foley for voting with Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) (he had done so 8 out of 9 times in 1959 and 9 out of 9 times in 1960), it took him but a year for his record to move from that similar to his Republican predecessors to being in the liberal camp. While in 1961 he had scored a 30 by the ADA and 67 by Americans for Constitutional Action, he scored an 88 from the former and a 27 from the latter the next year. A portend for this development was that his third vote in Congress was to increase the House Rules Committee from 12 to 15, adding two Democrats and one Republican to counter the power of Chairman Howard W. Smith (D-Va.) and the conservatives on the committee who were blocking liberal legislation.

Mathias was a vote for the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Medicare, and other Great Society programs. However, he did dissent from the liberal position on food stamps and Urban Mass Transit. Mathias was also a strong supporter of civil rights and played a significant role in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1966, he attempted to broker a compromise on fair housing legislation through his amendment, which would impose no limitations on discrimination from the homeowner or for owner-occupied rental establishments but would impose discrimination prohibition on the real estate broker. The bill was defeated in the Senate, but fair housing would be the core of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

Boot Brewster!

In 1968, Mathias decided to run for the Senate against incumbent Daniel J. Brewster. Brewster had been Mathias’ college friend and was at the time for Democrats a rising star, the “Golden Boy” of Maryland’s politics. He was, unfortunately, suffering from alcoholism and he would later face corruption charges at least mostly on account of the acts of a corrupt aide. Brewster ultimately would plead no contest to a charge after a new trial was going to be held after his first trial resulted in an acquittal. Mathias would win by a plurality in a three-way race, with Brewster in second and perennial candidate George P. Mahoney running in third.

Aggravating Nixon

Not since ideological turncoat Charles Goodell of New York had a Republican senator gotten the goat of the Nixon Administration. Mathias voted against both Clement Haynsworth of South Carolina and G. Harrold Carswell of Florida for the Supreme Court. He was a Vietnam War dove and his record only had gotten more liberal from his House years. As Maryland Senate President Thomas Mike V. Miller Jr., put it, “He was an enemy to the Nixon White House…He didn’t like the Vietnam War and thought the Nixon Administration wasn’t progressive enough on civil rights” (Borda). On the latter, this was over President Nixon’s opposition to busing as well as his effort to cater to the South by nationalizing coverage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Rowland Evans and Robert Novak (1971) also observed this development, writing that he was “the new supervillain…in President Nixon’s doghouse…not since [Charles Goodell] was defeated with White House connivance has any Republican so outraged Mr. Nixon and his senior staff as Mathias. The senator’s liberalism and tendency to bolt party lines have bred animosity in the inner sanctum”.

In 1973, he was one of the earliest Republican supporters of an investigation into Watergate. Mathias would during his next election quote Edmund Burke, “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment, and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion”, to which he added, “I would point out that Edmund Burke was defeated at the next election”, but which he rejoined with, “But it was still the right answer” (Clymer). This time was also perhaps the height of his liberalism, but he disputed the degree of it. Although Americans for Democratic Action had only scored him wrong on one issue in 1973 (confirming Gerald Ford VP), the following year he said, “I’m not all that liberal. In fact, in some respects I’m conservative. A while ago I introduced a bill preserving the guarantees of the Bill of Rights by prohibiting warrantless wiretaps. I suppose they’ll say it’s another liberal effort, but it’s as conservative as you can get. It’s conserving the Constitution” (Clymer). This argument would certainly get the agreement of such people as Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Thomas Massie today.

Thanks to his conflicted relations with the Nixon Administration, he was spared from the Watergate backlash in 1974. Mathias won reelection by about 15 points against future Senator Barbara Mikulski in a state in which Democrats outnumbered Republicans three to one in registration. Her vote overwhelmingly came from Baltimore, indeed the only county she won was Baltimore, but did so with only 51%.

Conservation

Mathias was a strong supporter of environmental legislation, and his most notable work involved preserving the Chesapeake Bay. His advocacy finally in 1984 resulted in the creation of the Chesapeake Bay Program to clean up and protect the bay under the Clean Water Act. He also successfully pushed for the passage of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.

Conflict with Reagan and Retirement

Mathias disapproved of the rising conservative influence in the party, and in 1976 outright considered running as an independent. This didn’t come to pass and in 1980 he made no such move despite his numerous reservations about Reagan. Although Mathias often voted with the Reagan Administration on taxes, he often was at loggerheads with him, and in 1986 he voted against elevating William Rehnquist to chief justice. Mathias also continued to back socially liberal positions and was opposed to much of Reagan’s foreign policy. He also continued his civil rights advocacy and played a significant role in the passage of the extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 1982.

Although it initially looked like Mathias might run for reelection in 1986, he chose to retire, and Barbara Mikulski won the election to succeed him. His lifetime MC-Index score was a 23%. Although he remained a Republican until his dying day, in 2008, he endorsed Democrat Barack Obama in the presidential election. Two years later, Mathias died of Parkinson’s Disease. To this day, Mac Mathias is the last Republican to represent Maryland in the Senate.

References

1966 Civil Rights Act Dies in the Senate. CQ Almanac 1966. CQ Press.

Retrieved from

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal66-1301767

1973 ADA voting record. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

https://adaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1973.pdf

Borda, P.S. (2010, January 27). Sen. ‘Mac’ Mathias, statesman, leaves legacy in Frederick. The Frederick News-Post.

Retrieved from

https://www.fredericknewspost.com/archive/sen-mac-mathias-statesman-leaves-legacy-in-frederick/article_a1f47ee0-0a32-55e3-9aaa-fd79be82d924.html

Clymer, A. (2010, January 25). Charles Mathias, Former U.S. Senator, Dies at 87. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26mathias.html

Rowland, E. & Novak, R. (1971, December 5). Mathias: The New Goodell. The Washington Post, p. A2.

Rudin, K. (2010, January 26). Mac Mathias, GOP Senate Liberal From Maryland, Dies. NPR.

Retrieved from

https://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2010/01/mac_mathias_gop_senate_liberal.html

Solyst, J. (2023, January 31). Celebrating 40 years of science, restoration and partnership. Chesapeake Bay Program.

Retrieved from

https://www.chesapeakebay.net/news/blog/celebrating-40-years-of-science-restoration-and-partnership

On June 8, 2023, televangelist and political influencer Pat Robertson died at the age of 93. I am not covering his legacy today, but that of his father, Absalom Willis Robertson (1887-1971), a political actor in his own right.

Robertson, an attorney, started his political career in Virginia young, in 1915 being elected to the Virginia State Senate, getting elected at the same time as a major player in Byrd. There he would author the Robertson Road Act, providing $14 million to assist localities for road construction, and was okay with using some bonds to fund road construction (Heinemann). He was a man of deep religious faith, after all he was named after the third son of King David, Absalom (Hill). Robertson, who would go by A. Willis, would pass on this faith to his children, most notable of course being Marion Gordon “Pat” Robertson. Although Pat’s central figure of instruction was his mother, Gladys, who was even more Biblically focused than her husband (Epps). Robertson would move out of the legislature in 1924 to serve as Commonwealth Attorney for Rockbridge County and would serve until 1928.

Robertson Goes to Congress

In 1932, Willis Robertson is elected to Congress At-Large from Virginia in the Roosevelt landslide. His territorial district is the 7th, and this would be restored with the 1934 midterms. The 7th was not the most secure territory for Democrats, as Republican John Paul had briefly served in the 67th Congress and the 1928 landslide by Herbert Hoover brought into office Republican Jacob Garber for a single term. Robertson was initially a supporter of FDR’s New Deal, backing the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the National Industrial Recovery Act, but he would soon have major disagreements with Roosevelt, and in 1935 he voted against work relief and Social Security. Although Robertson often quoted the Bible, he was in truth foremost devoted to the Constitution according to his friend Senator John C. Stennis (D-Miss.), stating, “He almost worshiped the Constitution — and had a fine knowledge of it, too” (Epps).

Robertson in the Senate

Robertson, like most Virginia politicians, was part of the Byrd Organization, and after Carter Glass’ death in 1946, he competed against Congressman Howard W. Smith and former Congressman Colgate Darden for the seat. These men all being friends of Byrd, he maintained neutrality in the contest. The primary was challenging, but Robertson pulled ahead after Darden withdrew and his supporters went to him. Winning the primary in Virginia at the time was tantamount to election.

Although a conservative, Robertson is considerably more moderate than Byrd himself. Unlike the hyper cost-conscious Byrd, he joins most Democrats in voting for Greek-Turkish Aid and the Marshall Plan. He was, like Byrd, an opponent of the Fair Deal. Also, unlike him, Robertson maintains loyalty in backing the Democratic Party’s candidates nationally. He backed Truman in 1948 and while Byrd found himself unable to endorse Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956 on account of his liberalism, Robertson considered him a quality nominee and backed him whatever ideological differences existed. He also was far more devoted to his Senate duties than Byrd (he had a near perfect attendance record) and regularly studied legislation (Hill).

By the 1960s, Robertson is roughly equal to Harry Byrd in his conservatism but is independent of the Byrd Organization and is the chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee due to seniority. Although he publicly backs Byrd’s “Massive Resistance” policy to desegregation, he does so lukewarmly and has private reservations about its wisdom. This doesn’t mean that he slacks in his opposition to civil rights legislation nationally; on one occasion he dislocated his shoulder while gesticulating against a civil rights bill. Robertson also votes against the New Frontier and Great Society programs including LBJ’s “War on Poverty” and voted against its flagship legislation, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. He stated on the law, “Jesus said, ‘The poor ye shall always have with you'” (Epps). It is also no surprise given Robertson’s vote against Social Security that he voted against Medicare and Medicaid the following year. Robertson, among the many ways he crossed liberals, was in his opposition to financial disclosure statements from senators. But this was not out of fear that it would expose how wealthy he was, rather “He didn’t want anybody to know how poor he was because then they might run against him” (Epps).

The Lady Bird Whistle Stop – The End of a Career

Although Robertson is getting increasingly out of the times on his civil rights stances, it is a personal affront that most directly brings about his defeat. In 1965, Robertson was one of four Southern senators to snub Lady Bird Johnson in her traveling by train to Southern states to encourage support for civil rights legislation. This ticks off President Johnson, who sees an opportunity to end Robertson’s career. This wouldn’t have been possible in the last election as the Byrd Organization was a solid force, but in 1965 Byrd resigns due to his terminal brain cancer and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 dramatically increased voter participation of blacks and poor whites. Thus, Johnson recruits State Senator William B. Spong, a moderate, to run against Robertson in 1966. Spong criticizes a number of his conservative votes and him as being a man of the past. Robertson’s age doesn’t help as a few days before the primary election, Byrd, who was two weeks younger than him, slipped into a coma (Epps). Spong prevails in the primary by only 611 votes (Heinemann). His MC-Index score, which covers his entire career, is a 73% and his adjusted* ADA average score, covering 1947 to 1966, is a 14%. Robertson subsequently engaged in consulting work for the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. He maintained an active lifestyle and good health until his sudden death on November 1, 1971. Robertson’s legacy partially lived on in his son, who one friend would state, “spent 50 years as a professional politician, with an alert bright son who just absorbed piles of this stuff — and then the very strange, remote, religious mother. The result is almost what you’d get if you wrote that novel” (Epps).

* – Not counting unopinionated absences towards ideology.

References

Epps, G. (1986, October 19). Pat Robertson’s a Pastor, But his Father Was a Pol. The Washington Post.

Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1986/10/19/pat-robertsons-a-pastor-but-his-father-was-a-pol/2432e5e1-fe82-4ce4-8f24-aba67ad624b6/

Heinemann, R.L. A. Willis Robertson (1887-1971). Encyclopedia Virginia.

Retrieved from

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/robertson-a-willis-1887-1971/

Hill, R. Virginia’s Gentleman: Senator Willis Robertson. The Knoxville Focus.

Retrieved from

https://www.knoxfocus.com/archives/this-weeks-focus/virginias-gentleman-senator-willis-robertson/

If anyone remembers Senator Roman Lee Hruska (1904-1999), it is probably for an unflattering argument he made for Supreme Court nominee G. Harrold Carswell in 1970. Leading the advocacy for Carswell in the Senate, he held that he was being opposed for being a Southerner and went on to say, “Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they? We can’t have all Brandeises and Frankfurters and Cardozos” (Pearson). This was lampooned and there were even questions about whether there was an anti-Semitic tinge to it as all the justices he mentioned were Jewish. Hruska would not be the only senator to make an unfortunate argument for the allegedly mediocre Carswell, but his words stuck the most, both to Carswell and himself. This is unfortunate, as Hruska was a productive and accomplished legislator.

The 1952 Election: Congress

Hruska’s ascension to the national political scene coincided with Dwight Eisenhower’s, with him representing the 2nd district of Nebraska. However, he wouldn’t be there for long; in 1954, Senator Hugh Butler died of a stroke less than three months after Nebraska’s other senator, Dwight Griswold, had died of a heart attack. Although Samuel Reynolds was appointed to fill the Butler vacancy that year, he was merely a placeholder and it was Hruska who ran to complete the term. He was seated just in time to vote on Joseph McCarthy’s censure, which he voted against. Contrary to what Voteview and Govtrack report due to a data error, it was his colleague, placeholder Hazel Abel, who voted to censure McCarthy (UPI).

Hruska in the Senate

Hruska quickly established himself as a staunch conservative, but also a productive legislator and this got the positive attention of Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.). Hruska would become his best friend in the Senate and the main conservative he would turn to for advice and assistance in passing and opposing legislation. It also helped Hruska that he was a highly effective speaker and campaigner. He was even at one point considered as a possible leading public face for a conservative resurgence in the late 1950s, but Barry Goldwater was chosen by leading conservatives for this role as he was thought to be more telegenic (Hagel).

In 1957, he voted against the striking of 14th Amendment implementation from the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the jury trial amendment. Although Hruska was often opposed to Democratic proposals on foreign policy including repeatedly voting against foreign aid, Dirksen got him to vote for the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963.

In 1964, he served as one of the floor managers for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although he voted to strike Title VII (employment discrimination) from the legislation, Hruska voted to keep Title II (public accommodations) and he voted to end debate. His, along with Norris Cotton’s (R-N.H.) and Karl Mundt’s (R-S.D.) were won by an agreement than some Republican amendments would get a vote. The votes were held and rejected and Hruska voted for the bill.

In 1965, Hruska sponsored the constitutional amendment providing for a constitutional procedure for succession to the president. He also co-sponsored the Constitutional amendment giving citizens the vote at 18, and was a driving force behind legislation giving D.C. a delegate in Congress and establishing a federal criminal code. Hruska stood as a foe of what he regarded as excessive violence and pornography in media, and sponsored legislation to limit them (Honan).

When Everett Dirksen was elected minority leader in 1959, one of the key senators he turned to was Hruska. He helped get some conservatives on board with the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which Dirksen was pushing for. When Thomas Kuchel lost renomination in 1968, Dirksen wanted Hruska to be his whip, but Republican senators voted for the moderate Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania instead.
In 1969, Minority Leader Dirksen backed Hruska for minority whip, but the Republican vote came out for Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, a moderate. An unhappy Dirksen sidelined Scott as much as he could, but Dirksen died on September 7, 1969 of complications from lung cancer. Hruska became a candidate for minority leader, but dropped out to unify the conservative vote behind Dirksen’s son-in-law Howard Baker Jr. of Tennessee, who had won the support of Barry Goldwater of Arizona. However, Scott won the post with moderate conservative Robert P. Griffin of Michigan getting the whip post.

Hruska was, although to the right of Nixon, a loyal supporter of him and supported President Ford’s pardon of him, thinking it necessary for the nation to move on. In 1976, now a man of 72, he decided to retire from the Senate. Hruska’s record and reputation were staunchly conservative, averaging an adjusted (unopinionated absences don’t count against) 5% ADA score. Hruska also scored a 96% on the MC-Index. After the Senate, he practiced law, never fully retiring.

Hruska lived long enough to see Republicans gain the majority in Congress in 1994. He reflected that his favorite president to serve under was Nixon, stating, “I think he had a better understanding of domestic and foreign affairs than any other president when he entered the office” and credited him with transferring significant powers from the federal government to the states (Horning). Hruska died from complications of a fall on April 25, 1999 at the ripe old age of 94.

P.S.: Update on the MC-Index

I have altered the MC-Index slightly, now if there is a tie among the top ideologically extreme legislators per DW-Nominate on one pole, it will be the next one who decides the direction rather than the vote being excluded.

References

Censured McCarthy plans new investigation. (1954, December 2). UPI.

Retrieved from

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1954/12/02/Censured-McCarthy-plans-new-investigation/4424680116219/

Dirksen’s Death Prompts Leadership Race. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/parties-leadership/dirksen-death-leadership-race.htm

Honan, W.H. (1999, April 27). Roman L. Hruska Dies at 94; Leading Senate Conservative. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Horning, J. (1994, December 11). Former Republican lawmaker, 90, looks forward to GOP’s return. Tampa Bay Times.

Retrieved from

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1994/12/11/former-republican-lawmaker-90-looks-forward-to-gop-s-return/

Pearson, R. (1999, April 27). Sen. Roman Hruska Dies at 94. The Washington Post.

Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1999/04/27/sen-roman-hruska-dies-at-94/633188ba-989e-4236-ae21-d3c6517749b3/

The Senate: Showdown for Ev’s Chair (1969, September 26). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,844912,00.html

The Supreme Court: A Seat for Mediocrity? (1970, March 30). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,942208,00.html

Thone, C. (1999, April 26). Tribute to U.S. Senator Roman L. Hruska. Congressional Record, 10674-10676.

Retrieved from

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-1999-pt8/html/CRECB-1999-pt8-Pg10674-4.htm

Barack Obama, a True Underdog Story

As of writing, the latest polls have President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump leading among primary voters for the 2024 election. The primary voters, at least as of this moment, seem intent on having a rematch of 2020, which I’m sure will go off without a hitch. However, I, like many Americans, despair at the idea of us doing this again, so I think to the history of polling. I will not count incumbent presidents running again for recent history.

2000: Bush vs. McCain & Gore vs. Bradley

Neither Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) nor Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) really represented serious threats to Bush and Gore. Bradley was consistently behind in polling and didn’t win a single primary, although he came close in New Hampshire. McCain was a greater threat as he actually did win a few primaries, including a key one in New Hampshire, but he was consistently the underdog and he was done after the South Carolina primary. On a side note, this was the last Republican primary in which perennial candidate Harold Stassen, who had been governor of Minnesota in the 1940s and was now 93 years old, was even a thought. Two most conventional party primaries, it turns out, resulted in a most controversial election.

2004 – Kerry Rises Late

At around this time, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts was not the leading contender for the Democratic nomination. In August 2003, it was Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman leading for the nomination, with Kerry being in fourth. In September 2003, General Wesley Clark entered the race, causing a brief amount of enthusiasm for him with Kerry tied for third. After this enthusiasm, Governor Howard Dean of Vermont led for some time in the race, as late as January 2004 he was polling ahead of the others. However, after Kerry won the Iowa caucuses, his numbers surged and the primary race was over.

2008: The Insurgents Prevail

In June 2007, the leading Republican for the presidential nomination was Rudy Giuliani and the leading Democrat was Hillary Clinton. My, how times have changed! The first time a poll showed Obama tied with Clinton was in January 2008 (Whitesides). Not a single poll showed Obama in the lead against Clinton until Cook Political Strategies Poll in late January to early February 2008. Clinton regularly was posting double-digit leads against Obama in June of 2007. Giuliani was the favorite until December 2007, when Mike Huckabee began leading in polls and John McCain did not post a lead in a single poll until Pew Research’s conducted in December 19-30th 2007.

2012: Conventionality Prevails

In June 2011, Mitt Romney led in most polls and he did win the nomination. However, Newt Gingrich led in the majority of polling from October to December 2011 and Rick Santorum in February 2012 led in a minority of polls, but Romney was the favorite throughout. Again, my how times have changed!

2016: The Trump Train and the Independent Challenge for the Democrats

On June 16, 2015, Donald Trump announced his run for the Republican nomination for president, and in less than a month he came to consistently post leads in Republican polling, taking the lead in the fractured clown-car Republican primary from Jeb Bush. This was even before the first debate!
Hillary Clinton was the all-around favorite, although Bernie Sanders gave a spirited run and posted leads in a few polls between February and June 2016. Perhaps if he had switched from Independent to Democrat he could have done better.

2020: Again, Conventionality Prevails

Joe Biden was leading in June 2019, so no change there. He was frequently ahead in national polling and for the Republicans, former Congressman Joe Walsh and former Governor Bill Weld were unconvincing competition against Trump for renomination on the Republican side.

The 2024 Republican Primary: A Challenge for Insurgents, But Not Insurmountable

Looking at the polling history provides some hope for people who wish for the Republican Party to move on from Trump, but the weight of recent polling history does find that in more cases than not, the candidate who leads in polling at this point wins the primary. In June 2015, Trump had yet to lead the field, and the Democratic nominations of 2004 and the Republican and Democratic nominations of 2008 present precedents for a turnaround. There are, however, some different circumstances than usual. Trump is a challenge and the reason he is is because there hasn’t been a candidate to have as much of a sway over certain voters. Reagan was always more popular among the general public, and his base support was strong, but there is a part of the GOP base for which supporting Trump is a matter of religious zeal. He is for such people a flawed man “chosen by God”, you see, like monarchs of old were claimed to have been. However, there are a number of fundamentals that work strongly against his viability in a general election. He is aging, he has a complete lack of discipline (which contributes to his appeal among some), he is a slave to his own personal animosities, the indictments/investigations, and his political and to a bit of a lesser degree moral responsibility for January 6th. The only reason I thought Trump even had a chance in 2020 was that his base enthusiasm was higher than Biden’s.

The challenge for other Republican candidates is to convince the base that Trump’s time as an effective leader for their causes has passed, and for that Governor Ron DeSantis appears best positioned among the announced candidates at this time. I think the other Republicans must tread carefully regarding criticism of policies under Trump, especially ones in which the Republican Congress clearly voted for, and should portray themselves as the future while Trump is too focused on the past and on his personal animosities. Frankly, there is a mountain of evidence to present for the case against him running again, but will other candidates be able to present it effectively? And what’s more, will the base voters view issues as the endgame or Trump himself as the endgame? If its the former, insurgents stand a real chance of winning. If the latter, the primary is as good as Trump’s. Other Republicans cannot let Trump frame the debate, for if they do, the primary is, again, as good as his. Hillary Clinton made that mistake when dealing with Trump as instead of trying to make the case as to why her record as an insider produced results for the nation, she tried to hold that being a woman was in itself being an outsider, which I doubt was convincing to anyone who didn’t already support her. Again, I think DeSantis is best positioned at this time to pull this off.

As for the Democrats, the only person to present a challenge for Biden in any way so far has been Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a man who represents the conspiracist perspective from the left who would have absolutely zero consideration in this race if it were not for his father’s name.

References

2000 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

2000 Republican Party presidential primaries. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries

Jones, J.M. (2003, September 24). Clark Bolts to Front of the Democratic Field. Gallup.

Retrieved from

https://news.gallup.com/poll/9331/clark-bolts-front-democratic-field.aspx

Nationwide opinion polling for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

Nationwide opinion polling for the 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2008_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries

Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries

Opinion polling for the 2004 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2004_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

Poll shows Democratic race tightening. (2004, January 7). CNN.

Retrieved from

https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/elec04.prez.poll/index.html

Rothenberg, S. (2019, July 9). What we can learn from the 2004 presidential race. Roll Call.

Retrieved from

https://rollcall.com/2019/07/09/what-we-can-learn-from-the-2004-presidential-race/

Whitesides, J. (2008, January 16). Obama, Clinton tied in 2008 Democratic race. Reuters.

Retrieved from

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-poll-politics/obama-clinton-tied-in-2008-democratic-race-idUSN1554681020080116

On March 28, 1928, 75-year-old Senator Woodbridge Ferris of Michigan lost his battle with pneumonia. Although Ferris had been a Democrat, Michigan’s governor was Republican Fred Green, and thus he appointed Republican journalist Arthur Vandenberg (1884-1951) to succeed him.

Vandenberg was a hard worker, having worked since he was a child. He stated on his past, “I had no youth. I went to work when I was nine, and I never got a chance to enjoy myself” (Simkin). He became a journalist and had a reformist mindset as editor and publisher of the Grand Rapids Herald, being a strong supporter of Theodore Roosevelt and his form of progressive Republicanism during his presidency. However, when push came to shove and Roosevelt was running against Taft in 1912, Vandenberg chose party loyalty with Taft. His historical hero was Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, and in 1921 published The Greatest American: Alexander Hamilton as well as 1923’s If Hamilton Were Here Today: American Fundamentals Applied to Modern Problems. Vandenberg may have been the originator of “return to normalcy” which was picked up by Warren G. Harding’s campaign, but Vandenberg himself wasn’t sure he had written that.

Vandenberg proved conservative albeit independent-minded. This was most notable in his 1930 vote against the confirmation of John J. Parker to the Supreme Court over his negative comments on black voting participation, stating that the Republican Party “has no right to shut its eyes to the outraged sensibilities of 18 million colored persons. Our party was practically born with the 14th and 15th amendments” (Lauck). This vote would be a portend of the Republican-Southern Democrat alliance on many issues in the future and would put a dent in reelection efforts of Republican senators in states with high levels of black voting.

Vandenberg and the New Deal

Republicans differed a bit on how they reacted to the first New Deal. Some were die-hard opposed to it, others were quite supportive. Vandenberg leaned to the former position but was not uncompromising. He supported the Securities and Exchange Act in 1934 and supported increased taxation in 1934 to fund New Deal programs as well as Social Security in 1935. However, Vandenberg also voted against the meat of the First New Deal in the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the National Industrial Recovery Act. In 1936, Vandenberg proposed to turn the administration of work relief over to the states, which on the surface looks like a contradiction to his staunch support of Alexander Hamilton, known for his support of centralized authority. However, Vandenberg saw the New Deal overall as standing opposed to business, and Hamilton was a supporter of business interests. Interestingly, Vandenberg’s proposal was universally opposed by Southern legislators as federal control saved the Southern states money while it imposed higher costs on other sectors of the nation, including New England (The New York Times). He also voted against the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 and sided with Roosevelt in his veto of the Patman Bonus Bill.

Vandenberg’s journalistic experience was useful in the employing of rhetoric against the New Deal, calling it the “New Ordeal” and FDR became “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Park” (FDR’s New York home was in Hyde Park) (Nordlinger). Although he was thrice speculated as a possibility for running for president, in 1936, 1940, and 1948, he was never even a top contender for the Republican nomination.

Building the Conservative Coalition

In 1937, a bipartisan group of senators drafted a ten-point document to try to push FDR to pull back on the New Deal. This was called the Conservative Manifesto, and ultimately it was seen as, and not unfairly, a critique of the New Deal. Many senators were hesitant to speak up about their contributions to it, so Democrat Josiah Bailey of North Carolina, who had been a principal author with Vandenberg, admitted to it. Bailey had been sure to win reelection in 1936 before making his increasing opposition to Roosevelt’s domestic policies clear. Vandenberg was a key figure on the Republican side of the aisle to New Deal opposition, and the Conservative Coalition would become an effective force with the 1938 midterms.

Personal Life

Senator Vandenberg had an interesting personal life to say the least. His first wife had died young, and he cheated on his second wife with Mitzi Sims, the wife of a British diplomat, who may or may not have been a British agent influencing his views on foreign policy. Vandenberg’s son, Vandenberg Jr., who worked on his campaigns as an administrative assistant and would play significant roles in the Eisenhower campaign in 1952, was a homosexual and this would preclude him from a position in the Eisenhower Administration as he couldn’t pass a security clearance.

Vandenberg and Foreign Policy

Although Vandenberg had at one time been a Theodore Roosevelt war hawk, his view on the conflict had changed by the 1930s to the belief that the United States had been misled into war by the greed of big banks and arms merchants, condemning “a war system that has crucified this world for a thousand years” (Kirchick). Such was also the view of North Dakota’s Republican Senator Gerald Nye, who chaired the Nye Committee from 1934 to 1936, investigating the causes of World War I. Vandenberg sat on this committee and would become one of the leading opponents of FDR’s foreign policy, voting against repealing the arms embargo in 1939, against the peacetime draft, and against Lend-Lease. He would speak before the America First Committee. Vandenberg did, however, support aid to Finland to repel the USSR’s invasion. His goals were to stop “international emotionalism” and “appetites which love commerce in spite of casualties” from holding sway over U.S. foreign policy (Kirchick).

The Speech Heard Around the World and Building Post-War Foreign Policy Consensus

Although Senator Vandenberg had in truth changed his mind about the direction of foreign policy after the attack on Pearl Harbor and had demonstrated this as he had voted against Chapman Revercomb’s (R-W.V.) 1943 proposal to require treaties for membership in international organizations and had voted for American participation in the UN Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, Vandenberg made history with his speech on January 10, 1945 in which he made his switch from non-interventionist to internationalist official. He held that “I have always been frankly one of those who has believed in our own self-reliance” but went on to say, “I do not believe that any nation hereafter can immunize itself by its own exclusive action…Our oceans have ceased to be moats which automatically protect our ramparts” (Kirchick). He expressed strong support for the creation of the United Nations as a means to prevent World War III. Vandenberg stated, “If World War III ever unhappily arrives; it will open new laboratories of death too horrible to contemplate. I propose to do everything within my power to keep those laboratories closed for keeps. I want maximum American cooperation, consistent with legitimate American self-interest, with constitutional process and with collateral events which warrant it, to make the basic idea of Dumbarton Oaks succeed. I want a new dignity and a new authority for international law” (Vandenberg, 603). U.S. membership in the United Nations would later pass on a vote of 89-2.

Vandenberg’s foreign policy was now dedicated to upholding collective security internationally through the United Nations. He famously declared that “we must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge” (Kirchick). As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee during the 80th Congress, Vandenberg succeeded in winning a majority of Republicans to support the Greek-Turkish Act, the Marshall Plan, and the Vandenberg Resolution (which led to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to counter the USSR). In that Republican Congress, he led the way on foreign policy while Robert Taft of Ohio led on domestic policy, with Majority Leader Wallace White of Maine being a figurehead. In the following Congress, he led the way to ratifying the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. However, Vandenberg’s declaration was, if not in the short-term, in the long-term an unrealistic prescription. This would be demonstrated as early as 1950 when only eight of Vandenberg’s fellow internationalist Senate Republicans voted for Point IV foreign aid to developing nations, a proposal supported by him and only passed by one vote. He had also been critical in convincing a significant minority of Republicans to overcome opposition to former Tennessee Valley Authority director David Lilienthal led by the powerful Kenneth McKellar (D-Tenn.), who had repeatedly clashed with him on patronage.

Vandenberg and Civil Rights

Senator Vandenberg was a supporter of civil rights legislation, supporting banning the poll tax and a voluntary Fair Employment Practices Committee. He saw himself as someone to uphold the tradition of Lincoln. His concern for the matter he expressed in his belief against factionalism, writing, “Faction takes the law into its own hands and lynches negroes” (Nordlinger).

The End

Although Vandenberg was riding high from his crafting of a bipartisan foreign policy, not all was well with his health. He was a frequent smoker of cigars to the point that a cigar hanging out of his mouth became a trademark look and this caught up with him when in 1949, he was diagnosed with lung cancer. Vandenberg had an operation for it in October, but the cancer ultimately spread to his spine. His presence in the Senate was increasingly limited and he died on April 18, 1951. The liberal lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action, which evaluated his record from 1947 to 1950, scored him an adjusted (meaning unopinionated absences don’t count for or against the legislator) 40, 40, 8, and 50 respectively. Although Vandenberg was gone, a protege had already been elected to Congress who would make it to the presidency: Gerald Ford in 1948 had defeated incumbent Congressman Bartel Jonkman in the Republican primary on an internationalist platform. In 2000, Vandenberg was granted an honor that only six other senators have: his portrait was hung up in the Senate Reception Room as among the greatest senators.

References

A Report Card for 80th Congress. (1947). Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

https://adaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1947.pdf

ADA World Congressional Supplement (1949, October). Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

https://adaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1949.pdf

ADA World Congressional Supplement (1950, September). Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

https://adaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1950.pdf

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

Retrieved from

https://adaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1948.pdf

Kirchick, J. (2018, February 18). How America First Senator Arthur Vandenberg Became a Globalist Hero. The Daily Beast.

Retrieved from

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-america-first-senator-arthur-vandenberg-became-a-globalist-hero

Lauck, J.K. (2018, April 22). Vandenberg in Full: Babbitt No More. The University Bookman.

Retrieved from

https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/vandenberg-in-full-babbitt-no-more/

Least Relief Costs Paid By the South; Federal Contributions Were 98.1 of Total in South Carolina, Large in Other Cities. Ratio in New York 54.2%, New England Paid About Half, Delaware More Than Half – Vandenberg Asks for Formula. (1936, January 31). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Nordlinger, J. (2017, December 7). A Senator’s Journey – Notes on Arthur Vandenberg, Part II. National Review.

Retrieved from

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/12/notes-arthur-vandenberg-michigan-republican-part-ii/

Simkin, J. Arthur Vandenberg. Spartacus Educational.

Retrieved from

https://spartacus-educational.com/USAvandenbergA.htm

Vandenberg, A.H. (1945, January 10). American Foreign Policy. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

Click to access VandenbergSpeech.pdf