Although the two-party system is pretty well cemented in, there have been lawmakers elected from third parties. We currently have three senators who identify as “Independents” even though they caucus with the Democrats. In 2020, Libertarians got a win of sorts when they got their first representative in Justin Amash, who switched from Republican to Independent to Libertarian. However, this was short-lived as he did not run for reelection in 2020. A party that did better was the Prohibition Party, who got Charles Randall (1865-1951) of Los Angeles into Congress for six years.
The 1914 Midterms
Randall had first been elected to public office in 1910 when he won a seat in the state Assembly for a term, and normally he wouldn’t have secured election to Congress, but the Taft-Roosevelt split was still going on in the GOP, and in Los Angeles this produced a four-way race: Charles W. Bell, the Bull Moose incumbent, Randall the Prohibitionist, the regular Republican candidate, and the Socialist candidate. Randall won the election by less than a point. I suppose such elections are the dream for those who wish for political systems closer to that of most of Europe’s legislatures.
Randall’s record in Congress was, on major issues, overall liberal as was its party platform. He opposed Republican efforts at building up the army to prepare for war, supported the Adamson Act, opposed the use of stopwatches to measure efficiency in work, and supported an excess profits tax. In addition to standing for Prohibition he also stood for women’s suffrage, the latter a popular stance in California, its Republican Party having endorsed women’s suffrage in 1894 and its voters having extended suffrage to women in 1911. Randall did prove sufficiently popular to win reelection in 1916, a race in which all candidates were third party! Bell was now running for his seat back as an Independent and there was a Socialist in the running too. However, the coalition he had was strong. As the San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram (1916) reported, “he has the unanimous endorsement of progressives and democrats”. To some people, perhaps except the Prohibitionist part, this is, again, the dream. In 1918 and 1920, he was listed on the ballot as “Prohibition/Democratic”.
Although the Prohibition Party ultimately did attain the goal of Prohibition nationally from 1920 to 1933, the enactment of Prohibition didn’t help Randall, as the 1920 election saw a Republican wave that swept him away. Randall’s DW-Nominate score was a 0.026, which seems a bit higher than his stances on major ideological issues would indicate. He almost immediately got a chance to win back his seat as the winner of the election, Charles F. Van de Water, was killed in an auto accident only 18 days after the election. However, the political climate hadn’t changed by February 1921, and he lost by 20 points. Randall attempted to win back his seat in 1922, 1924, and 1926 as well, in the 1924 contest outright running as a Democrat. In 1924, Randall was briefly the vice-presidential candidate for the American Party, a Ku Klux Klan sponsored party, but he dropped out to focus on his Congressional race (Los Angeles Times, 1924). Randall had a bit of a second life in California politics when he won a seat on the Los Angeles City Council in 1925. Although he faced a recall election the next year, he survived it and in 1931 he was elected president of the Los Angeles City Council, holding the post for two years. During this time, Randall initially favored an appeal on a court ruling against segregated swimming pools but switched to opposing after a black politician successfully argued against it to him (Los Angeles Times, 1931). In 1934, Randall tried one more time to get back into Congress, this time as a member of the second Progressive Party. Believe it or not, the Prohibition Party still exists today. You don’t really hear from them, but they are the oldest standing third party in the United States.
References
Angeleno Quits Race for Vice-President. (1924, August 22). Los Angeles Times, 13.
John A. Sterling (R-Ill.), Republican advocate of worker’s compensation.
Although worker’s compensation is often considered a progressive advancement as it is a benefit to workers, the debate surrounding a worker’s compensation measure in 1913 as well as the debate surrounding it paint a different picture. The bill in question, S. 5382, if enacted would grant an exclusive remedy and compensation for accidental injuries resulting in disability or death to employees of railroad companies engaged in interstate or foreign commerce and for the District of Columbia. On its face, it looks like a progressive measure and that it provides evidence for Republicans being the progressive party of the time. The House vote was 218-81, with 100 Democrats, 116 Republicans, 1 Progressive Republican, and 1 Socialist voting for, while 79 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against. However, when we look into the debate surrounding the legislation, the political contours appear different. A champion of the legislation, John A. Sterling (R-Ill.), praised it thusly, “This bill is in harmony with the spirit of the age and enlightened civilization. It lifts the burden of industrial accidents from the shoulders of those least able to carry it and places it where it belongs. Why should the injured man or his family bear all the loss incident to accidents in the operation of these great quasi public enterprises. Railroads are operated for the benefit of society, and society should bear the burden imposed by them…Not only are the railroad men of the country demanding it but humanity requires it…It is intended to give prompt and adequate relief to the injured man in the hour of his need and to his widow and children in case of his death. It is in harmony with Christian civilization, and its adoption is imperative if our Government is to keep step with the onward march of progress. These new industrial conditions which have sprung up in the last half century have necessitated this revolution in legislation pertaining to this subject. The old laws should be abrogated, because our civilization has outgrown them. The time has come when we must strip ourselves of laws which, although good in their day, are now holly inadequate to meet the new conditions” (Congressional Record, 4481).
However, John Floyd (D-Ark.) was not having it, “The distinguished gentleman from Illinois who has just closed his remarks says that it is the most generous compensation act ever proposed in a legislative body. Yes; for the railroads, but it is the most outrageous, unjust, and damnable law that was ever brought forward in the name of virtue. It is the favorite method of those who seek to procure the enactment of bad legislation to seize upon and champion some popular idea or sentiment and then accomplish their ulterior purpose by indirection. That is what is sought by this legislation. This legislation originated with the claim agents of the great railroad systems of this country as disclosed in the hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary of the House” (Congressional Record, 4481).
Robert Henry (D-Tex.) also opposed this bill as limiting worker’s rights, “For 10 years we endeavored to pass the employers’ liability bill, abolishing the barbaric doctrine of assumed risk, contributory negligence, and the doctrine of fellow servant. And no sooner had we abolished them and established that law than the railroads began the crusade to repeal it; and to-night they come into this Congress, in the closing hours, and endeavor to repeal that act and shut the courthouse doors of every State in this Union against these litigants. If you give the litigant the right to elect his remedy and go into court and assert his remedy, if he sees proper, I will vote for the bill. Let the courthouse doors be open so that the litigant may assert his right in the courts” (Congressional Record, 4502).
There were those, however, who thought this was a step in the right direction despite its accused benefits to railroads and limitation to possible remedies. Rep. David J. Lewis (D-Md.), a former member of the Socialist Party who would later in life be a staunch New Dealer and prime crafter of the Social Security Act, embraced the bill, stating, “Mr. Speaker, in the coming year 90,000 men are to be injured on our railroads and 10,000 killed. That is as much to be expected as the orderly operation of the planets themselves. Under existing law less than one-third of these victims will receive some $15,000,000, certainly not more than $20,000,000 with their lawyers to pay. Under the bill that is presented to the House to-night all the victims will be compensated and that sum will be lifted to from $48,000,000 to $60,000,000 as compensation to the victims of industry” (Congressional Record, 4502).
However, Adolph J. Sabath (D-Ill.), who would serve as a staunch liberal until his death in 1952 and would be a strong New Deal supporter, had this to say about the legislation, “Mr. Speaker, in the short space of time allotted to me all I can hurriedly say is this: I am heart and soul in favor of a workmen’s compensation bill which will provide for compensation to employees that are injured or killed; in fact, the first workmen’s compensation bill considered by this House was introduced by me during the first session of the Sixtieth Congress, nearly six years ago. Since that time I have devoted a great deal of time and have expended large sums of money in an effort to acquaint the people with the principle underlying workmen’s compensation and in endeavoring to convince them of the merits of this legislation. Therefore I regret exceedingly that after struggling for six years to secure workmen’s compensation I can not cast my vote for the bill which is now before the House, for it is a compensation bill in name only; it should rightfully be called the “Railroad relief measure.” Nearly every section is so drafted as to be in the interest of the railroads. It provides that this shall be the exclusive remedy that employees shall have and takes away from them their present statutory and common-law rights. Since the very beginning of my fight for workmen’s compensation I have contended that such legislation should not deprive the injured employees of any rights which they now enjoy, but should give them additional protection…” (Congressional Record, 4503).
For another matter of interest, let’s look at some figures who served in Congress during the Roosevelt Administration and voted on this proposal:
Carl Hayden (D-Ariz.) – Nay – New Deal supporter in the Senate. William B. Cravens (D-Ark.) – Nay – New Deal supporter. John A. Martin (D-Colo.) – Yea – New Deal supporter in the House. Adolph J. Sabath (D-Ill.) – Nay Henry Rainey (D-Ill.) – Nay – Speaker of the House who shepherded FDR’s First 100 Days legislation. Finly Gray (D-Ind.) – Yea – Largely supportive of the New Deal. David J. Lewis (D-Md.) – Yea James Curley (D-Mass.) – Yea – Overall moderately liberal. Pat Harrison (D-Miss.) – Nay – A staunch supporter of the New Deal during FDR’s first term, but in his second term he started calling for tax and budget reductions. Hubert Stephens (D-Miss.) – Nay – Although a progressive, his reception to the New Deal was considered lukewarm and he lost renomination to the Senate in 1934. Clement Dickinson (D-Mo.) – Nay – New Deal supporter. George Norris (R-Neb.) – Yea – New Deal supporter, left the GOP in 1936. Edward Pou (D-N.C.) – Nay – New Deal supporter for his last year in office. Robert Doughton (D-N.C.) – Nay – House sponsor of Social Security, but he became considerably more right-wing in the 1940s. William Ashbrook (D-Ohio) – Yea – Never the most liberal of Democrats, Ashbrook would turn sharply against the New Deal during FDR’s second term. He was also the father of ultra-conservative Republican Congressman John Ashbrook. Robert Bulkley (D-Ohio) – Yea – Independent in voting, a sometimes supporter of the New Deal as a senator. Benjamin Focht (R-Penn.) – Yea – A moderately conservative to conservative legislator who backed a few New Deal measures. James F. Byrnes (D-S.C.) – Nay – One of the Senate’s foremost champions of the first New Deal and essentially assistant president on domestic issues during World War II. He would after his time in the Roosevelt Administration shift to the right and backed Republican candidates for president from 1952 onwards. Kenneth McKellar (D-Tenn.) – Yea – A progressive who shifted a bit to the right during the 1940s, and although he was a consistent supporter of the Tennessee Valley Authority, he feuded with its head, David Lilienthal. Carter Glass (D-Va.) – Paired for. – A senator by the time of the New Deal, Glass was, along with Thomas P. Gore (D-Okla.), among the most hostile of Senate Democrats to FDR’s New Deal.
Ultimately, the problems the detractors of this legislation, who were of the left in Congress at the time, involved not worker’s compensation as a concept, rather that there was an “exclusive remedy”, this being viewed as favorable to railroads. It was, but streamlining the process for workers and setting up an automatic system was seen as a benefit for them as well. This is why this measure got the support of some who would champion the New Deal later, like Lewis. While there were divisions among the left in Congress over this, there were no significant ones among the Republicans. Figures that no historian disputes were conservative were voting for this, such as former Speaker of the House Joe Cannon (R-Ill.). John A. Sterling himself scores a 0.469 by DW-Nominate.
Theodore Roosevelt is a figure who can be cited for what I call the “party switch narrative”. After all, he is strongly associated with the Progressive movement that swept the Unted States in the early 20th century, and many Democrats as of late have preferred to use the label “progressive” as opposed to “liberal” and many of their opponents have gone along with this, myself admittedly included. However, this may give people the idea that the Democrats of now are the natural successors of Theodore Roosevelt. Oh, how we play with language! To be fair, the 1912 Progressive Party did have numerous figures associated with it who would later translate their support into support for New Deal liberalism. Perhaps the most prominent example is Harold Ickes, a Progressive who would later serve as FDR’s Interior Secretary and director of the Public Works Administration. I write this to point out that this narrative isn’t conjured out of thin air, but I find the notion that being part of the Progressive Party translates into New Dealism and modern-day liberalism to be deeply flawed.
The 1912 election was one of those that defied the typical two-party formulation we know of in American politics, and this was only possible because the leader of the third party himself had been a popular president: Theodore Roosevelt. His handpicked successor, William Howard Taft, had turned out to be more conservative than he expected. Tariff reform of the record-high Dingley Tariff under him had only produced a net 5% reduction on tariffs, as he had given in to conservative Republican leaders in getting a weak reduction bill through in the Aldrich-Payne Tariff. There was also the controversy Taft had gotten into when he had sided with his Interior Secretary Richard Ballinger over U.S. Forest Service chief Gifford Pinchot, an ardent conservationist. Pinchot had accused Ballinger of acting illegally to aid a former client of his, and although Ballinger was eventually exonerated of illegality, it was established that Ballinger was anti-conservation, and this contributed to the conservative-progressive split in the GOP in which the conservatives in the GOP sided with Taft and the progressives sided with Pinchot.
To know what to make of it, let’s use first a primary source, namely the Progressive Party platform! This platform was largely written by Progressive reformer Charles McCarthy. From here on out any quotes regarding the Democratic, Progressive, and Republican party platforms will be, unless otherwise specified, sourced from the respective platforms themselves, the links for which will be in References.
On Business:
The Progressive Party supported a “strong National regulation of inter-State corporations”. For the latter, the Progressive Party platform clarifies, “The concentration of modern business, in some degree, is both inevitable and necessary for national and international business efficiency. But the existing concentration of vast wealth under a corporate system, unguarded and uncontrolled by the Nation, has placed in the hands of a few men enormous, secret, irresponsible power over the daily life of the citizen — a power insufferable in a free Government and certain of abuse”.
. The Progressive Party stood for strong regulation of interstate corporations through a federal commission, namely creating a sort of Interstate Commerce Commission for them. This was, interestingly, a conservative substitute from Theodore Roosevelt, who had removed a strong provision for “trust busting”, which critics attributed to the influence of key financial backer George Walbridge Perkins, a director of U.S. Steel.
. Such “constructive regulation”, as the Progressive Party platform called it, “legitimate business” was intended to thrive as it would not be subject to “fruitless litigation”. The Progressive Party was seeking to, in its own way, to make doing business in the United States easier through curbing monopolies.
. Stood for strengthening the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890.
. Stood for the federal government cooperating with business to help them expand their global reach, citing Germany as an example of the success of this approach. The GOP during the Harding and Coolidge Administrations sought to do this by giving favorable tax treatment to American businesses in China.
On Tariffs:
“We believe in a protective tariff which shall equalize conditions of competition between the United States and foreign countries, both for the farmer and the manufacturer, and which shall maintain for labor an adequate standard of living”.
“We condemn the Aldrich-Payne bill as unjust to the people.”
The Progressive Party on Labor
. Occupational safety laws, including “minimum safety and health standards”. . Prohibiting child labor (a popular position with the regular GOP as well, a regional rather than a left-right one as evidenced by the vote on the Keating-Owen Act in 1916). . Requiring one day off a week for wage workers. . An eight-hour day in continuous 24-hour industries and for women and young people. . A minimum wage for women. . A “livable wage” in all industrial occupations. . The abolition of the convict contract labor system (directed at the South). . Worker’s compensation.
Interestingly, worker’s compensation was also a concept supported by GOP conservatives…it is a way to streamline injury claims that would otherwise be separate lawsuits. Thus, there were some Democrats who opposed this as they believed that a worker ought to be able to file their own suit for injury, with potentially greater damages for companies.
These explicit endorsements of labor laws were not present in the Republican or Democratic Party platforms. Both Democrats and Progressives, however, opposed how the courts were treating unions.
The Progressive Party on Healthcare
. The Progressive Party stood for consolidating all existing agencies addressing public health into a single national health service. This could be seen as an efficiency measure.
On Conservation
“The natural resources of the Nation must be promptly developed and generously used to supply the people’s needs, but we cannot safely allow them to be wasted, exploited, monopolized, or controlled against the general good. We heartily favor the policy of conservation, and we pledge our party to protect the National forests without hindering their legitimate use for the benefit of all the people. Agricultural lands in the National forests are, and should remain, open to the genuine settler. Conservation will not regard legitimate development. The honest settler must receive his patent promptly, without hindrance, rules or delays.
We believe that the remaining forests, coal and oil lands, water powers and other natural resources still in State or National control (except agricultural lands) are more likely to be wisely conserved and utilized for the general welfare if held in the public hands”.
Their conservation stance seems rather moderate and nuanced compared to the environmentalism that ideologically developed in the 1960s and 1970s. The Progressive Party’s concerns revolve around lands being of use to people, or we might now say, they are anthropocentric. Old conservationism didn’t consist of rigid restrictions on development, rather emphasizing a wise use of resources. Whether this would translate to support for the Republican position of today of allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is unknowable, as the Progressive Party never contended with the modern environmentalism. If their anthropocentric perspective were to prove unmovable, then I suspect they would back the modern GOP position.
Currency
. Opposed the Aldrich currency bill on the grounds that “its provisions would place our currency and credit system in private hands, not subject to effective public control”.
On Taxation
The Progressive Party favored the adoption of a graduated inheritance tax as well as ratifying the income tax. The former stance is undoubtedly against modern GOP orthodoxy (which labels it the “death tax”) and the latter, although its adoption is bemoaned by hardliners, I think the reality is realized by most that the income tax is here to stay in some form.
On Immigration
“We denounce the fatal policy of indifference and neglect which has left our enormous immigrant population to become the prey of chance and cupidity.
We favor Governmental action to encourage the distribution of immigrants away from the congested cities, to rigidly supervise all private agencies dealing with them and to promote their assimilation, education and advancement”.
Although one cannot be precisely sure of where the Progressive Party would stand today on immigration, it is worth pointing out that their focus on assimilation is certainly against the identitarian mindsets that exist in the modern-day American left. What’s more, Progressive Party members of Congress were in favor of immigration restriction legislation, undoubtedly against the modern liberal position. However, it must be noted that immigration restriction was an issue that was backed by numerous labor unions at the time, including Samuel Gompers’ American Federation of Labor.
On Government Efficiency:
“We pledge our party to readjustment of the business methods of the National Government and a proper co-ordination of the Federal bureaus, which will increase the economy and efficiency of the Government service, prevent duplications, and secure better results to the taxpayer for every dollar expended”. Interestingly, both the Republican and Democratic platforms also pledge to make the government more efficient. So, this platform is rather difficult to judge as “liberal” or “conservative”.
Direct Democracy:
The Progressive Party platform called for the adoption of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Some states adopted some of these direct democracy measures. 20 of 50 states have a form of recall. Neither the Democratic nor Republican platforms mention these direct democracy measures.
Some other notes:
. All parties state their opposition, at least in theory, to monopolies, thus this can’t really be considered a left-right issue, rather how to go about addressing monopolies is a left-right issue. The GOP platform asserts, to the disagreements of the Democratic and Progressive platforms, that it has “consistently and successfully enforced” the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (regulating railroads) and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. The Democrats criticized the Republicans for embracing a “judicial construction” of anti-trust law, relying on courts to make rulings rather than setting hard and fast rules by the Federal government. Federal courts at the time, with many Republican appointees, had reputations of being favorable to business. Thus, management of trusts by courts is the “right” position. Ironically, Taft busted more trusts than Theodore Roosevelt through the judicial approach condemned by progressives.
. The Democratic and Progressive Party platforms endorse the income tax amendment while the GOP platform is silent on the matter.
. The Democratic and Progressive Party platforms condemn the Aldrich currency bill, which would in a modified form (namely partially private and partially public as opposed to entirely private) become the Federal Reserve under Wilson. while the GOP platform is again silent on the matter. The GOP platform’s framers may be aware of the unpopularity of specifics on Taft policy, and thus their platform language is vague.
. The clearest marker of polarization in this period is the tariff. The GOP enthusiastically embraces the protective tariff, the Democratic Party is opposed to the protective tariff, while the Progressive Party is, although supportive of the protective tariff, wanting to revise tariffs lower than the GOP. The GOP clearly regards the protective tariff as good for business, holding, “We condemn the Democratic tariff bills passed by the House of Representatives of the Sixty-second Congress as sectional, as injurious to the public credit, and as destructive to business enterprise”. However, the GOP platform doesn’t outright state support for the Payne-Aldrich bill, a measure that Taft himself had strongly defended. This was yet another example of vague platform language. The Democratic Party on the other hand asserts regarding the protective tariff that “the high Republican tariff is the principal cause of the unequal distribution of wealth; it is a system of taxation which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer [that aphorism in American politics actually goes back to Andrew Jackson]; under its operations the American farmer and laboring man are the chief sufferers; it raises the cost of the necessaries of life to them, but does not protect their product or wages.”
. The Progressive Party seems to be considerably more imaginative and innovative in policy proposals than the Republican and Democratic parties of the day, and some of its proposals will become part of FDR’s New Deal. Although not as to the left as the Democrats, the Progressive Party was more forward-thinking while the Democratic platform comes off as more focused on the issues of the present.
The Progressive Party won six states in the 1912 election: California, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington. Roosevelt won more states and more votes than the Republican nominee, William Howard Taft, who only won Utah and Vermont. The Progressive split gives Taft the dreadful distinction for the flimsiest election performance of an incumbent president in American history. The Progressive Party also wasn’t just a Roosevelt vehicle, as it elected people to Congress too! In the 63rd and 64th Congresses, the following members were of the Progressive Party, and I have included their DW-Nominate scores:
. Charles Bell, Calif. – 0.32 . William Stephens, Calif. – 0.349 . James W. Bryan, Wash. – 0.189 . Jacob Falconer, Wash. – 0.213 . Ira Copley, Ill. – 0.329 – Ran for reelection in 1914 as a Progressive, but in 1916 was reelected as a Republican. . William Hinebaugh, Ill. – 0.328 . Charles Thomson, Ill. – 0.285 . Whitmell Martin, La. – -0.132 – Served as a Progressive from 1915 to 1919, and as a Democrat from 1919 until his death in 1929. Martin was more favorable to tariffs than the usual Democrat, and part of this is him representing a Louisiana district, and Louisiana was one of the most favorable Democratic states to tariffs, as the sugar industry was powerful and favored high sugar tariffs. Martin is the only Progressive representative to switch to the Democratic Party. . William J. MacDonald, Mich. – 0.212 . Roy Woodruff, Mich. – 0.348 – Woodruff served one term as a Progressive from 1913 to 1915, and then as a Republican from 1921 to 1953. In the latter period, he started as a moderate and backed numerous measures of the first New Deal. However, by FDR’s second term, he had firmly shifted to ultra-conservatism. This included opposing the Fair Labor Standards Act and scoring quite badly by Americans for Democratic Action standards from 1947 to 1952. . Thomas Schall, Minn. – 0.321 – Schall would be one of the legislators in the 65th Congress responsible for allowing Democrats to retain a House majority. He would in the 1918 election switch back to the GOP. Later on, as a senator, he would be harsh critic of FDR until he was accidentally run over in 1935. Another thing of note about Schall was that he was blind. . Walter M. Chandler, N.Y. – 0.305 – Chandler would serve from 1913 to 1919 and from 1921 to 1923. He would run for reelection as a Republican in 1916 given that the Progressive Party shuttered. Chandler would support much of conservative President Warren Harding’s agenda in his final term. . Willis Hulings, Penn. – 0.29 . Henry M. Temple, Penn. – 0.427 – Temple would only be a Progressive in his first term in Congress, subsequently serving as a Republican, and a conservative one at that. . Miles Poindexter, Wash. – 0.199 – Poindexter was the only Progressive Party senator. Interestingly, he would move sharply to the right later in his Senate career. . James W. Bryan, Wash. – 0.189
The remaining Progressive Party members by the 65th Congress were notably critical for the Democrats maintaining control of the House, as three Progressives and one Socialist opted to caucus with the Democrats rather than allow Republicans, who had a plurality, to gain control. The figures on the Progressive Party legislators suggest that although the Progressive Party was of course to the left of the GOP, it was politically a bit of a mixed bag. The 1912 cartoon below illustrates a common perception of Theodore Roosevelt’s approach:
The political paths of men such as Miles Poindexter, Walter Chandler, Henry Temple, and most notably of all Roy Woodruff as he served during the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations, hardly speak of a radical philosophy, despite what regular Republicans tried to portray in the 1912 election. Its exterior as a party comes off as more progressive than its interior. Other figures who once identified as Progressives included Hamilton Fish III of New York (a staunch FDR critic) and most shockingly of all, Clare Hoffman of Michigan. Hoffman had run for district attorney on the Progressive Party in 1912, and his ideology during his time in Congress from 1935 to 1963 can be described as nothing short of extremely conservative. In some ways, the Progressives are in the middle between the Republicans and Democrats. They accept the protective tariff as opposed to “tariff for revenue only” but oppose how far the GOP has taken it. The protective tariff, as I previously noted, is the policy that Democrats in their platform blame for economic inequality. Indeed, it is underappreciated in modern day how much the tariff was thought of as a fundamental class issue then. And the protective tariff was as much of a cornerstone of GOP policy in that day as income tax reductions have been since 1981.
References
1912 Democratic Party Platform. The American Presidency Project.
Three presidents have been impeached in American history and none have been convicted: Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump. New York has by contrast only had one governor impeached, but he was also convicted and thus removed from office. This was William Sulzer (1863-1941), who lasted only nine months as governor. His start in politics was campaigning for Tammany Hall machine candidates in 1884. Gradually making his way up in the organization through his loyalty to boss Richard Croker, he was elected to the State Assembly in 1889. In 1893, Croker got him chosen as speaker of the Assembly, only thirty years old. He was loyal to boss Richard Croker, and this loyalty paid off with his election to the New York State Assembly, where he was selected to be speaker in 1893. This would propel him to Congress, being elected in 1894. Sulzer was a reform-minded representative who opposed imperialism, supported the cause of the Boers in the Boer War, and supported the eight-hour workday. For his man of the people approach he became known as “Plain Bill”. Although thought of as progressive, Sulzer’s record seems by DW-Nominate to be to the right of many of his Democratic colleagues at the time at a -0.222. Sulzer remained for some time in the House, and although in his final session of Congress he was chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, his true ambition was to be governor. This was stalled as Croker’s successor, Charles F. “Silent Charlie” Murphy, repeatedly passed him over for the gubernatorial nomination for people he thought of as more reliable. Finally, Sulzer got the nod in 1912 and received the support of Woodrow Wilson and many other progressive-minded figures, winning a resounding victory.
Although Tammany expected loyalty from Sulzer, he had higher ambitions in mind than politics in New York. He wanted to be the president. As New York Assembly chaplain James T. Kirk, who investigated the Sulzer case said, “A clairvoyant told him at an early age that he was going to be speaker of the Assembly, he would then be governor, and then he was going to be president…That became a central driving force in his life” (Mahoney). Well, two for three isn’t shabby from a clairvoyant! Although support of Tammany Hall could translate well on the state level, it didn’t do so on the national level. Once he had the reins of power, he came out swinging, seeking to take control of the state’s Democratic Party. Sulzer sought to be a reformist governor, battled against Tammany Hall on patronage appointments, pushed for open primaries, and conducted an investigation into government corruption. He declared, “Rest assured that in this struggle, those who help me will win my gratitude; that those who oppose me will merit condemnation” (Spector).
All this didn’t sit well with “Silent Charlie” Murphy, who was now out to wreck Sulzer. Unfortunately for Sulzer, Tammany Hall had far more allies in the state legislature than he did, including Assembly Speaker Al Smith and Senate Majority Leader Robert F. Wagner. While Sulzer battled Tammany’s patronage appointments, they retaliated by refusing to confirm Sulzer’s appointments. They and others in retaliation for investigating state government investigated Sulzer and discovered that during the campaign, he had used campaign funds for personal use such as investments, had failed to report the full extent of his campaign financing and spending as required by New York’s Corrupt Practices Act, and had dramatically underreported major donors (Spector). This was a shabby look for “Plain Bill”. The state legislature used the special session that Sulzer had called for a vote on open primaries to instead impeach him. Although Governor Sulzer challenged the constitutionality of the proceedings given that they covered activities before he was governor, the Assembly nonetheless impeached him. The Senate followed through on October 17, 1913, after Sulzer failed to testify in his own defense, with him being convicted of three of eight articles of impeachment and removed from office. Lieutenant Governor Martin H. Glynn succeeded him. The New York Supreme Court, probably in recognition of the overtly political nature of the matter, declined to bar him from holding political office, which was an option in cases of impeachment and conviction.
Aftermath
Sulzer had a temporary comeback in his election to the Assembly only weeks after his impeachment as a Progressive and attempted to regain the governorship on the Progressive Party ticket. However, he didn’t gain traction due to the opposition of Theodore Roosevelt. He created the American Party to serve as his vehicle and won the nomination of the Prohibition Party as well due to him making a speech in which he condemned rum, but he didn’t attract much support. However, the Republican candidate won in 1914, a sort of victory for Sulzer as his Democratic successor had been unseated. In 1916, Sulzer gained the American Party’s nomination for president, but only got 181 votes. His political career was over.
Sulzer’s impeachment was of doubtful validity, given that the charges were about conduct before he was governor. Additionally, his misdeeds were not uncommon in that time and if that is all he was guilty of, he was far from the worst of New York’s politicians. In 1983, the nonagenarian Hamilton Fish III, who was a Progressive Party assemblyman from 1914 to 1916 and later a Republican in Congress, recalled in a letter to future Congressman Maurice Hinchey that “His impeachment as governor was a farce and a fraud” (Mahoney). Sulzer’s true offense was using and then turning on Tammany Hall, and the consensus of researchers is that the impeachment of Sulzer had no better grounding than politics. However, it should also be noted that Theodore Roosevelt’s assessment of Sulzer was poor, and when he tried to get the Progressive Party nomination for governor, he torpedoed it by writing a letter to party members that “the trouble with Sulzer is that he does not tell the truth” (Fredman, 266).
Interestingly, the two legislative leaders that figured most prominently in this overtly politicized impeachment would be major players in national politics down the road. Robert F. Wagner would serve as New York’s senator from 1927 to 1949 and would be one of the foremost promoters of New Deal legislation, including sponsoring the Social Security Act and the Wagner Act, the latter known as the magna carta of legislation protecting organized labor. Al Smith, who closely connected himself with Tammany Hall and played such a large role in carrying out “Silent Charlie” Murphy’s bidding, found that Tammany Hall helped his statewide prospects greatly but hindered his presidential prospects. Smith was a highly successful governor from 1919 to 1920 and again from 1923 to 1928. Thrice he ran for the Democratic nomination, in 1924, 1928, and 1932. Although he won in 1928, Smith’s Tammany Hall association served as an anchor to his campaign, and along with his Catholicism and anti-Prohibition stances cost him victories in normally Democratic states in the South. Sulzer’s view that he had to take a reformist path to have a chance at the presidency was sound; the last two Democrats from New York who have won the presidency, Grover Cleveland and FDR, were both governors who opposed Tammany Hall. However, the latter was more astute in his relations with Tammany Hall and was thus able to be more of a force in countering them as governor and later president. Although Sulzer had the right idea broadly, he lacked the political skill to take control of the Democratic Party in New York, much less run for president. He failed to do the legislative math and his approach to reform is reminiscent to me of a bull in a China shop. For Sulzer to have had a chance to succeed in his presidential ambitions, his governorship had to survive Tammany Hall’s retaliation, and it did not.
References
Lifflander, M.L. (2010, Spring). The Impeachment. New York Archives, 9 (4). 18-23.
Although the confrontational and abrasive conservative media host is nothing novel now, in the days before talk radio became the major format for conservatives, Joe Pyne (1924-1970) made this approach novel on his radio shows and later TV show.
Pyne, like many men of his generation, served in World War II. His heroic service earned him three battle stars and a leg injury, the complications from said injury resulting in amputation in 1951 (The New York Times). His wooden leg, incidentally, was not considered a subject to be brought up around him. Pyne got his start early in radio and in 1949 as a host he invented the radio call-in show when he put a phone receiver to the microphone when dealing with a ranting caller. Before then, radio hosts would simply report on air what the caller was telling them. With this format he became known for his insults of difficult or disagreeing callers. Among his signature lines were, “Go gargle with razor blades”, “Take your teeth out, put ’em in backwards and bite your throat”, and “If your brains were dynamite, you couldn’t blow your nose” (Time Magazine; Halper, 185). His fans called him “Killer Joe”. He would grow more conservative over time in his radio career, and in 1953 he celebrated the executions of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for treason, “we finally incinerated those commies. I hope it was slow and painful” (Cook).
In 1965, Pyne’s format moved to television, and there he became one of TV’s foremost conservatives, railing against the welfare state, communists, anti-war protestors, hippies, gays, and feminists. His approach was distinctly emotional and not analytical or intellectual by design. Pyne held, “The subject must be visceral. We want emotion, not mental involvement” (The New York Times). One of his most controversial moments was when during the 1965 Watts Riot, he was interviewing a black militant, and Pyne opened his coat to reveal a handgun, and his guest reciprocated. This resulted in a suspension for a week and the FCC considering revoking broadcasting licenses from any station that carried his show (Timberg & Erler, 272). However, he did speak against racial discrimination and Governor Lester Maddox’s appearance got heated to the extent that he walked off with Pyne refusing to shake his hand. Pyne hosted a number of controversial figures, including Klansmen, Black Power activists, American Nazis, and the Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey. To the latter he said at the end of his 1967 appearance, “I’d like to tell you where to go, but you’d enjoy it” (Goransson). He also brought in a number of people who were simply bizarre and kooky. Pyne said of giving these people a platform, “If I bring kooks on, it’s to expose them” (The New York Times). His detractors criticized him as a “bully” and as a caterer to bigots. Author Harlan Ellison said of him, “Joe Pyne was a hustler and a bully. And he was sharp. I thought I’d go on his show and beat him at his own game, but I blew it. I spent my time talking about the issues, civil liberties and all that, and he talked about America. The trouble with Pyne was that he was really good at what he did” (Cook). Pyne didn’t make his money through being nice. He even admitted he wasn’t on his show, stating, “I’m not a nice guy, and I don’t want to be” (The New York Times). This was indeed fundamental to the enjoyment of his audience, but he could be quite shocking. A particularly notable instance of his lack of niceties was when he asked an epileptic, “Just why do you think people should feel sorry for you?” (Time Magazine)
Although Pyne was really good at what he did as Harlan Ellison put it, once in a while a guest got one over him. There’s a legend that Pyne once said to Frank Zappa, “I guess your long hair makes you a hippie” to which Zappa responded, “I guess your wooden leg makes you a table” (Cook). Although Pyne did have Zappa on the show in 1966, the episode may be lost, as many of his episodes were taped over by the network, thus until a copy is found, this story is unverifiable. At his peak in 1968, Pyne had over 10 million viewers a week, enviable numbers especially when one considers that the US population was smaller in that year and that it is equivalent to the numbers Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Megyn Kelly got weekly combined in 2016 (Cook). Perhaps he could have been on top even longer had it not been for his fondness for cigarettes.
Premature Demise
Pyne was a heavy smoker, and he claimed he would never quit despite knowing that a risk of cancer existed and referred to them jokingly as “coffin nails”. This came back to bite him sooner than he probably thought; in 1969, he was diagnosed with lung cancer. Although he quit cold turkey it was far too late…Pyne would slowly die and continue to host his show, even from his bedroom when he proved too weak to drive to work (Cook). He died on March 23, 1970, only 45 years old. Pyne is a forgotten figure today, but he was the prototype for Rush Limbaugh and other media hosts we see today in the field of conservative political entertainment.
References
Broadcasting: Killer Joe. (1966, July 29). Time Magazine.
Charles F. Crisp (D-Ga.), the House speaker after the 1890 election.
The 1888 election, one of the closest in American history and one of five in which the loser of the popular vote won, produced the first united government for Republicans since the Grant Administration. The Republicans enjoyed small majorities in both the House and the Senate, although the numbers in the Senate and House would increase with the admittance of new states. The House situation provided a challenge for Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed of Maine, but he managed the situation ably and had a remarkably productive Congress, including passing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (which was weak), admitting six new states to the union, the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, the second Morrill Act for land grants for universities, and the Chace International Copyright Act. Such achievements were made possible in part by eliminating the “disappearing quorum”. Legislators could, until Reed, literally not answer to their names when present and thus be able to stop business on the grounds that there were not enough legislators to conduct business. The 51st Congress was a highly productive one known as the “Billion Dollar Congress” since this was the first time that Congress had appropriated a billion dollars for a budget. This Congress sought to spend the surplus (which was viewed as a problem in that time) that had accumulated under President Cleveland, and this spending included union veterans pension legislation and increased navy spending. However, this spending, including some particular items that were thought of as questionable in their usefulness, came under fire. Critics thought the spending itself to be an excuse to enact the GOP’s signature policy: tariff increases. The GOP in this time was explicitly in favor of the protective tariff, and in 1890 the Republican Congress on a partisan vote passed the McKinley Tariff. This proved quite unpopular and making matters worse was that the economy was in recession. This was the result of The Panic of 1890, an international economic crisis that had begun with the insolvency of Barings Bank in London and spread throughout the world. Thus, while the prices of goods rising could be said to benefit domestic workers, it was a double whammy for those who had lost their jobs in the recession. Other problems arose for the GOP as well, including the foundation of the Populist Party, which harmed them in the Midwest, and that state parties had gotten increasingly aggressive in pushing for “English only” education, nativism, and temperance laws, resulting in voters of German and Irish extraction overwhelmingly moving to the Democrats (Jensen, 122-153).
The results were remarkable for the Democrats and catastrophic for the GOP. The GOP sustained major losses, including in places typically regarded as safe for the party, losing a total of 93 seats, bringing the number of Republican representatives down to 86. Their House numbers would only reach such lows again in 1936. In Illinois, the GOP went from having 13 of 20 representatives to 6, but even more jarring was Wisconsin, in which the GOP delegation fell from 7 out of 9 to 1 out of 9. This presaged Grover Cleveland’s win in those states in 1892. To understand what an achievement that was, Wisconsin hadn’t voted Democratic since 1852 and Illinois since 1856. Even in Massachusetts, at the time a solidly Republican state in which the Democrats only typically ran well in Boston, Republicans had their representation shaved from 10 out of 12 representatives to 5 out of 12. A few notable Republicans lost reelection in 1890, such as Joe Cannon of Illinois (who would serve as House speaker from 1903 to 1911), future President William McKinley of Ohio, and future progressive Robert La Follette of Wisconsin. Some notable figures who won this year included Populist activist Tom Watson of Georgia and future presidential contender William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska. The saving grace for the GOP in this election was that although they lost four seats in the Senate, the admission of the new states of Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming, and they held a majority. However, not even this would save them from losing this majority in the 1892 election.
The Issue of Race
Along with being a disaster for the GOP, this election also served as a disaster for black voters in the South trying to exercise some political power. 1890 was the last time until the 1922 that the GOP made a serious effort to pass civil rights legislation, namely the Lodge Federal Elections bill, which was both a voting rights and an anti-corruption measure, as fraud was part of what produced Democratic domination of the South. Democrats were unified against this measure and campaigned heavily against what they called the “Force Bill”, seeing it as a partisan imposition. The new speaker, Charles F. Crisp of Georgia, was the first and only Confederate veteran to serve in this role. After the 1890 and 1892 elections, the Republicans seemed to regard civil rights as a losing issue and de-prioritized it. Democrats would get their walloping only four years later.
References
1890 United States House of Representatives elections. Wikipedia.
One forgotten aspect of the Truman Administration was that there was a significant level of corruption within it. President Truman, for all the favorable coverage he gets from historians, was not that good at picking the right people for positions and felt strong feelings of loyalty to those he picked (Boylan). Thus, the corruption in the Truman Administration was a campaign point in 1952 for Republicans, and the following administration was corruption free, but one controversy threatened the squeaky-clean image of the administration, and that was the case of Eisenhower’s chief of staff, Sherman Adams (1899-1986).
Sherman Adams: An Underlooked Figure
Although Richard Nixon was vice president and everyone knows who Nixon was, it was in truth Sherman Adams, a man now forgotten by the public, who was Eisenhower’s de facto assistant president. Adams had served in Congress from 1945 to 1947 as well as served as New Hampshire’s governor from 1949 to 1953. In the latter role, he signed into law the measure that made New Hampshire one of the key early contests for presidential primaries (New England Historical Society). He had been one of Eisenhower’s earliest backers in the Republican primary, and Eisenhower appreciated him greatly, and this resulted in him being appointed chief of staff. Adams controlled access to the president and save for cabinet officials and a few other important administration figures, he could deny requests for visits, which he more did more often than not, giving him a reputation as “the abominable no-man” (The Los Angeles Times). He was also no-nonsense and a bit gruff. This included him hanging up the phone when he thought the conversation was over and not saying “hello” or “goodbye” on phone calls (Langeveld). Adams’ approach did not win him friends in Washington, including fellow Republicans, whose requests to see Eisenhower he often denied. His power was such that a joke that circulated among Washington D.C. insiders at the time was, “Wouldn’t it be terrible if Eisenhower died and Nixon became president?” followed by the punchline, “Yeah, but what if Sherman Adams died and Eisenhower became president?” (Elving) Eisenhower would eventually have to do without Adams at his side, and it involved most notably, a vicuna coat.
An Uncomfortable Connection
In 1958, a Congressional subcommittee discovered that Adams had made a few calls to regulatory agencies regarding the legal issues that a friend of his was having. This friend was Bernard Goldfine, a wealthy Massachusetts textile businessman and influence-peddler who owned two mills in New Hampshire and was having issues with the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Adams had set up a meeting between him and the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to discuss these issues, but both Goldfine denied that Adams had exercised any influence on the regulatory agencies (Time Magazine). You know what hit the fan for the Eisenhower Administration when it was discovered that Adams had received gifts from Goldfine. He had paid for a few of Adams’ stays at hotels including the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City, had lent him a luxurious Oriental rug, and gifted him a vicuna coat (The Los Angeles Times). Although Adams was not discovered to have committed any crime and defended his connection to Goldfine as a friendship and insisted that he had not been influenced to any favorable action by him, the connection was unseemly in appearance. Given that the midterms were looming as well as Adams’ unpopularity among Congressional Republicans, they were fine with sacrificing him if it would help them avoid an electoral drubbing. Although President Eisenhower and Vice President Nixon defended Adams, this was seen by Democrats and many voters as hypocritical and in September 1958 the political gravity of the situation became apparent when Senator Frederick G. Payne of Maine, who had accepted a substantial loan from Goldfine that he hadn’t paid back and hadn’t been able to satisfactorily explain, was badly defeated for reelection (Langeveld). It was after this that Eisenhower with a heavy heart asked Adams to resign. This, by the way, did not prevent a midterm drubbing for the GOP. Bernard Goldfine would eventually be convicted of tax evasion and lose his fortune.
An Overblown Scandal?
Compared to later scandals, however, the Adams scandal is frankly quite mild. It is so mild in fact, that Adams’ acceptance of gifts was not that unusual for his time, with Goldfine having paid hotel bills for at least three representatives and Eisenhower having accepted gifts himself, including to decorate his Gettysburg farm as well as vicuna cloth from none other than Goldfine (Langeveld). Adams never held public office again and wrote in defense of his connection to Goldfine. He would also successfully lobby for Mount Pleasant in New Hampshire’s Presidential Range to be changed to Mount Eisenhower, which occurred in 1972, and Adams is honored with the summit building on Mount Washington being named after him (Langeveld).
References
Boylan, J. (2021, February/March). Truman Dogged by Charges of “Favoritism and Influence”. American Heritage, 66(2).
Wisconsin has produced its share of mavericks in politics. It is one of two states to have elected to Congress a member of the Socialist Party, its voters elected the legendary Robert La Follette, and they elected William Proxmire (1915-2005).
Proxmire’s political career began when Wisconsin was considered a Republican state rather than the swing state it is today. Its senators were Republicans Joseph McCarthy and Alexander Wiley, and the state had been trending towards conservatism since the 1938 midterms. Proxmire thrice ran for governor in the 1950s, but Wisconsin was still voting staunchly Republican in those years. However, the demise of one of Wisconsin’s most infamous figures provided the opportunity he needed.
On May 2, 1957, McCarthy died at Bethesda Naval Hospital as a consequence of his alcoholism and a special election was held to succeed him. In August, the voters elected him and could have scarcely picked someone further from him. Contrary to public custom of new senators giving some words of praise to their predecessors, Proxmire denounced McCarthy, calling him a “disgrace to Wisconsin, the Senate, and America” (Glass). This did not cost him at the polls, and he won a full term in 1958. At the time of his election, he was widely regarded as staunchly left-wing and initially he lived up to this reputation. Americans for Democratic Action gave him 100% scores in his first three years of Congress. Americans for Constitutional Action, which covered his record from 1958 to 1959 in its 1960 release of its first index, gave him a 10%. Proxmire was loyal to numerous bread and butter Democratic causes, such as food stamps and strengthening organized labor. However, Proxmire came to have a bit of a skeptical eye on spending, and this resulted in his dissents with Democratic amendments and legislation increasing overtime. He was an enemy of pork barrel amendments and joined Wayne Morse of Oregon as a liberal dissenter on foreign aid spending. This didn’t make him some crusty conservative non-interventionist or particularly anti-communist in foreign policy; he supported the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963 and from 1967 until the Senate voted to ratify in 1986, he spoke every day the Senate was in session for the Treaty on the Prevention of Genocide. Proxmire also backed numerous Northern Democratic domestic policy fundamentals such as the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Medicare, civil rights legislation, and federal aid to education. He dissented from the Johnson Administration on tax reduction as he believed spending restrictions should be in place for such a cut, a stance in conflict with the Keynesian philosophy of the White House and a majority of lawmakers of the day.
Attendance Record and Fitness
Proxmire was legendary for, among other things, his almost perfect attendance record. Quite a healthy man who was into fitness, he from April 20, 1966, to October 18, 1988, did not miss a single vote in the Senate. This is a record that has yet to be broken by any senator, and it was another indicator to Wisconsin voters that they had a special senator. The New York Times reported in 1978 that the 62-year-old Proxmire’s morning consisted of “100 push-ups and 200 sit-ups, 50 at a time” and that he ran 4.9 miles to his office (Tolchin).
Proxmire vs. The Vietnam War
Although Proxmire had voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, he would join Wayne Morse as one of the foremost critics of the Vietnam War and criticize both the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. In 1970, he voted for the Cooper-Church Amendment to end the US military presence in Cambodia and for the McGovern-Hatfield “End the War” Amendment providing for a timetable for withdrawal from Vietnam. His record of staunch opposition to the Vietnam War as well as his deep-seated skepticism to funding the B-1 Bomber and the MX Missile contributed to his shockingly low DW-Nominate score of -0.598, which is, if you take DW-Nominate at face value, lower than Bernie Sanders.
Proxmire the Incorruptible and Frugal
William Proxmire not only was not corrupt, but he also did much to avoid any such impression. He refused to accept reimbursements for travel expenses. Not all senators appreciated such gestures, possibly because they made them look bad by comparison, but many also regarded him as a grandstander (Severo). Some Wisconsinites were critical of him for his tightfistedness as it contributed to Wisconsin getting less federal money than perhaps it otherwise would and thought him ineffective, but these folks were in the minority. Proxmire only went on one junket (a taxpayer funded trip) in his entire career and was similarly notorious for his personal frugality.
When it came to New York City’s bailout, although Proxmire voted for it, he became known for his oversight of the city in the process as chairman of the Senate Banking and Finance Committee, with The New York Times describing him as “the de facto viceroy of New York City, a potentate imposed by an alien power, in this case the Federal Government” (Tolchin). New York City was reliant upon him to approve of continuing the federal loan program to the city, and thus his opinions became of paramount importance. The New York Times wrote, “On those occasions when officials persist in policies that he opposes, they invariably reverse themselves. His criticism led City Council officials to relinquish a 50 percent pay raise they had voted for themselves. How, he had asked, could they expect city employees to hold the line in negotiations? He was instrumental, too, in persuading City University to end free tuition” (Tolchin).
Proxmire vs. Scientists (Govt. Funded Ones, Anyway)
In his quest to curb wasteful spending in government, William Proxmire became the bane of scientists who sought government research grants. From 1975 to 1988 he monthly sponsored his “Golden Fleece Awards”. The first study he awarded was one by the National Science Foundation for $84,000 on why people fall in love. Proxmire explained his opposition to funding, “not only because no one – not even the National Science Foundation – can argue that falling in love is a science; not only because I’m sure that even if they spend $84 million or $84 billion they wouldn’t get an answer that anyone would believe. I’m also against it because I don’t want the answer” (Glass). Other Golden Fleece Awards per Richard Severo (2005) and Martin Tolchin (1976), both of The New York Times, went to:
. A $97,000 study that included covering what happened in a Peruvian brothel, with researchers making multiple visits for what they claimed was for accuracy. . A $57,800 study by the Federal Aviation Administration to study measurements of airline stewardesses, including the “length of the buttocks” and how their knees were arranged when seated. . A $27,000 Justice Department study on why prisoners want to escape. . A $3,000 Pentagon study to ascertain if soldiers should carry umbrellas in the rain. . A $10,900 study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse to determine whether intoxication makes fish more aggressive.
Proxmire also crossed the scientific community in his skepticism over NASA funding. Indeed, NASA has been a target for cuts from both figures on the left and right, and Proxmire was between camps. This resulted in what was called the “Proxmire Effect”, in which government scientists were increasingly reluctant to pursue less conventional research lest it attract Proxmire’s critical eye and potentially “win” a Golden Fleece Award (Kress). Proxmire’s commitment to trimming waste, even if it meant crossing the scientific community, added to his reputation as a legislator with great integrity.
Proxmire and the Supreme Court
Proxmire generally supported nominating liberal justices to the Supreme Court and opposed conservative ones. He voted against both Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell for the court, but he crossed liberals when he voted for William Rehnquist both for associate justice in 1971 and for chief justice in 1986. Proxmire did, however, vote against the confirmation of Robert Bork in 1987.
A Most Unconventional Reelection Strategy
In 1976, Proxmire told his secretary-treasurer John D. Finerty to his shock that he would not accept any campaign contributions for his reelection and proceeded to announce this to the public. For a normal politician especially today, this is probably suicide, but Proxmire was not a normal politician and was by this time quite popular. He figured that if he’s for reductions in government spending, he should be trimming campaign spending too. Proxmire won reelection with 73% of the vote by simply campaigning around the state out of his own pocket, and he only paid $177.73 to run for reelection (Tolchin). He was a vigorous campaigner and shook the hands of so many voters on one occasion that his hand needed to be bandaged due to blisters (Kelly). This didn’t slow him down much though as he got right back to it! Proxmire said regarding his approach, “I think fully two-thirds of the senators could get re-elected without spending a penny” (Severo). He again did not accept any campaign contributions for 1982 and won with 65% of the vote.
Proxmire and Reagan
Proxmire proved surprisingly friendly to the Reagan Administration in many respects. For 1981, the first year of the Reagan Administration, ACA scored him a 71% while ADA scored him a 55%. He supported tax reduction and reductions of domestic expenditures, very much contrary to what his party wanted. Like Reagan, Proxmire was pro-life. However, he retained his skepticism to military spending and opposed Reagan’s spending buildup as well as his military aid to Central American nations such as El Salvador. On August 27, 1987, Proxmire announced his retirement without giving any indicators beforehand to his family or staff, citing his age of 71, not wanting to be approaching 80 while in the Senate. I have just one thing to say about that: how quaint! Proxmire continued to work in his law office until he started showing symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, being officially diagnosed in 1998. He died on December 15, 2005, in a Sykesville, Maryland nursing home at the age of 90. Wisconsin hasn’t had another senator like Proxmire and they probably never will again, for there was one and only Bill Proxmire. Although my viewpoint is conservative, I have a tremendous admiration for this man’s sense of discipline,
References
Glass, A. (2015, April 20). Sen. William Proxmire starts vote streak, April 20, 1966. Politico.
In his career in Congress, Hamilton Fish III (1888-1991) made many enemies. He launched the first House investigation into Communism in 1930, opposed FDR’s recognition of the USSR, opposed most of the New Deal, and strongly opposed FDR’s foreign policy. This resulted in opposition on the strongest terms from the Roosevelt Administration, the USSR, as well as the British. It is now known that the latter, through British Security Coordination, engaged in a five-year campaign to discredit Fish. This included allegations that he was anti-Semitic despite sponsoring the resolution declaring the US’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine and seeking ways to rescue Jews from Germany, Fish hurt his own cause given that he was insufficiently careful with who he associated with. One particular story revolves around the allegation that Fish spoke on a stage “decorated with swastikas”. Philip Lentz wrote in his September 13, 1987 article for the Chicago Tribune that “He spoke at right-wing rallies on swastika-bedecked platforms and pro-Hitler literature bearing his frank was discovered in his office” (Lentz). I have in the past covered the story about the frank,
The Washington Post’s obituary of Fish repeats this story but a more limited version, “Mr. Fish once spoke at a 1938 German Day rally at Madison Square Garden from a stage decorated with swastikas…” (Pearson). This is the basis for the inclusion of this “fact” in Fish’s Wikipedia page. Let’s examine the context of the 1938 German Day rally.
The 1938 German Day rally at Madison Square Garden occurred on October 2nd, so I reviewed press reports on the event in the subsequent days. The Kearney Daily of October 3rd, 1938, noted of German Day in Madison Square Garden, held the previous day, “German day was celebrated in Madison Square Garden by 10,000 German-Americans last night, but there were no swastikas, no heiling of Adolf Hitler, no direct mention of affairs in the third reich. The conservative element of the German societies which regards persons of German descent as Americans and not Germans were in charge, and Rep. Hamilton Fish was the chief speaker. He attacked President Roosevelt, saying that he had no part in the peaceful solution of the Czechoslovak crisis”. Other newspapers I found contained the same wording on the account of this event. Indeed, the German Day rally that Fish spoke at was one that explicitly cut ties with Nazis. As the Daily News of New York City reported on October 3rd, “The German Day organizers recently barred Fritz Kuhn and his German-American Bund from participating in the exercises”. TheLincoln Star further reported on October 3rd on the nature of this event, “Kuhn [Fritz Kuhn of the German-American Bund] asserted that the rally was one of several in the New York metropolitan area to offset yesterday’s German day celebration in Madison Square Garden, New York City, at which the bund was not represented. In past years the bund has played a leading part in the German day rally at which Rep. Hamilton Fish asserted Germany’s annexation of Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia was justified. The Sudeten Germans were entitled to join Germany if they desired and President Roosevelt’s appeals for peace in Europe were futile, he said”. However, there is one source that may give some credence, and that is one of the trustees of the Desmond-Fish Public Library, which recently investigated him over calls of removing his name. Although thankfully they voted to retain the name after not finding evidence that he was anti-Semitic, one of the trustees who voted to retain, Anita Prentice, claimed that the rally had a swastika on display (Germany’s national flag in 1938 was the swastika flag, so this is a possibility) and the Nazi salute was given (Sparks). She might be referring to this picture on the lower right quadrant, which Dan Evon from Snopes reported as being from a 1938 rally:
However, what is strange about the picture in the lower right quadrant is that there are two men in Bundist uniforms visible. Bundists were not represented at the 1938 German Day rally, and its leader, Fritz Kuhn, was holding several rallies in the New York metropolitan area the next day, with him being present at the one in Union City, New Jersey, so this may be a picture of one of those events. I haven’t seen a picture that counters the account reported in The Kearney Daily and published in other papers. Surely the reporter who wrote the account that appeared in these publications would have seen a swastika and heiling if present, right?
To be clear, there isn’t nothing to criticize about Fish here. A report of the time condemns Fish for criticizing what its author regards as FDR’s sincere and not for show last-ditch effort at mediation in the Sudeten crisis, asking “Can the same be said for [Fish], who seized this particular time and occasion to please his German-American audience, to decry the President of the United States for an effort for peace, and before them to assert that Hitler was justified in what he did to Czechoslovakia, who owned the Sudetenland, the Polish and Hungarian and Slovak territories by virtue of a war in which lands assigned to the new Czechoslovak State were spoils or territory taken by the victors, which lands were wrested away from those who lost that war?” (Sun Herald) Even this report, however, doesn’t indicate the presence of swastikas or heiling at the event. While it is true that the Sudetenland was made up mostly of Germans, the idea that Hitler would stop at just lands with majority German populations is, in historical retrospect, naïve. Indeed, it reminds me much of Russia’s annexation of the Crimea in 2014 on the grounds that many of its residents were Russian and had voted for independence (in an illegal vote per Ukraine’s Constitution). The event such reports tie Fish to, however, may make people think of the Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden, which was organized by the German-American Bund and occurred on February 20, 1939, an event he did not attend.
Fish himself addressed Lentz’s claim in 1987, stating, “It is an absolute falsehood to state that I spoke at right-wing rallies on swastika-bedecked platforms and that pro-Hitler literature bearing the Congressional frank was discovered in my office. Most of these stories originated in the Daily Worker” (Fish). To be sure, the Roosevelt Administration, communists, and British Security Coordination were keen on painting Fish as pro-Nazi to further their aims. If there is a photo that exists that proves the presence of a swastika (or swastikas) and of heiling at the event Fish spoke at, I would be interested to see it, but for now I find this account to be quite doubtful.
References
Bund Leader Is Stoned By Angry Crowd In Jersey. (1938, October 3). The Lincoln Star, p. 8.
Mad Politics: The Bizarre, Fascinating, and Unknown of American Political History 