Iowa is a historically Republican state, and it looks like, at least for the time being, that it has gone back to its roots. It voted for Trump twice and its entire delegation to Congress is Republican. The one senator Democrats had representing Iowa between 1857 and 1933 was Daniel Steck, a figure who identified with the moderate wing of the Democratic Party and was senator thanks to Republican defections from the conservative side on the seating vote because they didn’t want RINO Smith W. Brookhart in the Senate. However, Democrats had some more regular presence starting in the 1930s. Indeed, from 1937 to 1943, both its senators were Democrats! The most successful of the Democrats in this time was Guy Gillette, an independent-minded figure. However, the state returned to form during FDR’s third term. This is where Merwin Coad (1924- ), who turned 100 today, comes in.
The 1956 election, although highly successful for Eisenhower, was not similarly successful for Republicans down-ticket and they on net lost two seats in the House. One of these unfortunates was Republican James Dolliver, who lost reelection to Coad by the slightest of margins, making him the first Democrat elected to the House from Iowa since 1940. Other Iowa Republicans came close to defeat, such as Henry O. Talle in the 2nd district, Karl Le Compte in the 4th district, and Paul Cunningham in the 5th district. All three seats would be won by Democrats in 1958, with Talle and Cunningham losing reelection. Coad was an appealing candidate, as he was pastor of the Central Christian Church, a boy scout leader, and a married father of four. Certainly, these are traditional markers of an upstanding citizen. He was also, contrary to many previous Democrats who sought to succeed in the state, a staunch liberal. Of 67 votes that Coad either voted or paired on that were included in Americans for Constitutional Action scores, he only sided with them four times: in 1957 he voted against funding a federal flood insurance program and against an Eisenhower-backed foreign aid increase, in 1959 he voted against recommitting the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act after it had been substituted with the Landrum-Griffin bill (he had voted against the Landrum-Griffin substitute), and in 1960 he voted against participation in and funding of the International Development Association. He did not once side with ACA during the Kennedy Administration, the agenda of which he was staunchly loyal. Coad’s DW-Nominate score was a -0.374. Appropriately for an Iowan in a rural district, he served on the House Agriculture Committee, and he advised Senator John F. Kennedy (D-Mass.) on agricultural issues. However, it was not his liberalism that caused him his troubles…it was his personal life.
The Early End of a Career
In 1961, the Des Moines Register’s Washington correspondent, Clark Mollenhoff, began to investigate Coad’s personal matters after he had quickly filed for divorce from his wife of 17 years in Double Springs, Alabama with no notice, and only two months later remarried to his chief of staff’s ex-wife, who also worked on his staff, and then raised her salary to the equivalent of $125,000 annually (Wildstein). HIs investigation found that Coad was having significant money problems. He was still speculating on the grain market as a member of the House Agriculture Committee (and not doing well), he gambled a lot and one night he lost the equivalent of $20,000 in a poker game in Washington D.C., and he bounced a $4000 check with the House Sergeant At-Arms (Wildstein). All this was rather far from the picture voters had of Pastor Coad when they first elected him in 1956. He did not opt to run for another term after these exposures. When asked whether he’d go back to being a pastor, Coad responded, “I don’t know. There are many things I have to think about” (Time Magazine). One must wonder, did the call of public service ultimately serve to lead Pastor Coad to sin?
Coad, out of electoral politics at 38, managed to secure a position in the Kennedy Administration, but once Senator Bourke Hickenlooper (R-Iowa) learned of this, he phoned the head of the Agency for international Development’s head to complain, citing his “background and history and utter lack of qualifications for the job” and the next day Coad was forced to resign.
Coad got into the real estate business, but ran into trouble again when a widow accused him of defrauding her. The judge, John J. Sirica, agreed with the widow in his ruling against his efforts to foreclose on her and he he stated, “This is just a racket…that’s all this is…just a racket. This thing smacks of fraud” (Wildstein). Coad subsequently became a pusher for no money down real estate purchasing techniques and spoke at numerous seminars, where questions were raised about his ethics. He has since retired to Florida.
In 1959, longtime Congressman Daniel A. Reed, who had been a staunch opponent of just about everything FDR stood for, including Social Security, died after 40 years in office. This upstate New York district was sure to elect in his place a Republican, and it did in attorney Charles Ellsworth Goodell (1926-1987), who had previously served as a liaison assistant for Congress to the Department of Justice. However, Goodell would prove a much more flexible politician than Reed ever was.
Support for Eisenhower and Beyond
Goodell’s political views seemed to represent well those of his constituency based in upstate New York, being conservative on domestic issues and an internationalist on foreign policy. During the Eisenhower Administration, he backed his vetoes on spending bills, opposed food stamps, opposed federal aid to economically depressed areas, and opposed federal aid for school construction. He also supported the federal anti-preemption bill, contrary to President Eisenhower’s position, which would strengthen the ability of states to crack down on subversion, which had been weakened by a Supreme Court ruling. Goodell was no squish during this time. He did, however, support foreign aid, contrary to his predecessor, Reed, who true to his non-interventionist past consistently opposed Mutual Security bills.
Goodell vs. JFK
During the Kennedy Administration, Goodell opposed expanding the House Rules Committee, federal aid to school construction, strong minimum wage legislation, and accelerated public works projects. He was, however, supportive of educational television.
Crafting a Compromise on Equal Pay
One of Goodell’s legacies came in the form of none other than the Equal Pay Act. The Kennedy Administration initially came up with a sweeping equal pay law for women with a whole new bureaucratic structure to be created. Major business interests as well as many conservatives were opposed to Kennedy’s proposal. Paul Findley (R-Ill.), at this point in the arch-conservative phase of his career, held that the bill would “do more harm than good” and that it would “cut back on female employment” (CQ Almanac). Goodell, however, managed to craft substitute legislation that instead of making it a separate law simply added equal pay to the Fair Labor Standards Act, thus not requiring a new bureaucracy and it being administered through a federal agency that American business had over twenty years of experience with (CQ Almanac). That became the law we know of today that got consensus support. He was also a supporter of civil rights legislation overall, voting for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and fair housing. Even his one vote against a significant civil rights measure, the 24th Amendment, was on the grounds that he thought a legislative poll tax was constitutionally permissible and should be adopted in that form.
Goodell vs. LBJ
Goodell’s record during the Johnson Administration was moderately conservative. In 1964, he voted against the Economic Opportunity Act, federal funds for mass transit, and against food stamp legislation. The following year he voted against the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. However, Goodell did support final passage of the Social Security Amendments, which included Medicare, as well as the Appalachian Regional Development Act. Despite usually opposing the prevailing Democratic rule in the 1960s, Goodell was a constructive legislator.
Crafting Substitutes to the Great Society and Ascending to the Senate
In 1964, Republicans took it on the chin with the candidate at the top of the ticket, Barry Goldwater, harming many down ticket. After the 1964 election loss, Goodell was among the young members of Congress who led the successful push to oust Minority Leader Charles Halleck (R-Ind.) for Gerald Ford (R-Mich.), and he had been instrumental in getting Ford the post of chairman of the Republican Conference two years before over its incumbent, Charles B. Hoeven of Iowa (Barnes). While an opponent of Great Society legislation, he not merely opposed but also sought alternatives. One such effort was the “Opportunity Crusade” proposal of the House GOP leadership as a substitute for the “War on Poverty”. Goodell was an effective critic of the Office of Economic Opportunity. He referred to the OEO as “the fuddle factory” and pledged that the “Opportunity Crusade” would “eliminate the waste and scandal and abuses” (McLay, 6). However, it wasn’t all smooth sailing on ideas. As Donald Rumsfeld humorously reflected, “We would put forth what were called Constructive Republican Alternative Proposals. If you think of the acronym, it was a problem” (Curtis). Nonetheless, Goodell was one of the standout legislators among the Republicans for his efforts, and was held in high esteem by Minority Leader Ford. Richard Reeves of The New York Times characterized him as “kind of the Paul Ryan of his time” (Curtis). Death once again benefited Goodell’s political career after Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Robert F. Kennedy. Governor Nelson Rockefeller appointed Goodell to the Senate, and he resigned the House on September 9th to serve. His time in the Senate would prove much different from his time in the House.
Goodell vs. Nixon
The Goodell of the Senate was not the Goodell of the House. For one thing, House Goodell represented an upstate New York constituency, while Senate Goodell represented the entire state, thus significantly different political considerations existed. What’s more, he is keen on staying in the Senate, and one way to go about doing this is to win primaries in multiple parties. In New York at the time, there were four parties whose primaries mattered: Democratic, Republican, Liberal, and Conservative. Goodell hoped to win not just the Republican nomination but the Liberal nomination as well. The Liberal Party, a uniquely New York party, had been founded in 1945 as an independent alternative for liberal-minded voters who were turned off by the machine politics of the Democrats. While often the Liberal Party would nominate Democrats, they could sometimes nominate Republicans too. Republican Senator Jacob Javits, for instance, was repeatedly nominated by the Liberal Party, and the Liberal Party’s nomination of New York City Mayor John Lindsay for another term in 1968 saved his political career for four years.
The change in Goodell was soon noticed in Washington, as it was one of the most pronounced that the place had ever seen. He had gone from opposing much of the Great Society to voting to uphold and expand it. Some domestic liberal votes he cast included for national unemployment compensation standards, increased funds for food stamps, increased funds for higher education, and urban renewal. On crime, he opposed “no knock” warrants for drug offenses. Conservative James Buckley, brother of National Review founder and editor-in-chief William F. Buckley Jr. quipped, “It was the most stunning conversion since Saint Paul took the road to Damascus” (Curtis). For the Congressional basketball game, Congressman Mo Udall (D-Ariz.), noted for his sense of humor, came up with a new term for a play. It was called the Goodell Shift, in which when all players were on the right side of the court, someone would yell, “Senate!” and a player would move left (Curtis). Goodell’s liberalism also crossed Nixon something fierce.
Not only did Goodell vote against both Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell for the Supreme Court, he also opposed Nixon on Vietnam. Goodell’s stance on Vietnam at least appeared to be genuine. In 1968, he wrote to Congressman Al Quie (R-Minn.) that “We should not be engaged in a land war 10,000 miles away” (Curtis). Goodell voted for both the Cooper-Church Amendment prohibiting funds for American troops in Cambodia in 1970, and the McGovern-Hatfield Amendment the same year, providing for a six-month timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam. He also did some things off of the Congressional Record that aligned him with the left, such as marching with Coretta Scott King in a Vietnam War protest, publicizing the Pentagon Papers, and hosting Jane Fonda at his office (Curtis). His anti-Vietnam War position even got him endorsed by none other than Noam Chomsky. Nixon, who was once on good terms with Goodell and had previously assessed him as “our egghead in Congress – a creative intellectual in the best sense of the word”, was now dead set against him remaining in the Senate (Barnes). Goodell’s campaign slogan in 1970 was “too good to lose!” While looked upon negatively by Nixon and his administration, he was regarded favorably by the Ripon Society, a liberal Republican group, for being “blunt and outspoken against the war, and against mediocre Supreme Court Justices, and against useless toys for the military like the ABM…” (Ripon Forum, 13). The Nixon Administration decided upon a response to Goodell to secure him a permanent vacation from the Senate.
Nixon’s tool to defeat Goodell was his attack dog, Vice President Spiro Agnew. He was to publicly condemn Goodell on multiple occasions, and this would elevate his profile among liberals, thus resulting in a split in the liberal vote between him and Congressman Richard Ottinger. Agnew condemned what he called his “radiclib ideology” (Barnes). However, this would not be the most notable attack. The real kicker, and one that was considered deeply shocking in its day, was when he said, “If you look at the statements Mr. Goodell made during his time in the House and compare them with some of the statements I have been referring to, you will find that he is truly the Christine Jorgensen of the Republican Party” (Curtis). For context, Jorgensen was a famous transsexual of the time. Although Goodell’s strategy to win the Republican and Liberal nominations worked, and as a bonus he secured the endorsement of The New York Times, Nixon’s strategy was working too. Ottinger sought the liberal vote as well and came out against Goodell’s House record, stating that “As a member of the House of Representatives he was one of its most reactionary members. He just voted against everything constructive” (Curtis). Ultimately, the liberal vote split, with the Conservative Party’s candidate, James Buckley, who got the unofficial support of the Nixon Administration, winning the election. This was quite a turnaround for a man who only two years before had only netted 17% of the vote in running for the Senate. Embarrassingly for a man who ran on the slogan of “Too good to lose”, he came in third, as polling had predicted over a week earlier (The Observer). By the criterion set by the conservative interest group Americans for Constitutional Action (ACA), while in the House he had either paired or voted with them on 139 out of 179 votes, but in the Senate, it was only 3 out of 39 votes. Overall, he sided with ACA positions 65% of the time. Goodell’s DW-Nominate score stands at a 0.253, which accounts for both his House and Senate service and indicates moderate conservatism. Just as an illustration of the dramatic change, here is a line graph of his adjusted ACA scores throughout his whole legislative career:
Although Goodell would never again run for public office, he still had a friend in Gerald Ford. Once Ford became president after Nixon’s resignation, Goodell became one of his close advisers. Goodell commented happily on this development, “For me, it’s a new day, a new world. The sun has come out again” (Tolchen). Goodell’s influence may have had a hand in motivating Ford to select Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president. However, he denied directly recommending him, stating, “I said good things about Nelson Rockefeller, but I didn’t recommend anybody personally” (Tolchen). Ford would appoint him chairman of the Presidential Clemency Board, which reviewed and decided on clemency applications by Vietnam War draft dodgers and deserters. In his post-Senate career, he specialized in representing foreign business interests trying to expand into the United States. On January 16, 1987, Goodell suffered a massive heart attack and died at George Washington University Hospital five days later, aged 60. His son, Roger Goodell, is the current commissioner of the NFL.
References
Barnes, B. (1987, January 22). Charles E. Goodell, Ex-Senator from New York, Dies at 60. The Washington Post.
North Dakota has had a tremendously interesting history as a state, given how although Republican-dominated, the progressive wing of the party, the Non-Partisan League was riding high during the Great Depression. In 1934, Republican Usher Burdick defeated for renomination the already progressive James Sinclair. Burdick had lost a previous effort to get the Republican nomination in 1932 as he openly endorsed FDR.
Congressman Burdick
Burdick was staunchly supportive of most of the New Deal, and was to Roosevelt’s left on agriculture, being an agrarian radical. He arguably was to his left as well on old age insurance, as he was one of the representatives to vote against Social Security on the grounds that it wasn’t sufficient. He preferred the “Townsend Plan”, which was proved to be economically unfeasible. Burdick’s DW-Nominate score was a -0.048, which is very low for a Republican. As a Midwestern Republican, he was of course to FDR’s right on foreign policy, being a staunch non-interventionist. During World War II, he was one of the foremost supporters of price control in the GOP and opposed the House Committee on Un-American Activities as well as the Smith-Connally Labor Disputes Act. Burdick sought the Republican nomination for the Senate, and then after losing that he tried to run for reelection as an Independent, but was defeated in the At-Large election for both of North Dakota’s House seats, with William Lemke and Charles Robertson making the top two. Burdick was down, but not out, and in 1948 Robertson was defeated for renomination, with Burdick again being in the top two. Burdick most notably was one of only two House Republicans to oppose the McCarran Internal Security Act in 1950 (the other was fellow RINO Jacob Javits of New York), which provided for, among other provisions, communist registration with the Attorney General. Burdick’s postwar record reflected a preference for domestic liberalism and against foreign aid, and he would time and again vote against Mutual Security legislation. Burdick consistently backed public over private ownership of power generation, supported price and rent controls during wartime, opposed any legislation curbing the power of organized labor, and opposed transferring the title of the tidelands from the Federal government to State governments. However, his record on domestic issues wasn’t entirely liberal, and in 1955 he supported revoking the Federal Power Commission’s authority to regulate natural gas and he frequently voted against public housing.
Retirement, Securing His Son’s Future
Burdick’s greatest legacy, however, lay in his son, Quentin. In 1958, Burdick, by this time approaching eighty, agreed to not run for reelection if the Democrats selected his son, Quentin, to succeed him (H.W. Wilson Company). The Non-Partisan League had shifted its affiliation from Republican to Democratic as did Quentin. The younger Burdick won the election, and he would be elected to the Senate in 1960 after the death of William Langer. Usher Burdick would die less than two weeks after his son was elected to the Senate, and Quentin would serve in the Senate until his death in 1992.
The American public was rather disheartened with “politics as usual” (1976 seems to be the norm these days in this sense) particularly after Watergate and the deeply unsatisfying outcome of the Vietnam War. In 1976, they were looking for a change. While Gerald Ford was a pleasant contrast to the Nixon crowd, his pardon of him was a constant shadow over his presidency and his campaign. The Democrats too were looking for a change, not only from the Republicans but just politics as usual, and they found their man in Georgia’s Jimmy Carter, who had been one of the state’s first politicians you might call “post racial”. These two battled head-to-head and although Carter had a massive lead early on, Ford managed to make the race close despite his debate stumble on Iron Curtain nations as well as SNL’s lampooning of his alleged clumsiness. Carter had stumbled with his Playboy interview, in which he admitted to lusting after other women in his heart.
A Race of Regions: West vs. South
This election had Carter winning all former Confederate states save for Virginia, which is the opposite of the 2016 election. Ford dominates in the West, winning all of its states save Hawaii, and makes a strong showing in New England, winning four of its six states. The Midwest is a mixed bag, with Carter winning Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin, while Ford wins Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and his home state of Michigan. Carter crucially won the electorally rich states of Pennsylvania and New York as well. West and South would in four years unite in electing Ronald Reagan.
This campaign focusing on change was certainly a last in many respects, most notably the last gasp of the “Solid South”. While it is true that the composition of the Carter voters in the South was a bit different than it had been for Democrats in many elections past (he got most of the black vote), there were still enough whites motivated by tradition to vote for Carter, and helping in this was the support of numerous Southern politicians, including George Wallace. This would, incidentally, be the last time Wallace made a run for president, running in the Democratic primary, by this time having dropped his segregationist platform. Another notable feature about this race was that in most states the margins were single digits. Carter barely squeaked by in Ohio while Ford won by the narrowest of margins in Oregon. Yet another matter of note is that in this election, both men and women favored Carter 50-48. Today, there is a gap between men and women and the parties they support, with more men going Republican and more women going Democratic. This election also saw Ford winning more states but Carter winning more electorally heavy states at 23 to Ford’s 27.
The Senate
The Senate is a mixed bag, as Republicans and Democrats alike lose reelection in different places. The Senate bids farewell to both Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana and Minority Leader Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, both who are succeeded by members of their own parties. The 1976 election marked the end of some things we haven’t seen again in the Senate. With the retirement of Hiram Fong, one of Hawaii’s first two senators, the state has never again had a Republican senator. In Maryland, the loss of J. Glenn Beall Jr. to Democratic Congressman Paul Sarbanes marked the end of the last time Republicans held both Senate seats from the state. Although Larry Hogan is the most promising candidate Republicans have had in years for the Senate, he probably will not win since many of the state’s voters don’t want the Senate to go Republican. The loss of New York’s James Buckley marked the end of a time in which Democrats did not hold either of the state’s seats in the Senate. Buckley was also arguably the last conservative to ever represent New York in the Senate (Al D’Amato is debatable). The 1976 election also sent packing Democrats Frank Moss of Utah and Gale McGee of Wyoming, and to this day they are the last Democrats to represent these states in the Senate, succeeded by Orrin Hatch and Malcolm Wallop respectively, both who would be strong Reaganites. The latter ran some of my favorite political ads, which can be found in References.
In Indiana, Democrat Vance Hartke loses reelection by double digits to Richard Lugar, Indianapolis’s popular mayor. However, a famous Republican name loses in Ohio…Robert Taft Jr., a moderate, is replaced by liberal Democrat Howard Metzenbaum. There were also some victories that would not be expected at all today. In California, Republican S.I. Hayakawa defeats Democrat John V. Tunney for reelection, the last time a Republican defeated a Democratic Senate incumbent in the state. In New Mexico, astronaut Harrison Schmitt defeated Democrat Joseph Montoya, who managed to get negative publicity over his poor performance on the Watergate Committee (also the last time a Republican defeats a Democratic incumbent in the Senate), and in Rhode Island Republican John Chafee, who had in 1972 given Democratic Senator Claiborne Pell the only tough election of his career, was elected to succeed the retiring John Pastore. In Tennessee, the victory of Democrat Jim Sasser over Republican Bill Brock would be the last time a Republican incumbent senator lost reelection in the state. Just in case you thought Democrats were roundly getting thrashed in the West, Democrat Dennis DeConcini succeeds Republican Paul Fannin to the Senate in Arizona.
The House
In the House, we for the last time saw an election in which Democrats won a supermajority…they gained one seat, as the 1974 midterms had already been excellent for them. Of course, something to bear in mind about 1976 is that the Democratic Party had a conservative wing, and it was still fairly sizeable. Thus, a 2/3’s majority isn’t to be read as 2/3’s liberal. However, the Republicans too had their moderate to liberal wing. What’s more, in the House, this was the last time the Democrats won Wyoming’s House seat. This election is also the first and only time that Ron Paul ever loses a House election, being narrowly defeated by Democrat Bob Gammage after having won a special election. Paul would defeat him in a rematch in 1978. This election also marks the first elections to Congress of two vice presidents. In Indiana, Republican Dan Quayle defeats Democrat J. Edward Roush for reelection, and in Tennessee, Al Gore at 28 succeeds Democrat Joe Evins to office with a whopping 94% of the vote. One figure who still serves in office was first elected in 1976, this being Ed Markey of Massachusetts, who serves alongside Elizabeth Warren in the Senate. Other notable first-timers include Democrat Leon Panetta, who would serve as President Obama’s CIA director and Secretary of Defense, and Republican “B-1 Bob” Dornan, noted for his staunch conservatism, frequently inflammatory rhetoric, and advocacy for the B-1 Bomber.
The 1976 election is demonstrative on the presidential level of how much politics can change…we don’t expect for instance a Republican to win California, Oregon, and Washington any time soon in a presidential election. Likewise, we don’t expect a Democrat to be winning Alabama and Mississippi at any time in the foreseeable future.
P.S.: By Saturday, I will archive all 2021 posts.
References
1976 United States House of Representatives elections. Wikipedia.
Gerald Ford, a fiscal conservative, stood repeatedly against income tax reductions that did not come with budget reductions.
The policies on income taxes have changed a bit over the decades, notably with the conservatives in terms of how they approach the subject when it comes to deficits. Namely, they care less about deficits in relation to tax reduction than they used to. The history surrounding this also largely counters liberals who cite the tax system of the 1950s positively. There were calls for reform from both liberals and conservatives of the time, but in different directions.
Liberals – Curbing Tax Deductions, Focusing on the Working Class
Liberals of the 1950s realized that the tax code had numerous loopholes that made the effective rate considerably lower than the 91% statutory rate. On September 28th, 1951, Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn.) proposed an amendment to eliminate income splitting, which resulted in lower tax rates for families with over $10,000 in income if the husband and wife reported their income separately. This proposal was rejected 15-62, and counted by Americans for Democratic Action as a positive. Liberals also were interested in pushing certain tax reductions to primarily help the working class that were deficit-financed. For 1955, both ACA and ADA counted for their ratings the March 15th the vote defeating a tax credit of $20 per person regardless of income. ACA supported eliminating the $20 tax credit, citing that it would have eliminated 5 million people from the taxpayer rolls and resulted in a $2.3 billion annual loss in revenue, regarding the vote as “FOR Sound Money & AGAINST Inflation” (Americans for Constitutional Action, 1960, 40). Americans for Democratic Action, on the other hand, favored the tax credit. Another instance of liberals supporting tax reduction and conservatives opposing was when on June 18, 1958, Senator Paul Howard Douglas (D-Ill.) offered an amendment to reduce personal income taxes by $50 as well as repealing or reducing excise taxes and reducing taxes on small businesses. ACA regarded the vote in the category of “FOR Sound Money & AGAINST Inflation” in their opposition to the measure, which they opposed for reducing annual revenue by an estimated $6 to $6.3 billion annually while there was a deficit (Americans for Constitutional Action, 1960, 38). This was rejected 23-65, with most Republicans voting against this proposal and a majority of Democrats doing so as well. ADA had counted the vote favorably in their scorecard. This is not to say that conservatives didn’t like the idea of income tax reduction, indeed they had pushed an income tax reduction over President Truman’s veto in 1948. They wanted income tax reductions to be paid for by budget reductions.
One famous tax reduction effort started during the Kennedy Administration. On September 25, 1963, the House passed a tax reduction bill 271-155, and this was counted as a plus by Americans for Democratic Action and a negative by Americans for Constitutional Action. This vote fell on liberal vs. conservative lines and it was based on the question of inflation. Liberals supported deficit financing for tax reduction while conservatives were against its potential inflationary impact.
In the following year, ACA included two votes surrounding tax reduction. The first was Senator John McClellan’s (D-Ark.) amendment placing a limitation on tax reduction and the tax reduction bill itself. McClellan’s amendment was directly in opposition to the Keynesian nature of the Kennedy tax cut, which was meant to be deficit-financed. ACA itself explained its opposition to the tax reduction bill thusly, “ACA firmly believes that a “tax cut” is necessary for it will act as a stimulus to our national economy by presenting the opportunity for greater investment by the private sector of our society. However, tax reductions during periods of budgetary deficits can only lead to additional inflationary pressures. A realistic tax reduction program should be coupled with efforts to decrease Federal expenditures with the objectives of securing balanced budgets” (Americans for Constitutional Action, 1964, 12). The bill itself, which reduced the top income tax rate from 91% to 70% and corporate rates from 52% to 47%, passed the Senate 77-21 on February 7th. Supporting this measure were staunch liberals such as Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn.), and George McGovern (D-S.D.), and opposing were conservatives such as Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), John J. Williams (R-Del.), and John Tower (R-Tex.). The economist who advised Kennedy to push for a tax reduction was Keynesian Walter Heller, who despite Reagan and Republicans adopting tax reductions in the 1980s, he didn’t embrace Reagan and Republicans, backing Walter Mondale in 1984 (Kansas State University). This post hasn’t even yet mentioned the largest tax loophole in the system, the oil depletion allowance, which allowed for the first 27.5% of revenue to be tax free, and this was an allowance that liberals repeatedly sought to reduce. Although generally the debate on this one went in a liberal-conservative direction, with liberals supporting reduction of the depletion allowance and conservatives supporting retaining the depletion allowance. Although Americans for Democratic Action repeatedly counted this as an issue, the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action never counted this as an issue. There were simply questions for them that were seen as more ideologically relevant for them, and they weren’t overly inclined to render favorable judgment on a question that outright favored one sector of the economy, albeit a highly important one for the economy and national defense in oil.
In 1975, conservatives again opposed tax reduction proposed by Democrats, which if enacted would have reduced individual and business taxes by $15.5 billion without the $395 billion ceiling for 1977 federal spending requested by President Ford. President Ford vetoed the tax reduction, writing in his veto message to Congress, “I have clearly stated ever since last October 6 that I would veto any tax cut if you failed to cut future Federal spending at the same time. You have refused at this time to put any limit on spending for the fiscal year and instead sent me a temporary 6-month extension of the present temporary 1975 tax levels due to expire on New Year’s eve” (The American Presidency Project). Ford had voted against the 1963 tax reduction as a member of Congress, and interestingly among the votes in support of his position was Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.), who would later spearhead the GOP’s approach of placing tax reduction over budget reduction in the party’s priorities. Although President Ronald Reagan is most commonly associated with the “voodoo economics” as George H.W. Bush put it, he wasn’t actually a believer in the concept of lower taxes meaning more revenue. This is demonstrated in his embrace of the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which although it raised no income tax rates that were in effect at the time, it did cancel certain future reductions and hit particularly hard were business tax reductions. Conservatives had universally embraced the 1981 tax reduction despite deficits as a way to help out the flagging economy, and it certainly was something needed when you consider the interest rate cuts the Federal Reserve did to curb inflation. Liberals became more interested in the budgetary impact of tax reductions for cutting into funds for domestic programs.
Although I support lower income taxes, in the future I want these tax reductions to be paid for, which can be done by budget cuts as well as tax loophole and deduction closings. I frankly think it is time to get back to old-fashioned conservatism on finances, and the recent inflation has proven the problem of not doing so. Too many people in our politics are willing to go with deficit financing, and it is costing us in the long run. The question is, are we willing to continue to accept this cost?
References
ACA Index. (1960). Americans for Constitutional Action.
ACA-Index Second Session 88th Congress. (1964). Americans for Constitutional Action.
ADA World – Congressional Supplement. (1951, October). Americans for Democratic Action.
Richard Russell, the leader of the Southern Democratic faction of the Senate.
Southern Democrats occupy something of a debated space in their politics in the liberal/conservative range of things. Conservative Republicans don’t like the idea of them being connected to them and will argue that most didn’t switch to the GOP. There are some reasons for that that stand outside of ideology, such as figuring that they would do better sticking to their regional brand of Democratic politics, as many in the South still were in the habits of their fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers in voting Democratic. This being said, the Southern Democrats as a group although were not the staunchest conservative group in the Senate (that would be the conservative wing of the Republican Party of the day), many were conservative enough to have an informal “Conservative Coalition” with Republicans to oppose many liberal policies. There were issue areas in which this coalition weakened…on the Southern Democratic side it was on agriculture and public power, and on the Republican side it was on civil rights and particularly during the Eisenhower Administration on foreign aid, to which Southern Democrats had become increasingly antagonistic.
Based on lifetime modified ACA scores (thus based on records from 1955-1984), this is how the Senate Southerners, who served during the Civil Rights Era (1954-1968) did on conservatism. I will be ranking them from least to most conservative:
Kefauver in short: Kefauver, who I have written about before, was a liberal populist who was more amenable to civil rights than many Southern senators, indeed Tennessee had become a bit of a softer state on the subject, while it used to be that it was only Republicans in East Tennessee who would vote for civil rights. Kefauver’s biggest moments in the sun were his publicized investigations of the mafia and his vice-presidential run in 1956. He would play no role in the civil rights debates of the 1960s as he died before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was debated.
Bass in short: Bass’s record here includes his time in the House and his time in the Senate during the Great Society Congress. He was in terms of his ideology a true successor of Estes Kefauver. However, Bass lost the 1966 Democratic primary to Frank Clement, who proceeded to lose to Republican Howard Baker Jr.
Yarborough in short: Ralph Yarborough was Texas’ best-known champion of liberalism, backing strongly Democratic national programs. He even voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the only senator from a former Confederate state to do so, and that year defeated his Republican challenger by the name of George H.W. Bush. The times in which Yarborough voted conservative per ACA included some foreign aid votes, and he did vote with LBJ on civil rights in 1957 and 1960. Yarborough’s liberalism became tiresome for Texans, and he lost renomination to moderate Lloyd Bentsen in 1970.
W. Kerr Scott (D-N.C.) – 10%
Lowest score: 0% (1958) Highest score: 20% (1955)
Scott in short: W. Kerr Scott was a progressive Democrat on most matters save for the civil rights issue, certainly a New Dealer in spirit and deed. He died in office in 1958, resulting in his replacement with a much more conservative man who also went by his middle name: B. Everett Jordan.
Lyndon B. Johnson (D-Tex.) – 10%
Lowest score: 0% (1955) Highest score: 22% (1957)
Johnson in short: As Senate Majority leader, Lyndon B. Johnson was a national figure, and was an especially talented leader, pulling off narrow victories, and he with great frequency backed liberal positions despite liberals mistrusting him and considering him something of a conservative. His presidency would put this mistrust (at least on domestic issues) to rest for liberals.
Walter George (D-Ga.) – 18%
Lowest score: 8% (1956) Highest score: 40% (1955)
George in short: This period catches the very last years in Walter George’s long career, as he had served in the Senate since 1922. his low score here reflects a bit of a softening in his final years more towards where he stood at the beginning of his career. In the middle of his career, George had gained praise as a principled dissenter of much of what FDR stood for.
Albert Gore Sr. (D-Tenn.) – 21%
Lowest score: 0% (1962) Highest score: 75% (1955)
Gore in short: The father of the much more known Al Gore, Gore Sr. was known as one of the most liberal of the Southerners in the Senate. This didn’t only manifest itself in support for much of the national Democratic agenda but also on his votes on some social issues, and one that was particularly politically damaging was his vote against Everett Dirksen’s school prayer amendment in 1966. Gore’s positions on the Vietnam War also didn’t do him favors in Tennessee, and he lost reelection to Republican William Brock in 1970.
Herbert S. Walters (D-Tenn.) – 24%
Lowest score: 7% (1963) Highest score: 40% (1964)
Walters in short: Walters was an interim replacement after the death of Estes Kefauver. There really isn’t that much to say about him. However, ACA and ADA do strongly disagree on Walters’ ideology, so that’s of note.
J. William Fulbright (D-Ark.) – 25%
Lowest score: 4% (1963) Highest score: 54% (1968)
Fulbright in short: The name Fulbright lives on the Fulbright Scholarship, and he was one of the strongest internationalists in the South. Undoubtedly one of the more liberal Southern Democrats, he could nonetheless, based on the ACA vote selection, stood for the conservative position 25% of the time. He both sponsored the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and then turned against the Vietnam War as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Fulbright’s record on race (although he could at least vote to confirm Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court), his Faustian bargain for power if you will, ended up contributing to his renomination loss in 1974.
Johnston in short: Olin Johnston had during the 1930s been a strong supporter of FDR, being the state’s New Deal governor. His bid against Senator “Cotton Ed” Smith fell short in 1938, but the second time was a charm as he won a rematch in 1944. Senator Johnston’s record consisted of a lot of domestic liberalism (he supported the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and Medicare) but he frequently voted against foreign aid. Indeed, Johnston had been one of the few Southern Democrats to vote against the Marshall Plan in 1948.
J. Lister Hill (D-Ala.) – 31%
Lowest score: 7% (1959) Highest score: 54% (1967)
Hill in short: Lister Hill, who I wrote about quite recently, had had a longstanding reputation as a New Dealer and a Fair Dealer who specialized in public health. However, his state was moving quite to his right, and it was to the extent that he thought it best to retire in 1968.
Sparkman in short: John Sparkman was much of the same New Deal class as Lister Hill, and was the last segregationist to be on a Democratic Party presidential ticket, being the candidate for vice president in 1952. Sparkman certainly moved to the right after 1962, although far from staunch conservative. By 1978, he had clearly stayed in office too long and bowed out of reelection.
Smathers in short: George Smathers was certainly a turn right from his predecessor, Claude Pepper. However, among the Southern Democrats of his time, he was certainly one of the more liberal. Although Smathers signed the Southern Manifesto, he proved more flexible than many others, voting for the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. He even privately hoped the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would pass even though voting for it was politically impossible for him. Smathers was also a close friend of JFK and was one of two options to replace Lyndon Johnson had Kennedy lived to the 1964 election. Smathers chose not to run for reelection in 1968.
Long in short: Long’s record seems to zig-zag a bit, with him strongly supporting President Johnson’s Great Society during the Great Society Congress, but he moves to the right towards the Nixon presidency. On civil rights, he seemed to have a fairly easy time adjusting to the changing South, and his name and influence far from hurt him. He also was one of the Democratic senators to support President Reagan’s tax reductions. Long would opt not to run for reelection in 1986.
Thomas Wofford (D-S.C.) – 44%
Wofford in short: Perhaps the least notable senator in this entire list, as he served in the interim after Strom Thurmond briefly resigned from the Senate, only to win again.
Hollings in short: Hollings was the last of these senators to leave office, retiring in 2004. Although Hollings started out as a bit of a conservative, he found his place as a moderate and stuck to that for a long time. He was also known for his outspoken and occasionally offensive remarks. Hollings was also known as the “Senator from Disney” for his advocacy for the company.
Spong in short: Spong was a straight-up moderate, and he had been recruited by President Johnson in 1966 to run in the Democratic primary against A. Willis Robertson. Robertson had two things going against him: the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which had expanded the electorate, and his age. Spong defeated him, but only served a term until he was defeated in 1972 by Republican Congressman William Scott. Spong contributed a rather funny name when senators were trying to come up with ridiculous names for bills, that being the hypothetical legislation sponsored with Senators Hiram Fong (R-Haw.) and Russell Long (D-La.) protecting the copyrights of songwriters from Hong Kong, which would be titled the “Long-Fong-Spong-Hong-Kong-Song Bill”.
Daniel in short: Daniel made much more of an impact as governor after his Senate term. He seemed to be about where many Texans were politically at the time of his service in the Senate.
Ellender in short: I wrote a lot about Allen Ellender recently, which you can read. He was kind of a hodgepodge of views liberal and conservative, although his later career trended more conservative than liberal. Also notably supported FDR’s court-packing plan in 1937. Ellender died in office in 1972.
Jordan in short: Succeeding the late W. Kerr Scott, Jordan was miles more conservative than him, voting frequently with Sam Ervin. However, Jordan did show some independence from what was expected of Southern Democrats, such as his opposition to the Vietnam War later in his career. He lost renomination to Congressman Nick Galifianakis, who would proceed to lose the election to Republican Jesse Helms.
Talmadge in short: Herman Talmadge was elected to succeed Walter George in 1956, and was known as a hardliner on segregation. Although his reputation was quite right-wing, he was more variable than his reputation let on, such as voting for the Economic Opportunity Act in 1964 and Medicare in 1965. His finest hour in Washington was when he served on the Watergate Committee, which raised the profiles of most who served on it. However, his censure for ethics violations damaged his prospects and although efforts were made to rally black support for Talmadge in 1980, selling him was difficult and many blacks had negative connotations with the Talmadge name. He lost reelection to Republican Mack Mattingly.
Holland in short: Holland was uniformly opposed to civil rights with the sole exception of his Constitutional amendment to ban the poll tax in 1962. He was one of the more oppositional senators to domestic liberalism, including voting against the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and against Medicare, unlike his fellow Floridian Smathers. Holland retired in 1970.
Ervin in short: The trope originator for the “country lawyer”, Ervin by far had his greatest claim to fame as chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee, making him a hero among many Americans. Although perhaps the Senate’s most skilled legal opponent of civil rights legislation, he got points from liberals for his opposition to Everett Dirksen’s school prayer amendment as well as to “no knock” warrants for drug cases. However, such occasional liberal positions could serve to obscure his more conservative record in later years. Ervin retired from the Senate in 1974.
Stennis in short: Stennis was a figure who was quite a bit more respected for his more legalistic approach than James Eastland’s on the subject of civil rights. He also was the author of the Senate’s first ethics code. Stennis was among the more conservative Southerners, but his record got a bit more moderate starting around the Carter Administration. Stennis managed to avoid a lot of trouble for his civil rights stances, something his colleague Eastland couldn’t end up living down. Stennis retired from the Senate in 1988, by which time he was 87 years old.
Russell in short: Donald Russell served during most of the Great Society Congress, and he wasn’t particularly notable as he filled in the vacancy caused by the death of Olin Johnston. He lost renomination to Fritz Hollings in 1966.
McClellan in short: McClellan specialized in legislation combatting crime and racketeering and also famously chaired the McClellan Committee that investigated union corruption. He supported many measures (although not all proposals) limiting the power of organized labor. McClellan died in 1977, only a week after he publicly announced he would retire due to age and health.
Eastland in short: Among Southern senators, James Eastland was regarded as among the most racist of the group. Although not the worst major Mississippi politician on race during the Civil Rights Era (Governor Ross Barnett was worse), he became a face of Jim Crow. Eastland was certainly one of the more conservative of the Southern Democrats and was more willing to back proposals restricting organized labor than many were in the 1958 and 1959 debates on union reform. Once the political power of blacks in Mississippi’s Democratic Party was sufficiently developed, he opted not to seek another term in 1978.
Russell in short: Richard Russell was the leader of the Southern bloc, and he was greatly admired by his Senate colleagues all-around. For instance, Republican Milton Young of North Dakota got in some hot water with his party in 1952 when he announced that if Russell won the Democratic nomination that he would support him for president. Russell was the lead tactician against civil rights legislation in the Senate. Although his earlier career reflected support for much of the New Deal, a lot of such politics had faded away by this period in history, with him opposing domestic liberal legislation frequently and opposing foreign aid. However, Russell did vote for the final version of Medicare in 1965. Russell’s heavy-smoking habit caused his 1971 death in office from emphysema.
Byrd Jr. in short: The son of Harry F. Byrd Sr. and his successor in the Senate, Byrd ultimately found given his strong conservatism and that Democrats would want him to pledge to support whoever the Democratic nominee for president would be in 1972, he instead ran for reelection as an Independent. Despite officially being an Independent, Byrd would continue to caucus with the Democrats until he opted to retire in 1982. He would be very much his father’s son, and this included being among the eight Senate “nay” votes to the Voting Rights Act extension in 1982, if perhaps a little more flexible.
William Blakley, D-Tex. – 86%
Blakley in short: William Blakley served briefly as an interim senator in 1957 after Price Daniel’s departure, and then again served in 1961 after Lyndon B. Johnson’s departure for the vice presidency. Blakley sought to finish LBJ’s term in 1961, but many liberal Democrats couldn’t stomach the solidly conservative Blakley and defected to Republican John Tower, who won.
Robertson in short: Virginia’s delegation to Congress was among the most conservative, and possibly the most conservative of the whole South, and Willis Robertson was part of why. He was more fiscally conservative than most Southern Democrats, although even he doesn’t outmatch one of Virginia’s other senators. Robertson was also the father of televangelist Pat Robertson.
Thurmond in short: In addition to being the candidate for president in 1948 on the State’s Rights Party (Dixiecrat) ticket, he also had the longest solo filibuster on a bill in history, when he spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. He also serves as a symbol for many: you might say he was the symbolic start of the long march of the South to the Republican Party when he switched in 1964. Thurmond was also known for his longevity, both in life and in office, serving until 2003, when he was 100.
Byrd in short: Harry F. Byrd, who had been Virginia’s governor in the 1920s and served in the Senate since 1933, had been one of the earliest Democrats to turn against FDR’s New Deal. His record on fiscal conservatism was pretty hard to beat and had a strong aversion to debt. Byrd also disagreed with Democrats on foreign aid and had even voted against both Greek-Turkish aid in 1947 and the Marshall Plan in 1948, a rarity for a Democrat. Byrd would maintain his power in Virginia through his machine as well as through his “golden silence”: he would not endorse a candidate for president. He also has some infamy for his push for “massive resistance” to desegregation, which lasted until 1959 but the effects of which lasted longer. Byrd would be strongly opposed to the New Frontier and Great Society. A brain tumor would force his retirement in 1965 and cause his death the next year. Per positions based on votes the ACA found to measure conservatism, Byrd is the foremost conservative among the Senate Democrats.
As you can see from this post, the range of Democrats varied a bit in the South, and although most would not be successes in today’s Democratic Party, many would perhaps be too moderate or liberal for today’s Republican Party.
I was finally able to determine the Senate criterion for Americans for Constitutional Action scores from 1955 to 1959. The book of the first release of that group’s scores is massive…the library I found it in had it in the oversized book section. The ratings of the Senate from 1955 to 1959 consist of 77 votes, and are broken down as follows:
1955 – 5 votes
1956 – 13 votes
1957 – 9 votes
1958 – 20 votes
1959 – 30 votes
I also have determined the Senate ACA-Index for 1960, which consists of 13 votes.
The Standout: John J. Williams of Delaware
The outstanding individual in the Senate by ACA standards for Eisenhower’s second term was Republican John J. Williams of Delaware. Although Arizona’s Barry Goldwater technically has a higher score by 1960, he pairs contrary to ACA’s position on three occasions – once in 1957 on cutting military aid, again in 1958 on Senator Douglas’s (D-Ill.) tax reduction amendment, and once again in 1959 on cutting military aid. Williams only does wrong twice by ACA standards in the Eisenhower era: voting against cutting military aid in 1957 and voting to approve a compulsory settlement international agreement in 1960.
Democratic Hero of Conservatism: Harry Byrd of Virginia
Of all the Democrats, Virginia’s Harry Byrd scores the highest. He had turned against the New Deal by 1935 and was a consistent vote and voice for fiscal conservatism. Many Republicans were big fans of Byrd for his conservatism, and Byrd’s record justifies it, at least among conservative Republicans.
The Big Zeroes: Hart and McNamara
Senators Phil Hart (D-Mich.) and Pat McNamara (D-Mich.) vote zero times with ACA’s position during Eisenhower’s second term. A major political force in the state in this time was Walter Reuther of United Auto Workers, who effectively advocated for unions to lobby for liberalism overall rather than just pro-union policies. His efforts also helped turn Michigan away from its historic Republicanism. McNamara only voted for the ACA position twice in his entire career!
“Tail Gunner Joe” Doesn’t Make the Cut
I have read the take that Senator Joseph McCarthy was not a hardline right-winger, rather a moderate Republican, and this perspective is bolstered by how he voted on the votes counted by ACA on his last years in office. However, something to bear in mind is that for 1956, four votes involve agriculture, and McCarthy takes the liberal position each time. His positions against ACA actually outnumber his ones for!
LBJ and JFK: Decidedly Liberal
Future presidents LBJ and JFK both vote a liberal line per ACA. This is despite liberals regarding LBJ as something of a conservative. The number of government programs, foreign aid, etc. that LBJ votes for, however, qualifies him as a liberal, even if there is the occasional time he frustrates liberal objectives as majority leader. John F. Kennedy’s voting in the 84th Congress qualifies him as only a moderate liberal, but his voting after that Congress gives him his celebrated liberal reputation. He only sides with the ACA on two votes after 1956: reducing appropriations for rivers and harbors projects in 1957, and voting against drydock subsidies in 1959.
Eisenhower: Moderately Conservative
President Eisenhower’s “score”, as he doesn’t cast votes rather has positions on votes, is a 72%, as he stands for the conservative position on 41 of 57 Senate roll calls in which he is recorded as having a position. The biggest complaints for conservatives on him are his stances in favor of foreign aid and his occasional support of a liberal domestic measure. His strong points are on fiscal conservatism on domestic issues; his vetoes are quite cost-conscious.
Mistakes
I found out that I, to my regret, made two mistakes in my counting of the House for Eisenhower’s second term in a previous post. In 1958, I included the Anti-Preemption bill, when the vote ACA actually counted was Rep. Kenneth Keating’s (R-N.Y.) motion to recommit. In 1959, also with the Anti-Preemption bill, ACA counted Rep. John Lindsay’s (R-N.Y.) motion to recommit instead of passage, which I thought was the vote counted. I will correct these errors soon.
In 1928, a young and aggressive reformer won the Louisiana governorship in Huey Long. Although state legislator Allen Joseph Ellender (1890-1972) originally opposed Long’s rise, campaigning against him in 1924 and 1928, he got wise as he saw which way the wind was blowing both in Baton Rouge and among his constituents, and became a key ally (Bencel, 42-43). However, this wasn’t an easy relationship initially. In one instance, they had a nasty argument over the phone over Ellender voting against $150,000 to renovate the governor’s mansion, with Long swearing at him and Ellender threatening to slap Long if he did so in person (Bencel, 41). However, Long and Ellender would prove to have an effective working relationship, and they did have some things politically in common, including opposition to the traditional leadership of Louisiana. Ellender drafted the “Round Robin” statement that enough senators signed in 1929, which guaranteed the Senate wouldn’t vote for conviction in an impeachment trial (Alford). With Long’s support, Ellender was elected speaker of the Louisiana House in 1932.
Rise to the Senate
Ellender’s elevation to the Senate was attributable to two deaths. First, Huey Long succumbing to his assassination on September 10, 1935, and Governor Oscar K. Allen’s death on January 28, 1936. The path was clear for Ellender to run for the Senate. He had previously been denied nomination for governor because he had refused to back ethically questionable oil leases. Ellender as a senator was quite different from Huey Long towards Roosevelt, now that he was free of Long’s command. Long, although he supported some key aspects of the New Deal, often crossed swords with Roosevelt, both to his left and right. He reflected on Long, “Huey Long was personally ambitious and I saw in his feud with a president a means of advancing his own presidential ambitions. I always thought that Huey was subordinating the best interest of the state to his own ambitions” (Bencel, 74).
Staunch Ally of FDR
When Ellender first entered the Senate, he was one of the most loyal supporters of President Roosevelt, and this included being one of only twenty senators to vote to keep his “court packing plan” alive. His support of the court-packing plan can be explained by him wanting to win favor with the Roosevelt Administration (Bencel, 77). Ellender also supported the Wage and Hour bill in 1937, which numerous Southerners thought went too far on fair labor standards. Ellender also proved loyal on foreign policy matters, including backing the repeal of the arms embargo in 1939 and Lend-Lease in 1941. On civil rights, Ellender was predictably a strong foe, and fought against anti-lynching legislation. His stance on race is explained by his biographer thusly, “Ellender’s racism was essentially traditional, neither vindictive nor mean. A product of his times, he, like most white southerners, opposed granting more rights and privileges to blacks, whom he considered inferior. Like many segregationists, he professed to like blacks personally. He softened his stance somewhat by saying his real opposition was to intrusion by the federal government into the affairs of the state” (Bencel, 79). Despite his at times peppery and prejudiced takes, he was popular among his colleagues across the board, and his honesty, courtly manners, as well as his Cajun shrimp gumbo were certainly a part of it. He, like many other Southerners, would gradually grow more conservative, and this would increase during the Truman Administration.
Post-War Years
In 1946, Ellender led the defense for Senator Theodore Bilbo (D-Miss.) when the incoming Republicans sought to deny him seating for advocating the use of violence to stop blacks from voting, and managed to get Bilbo off on accusations of depriving qualified black voters the vote. One senator, however, Ellender did not defend was Wisconsin’s Republican demagogue Joseph McCarthy, holding “The fact that a man belonged to an organization that later turned semi-Red is no reason to charge him with being a Communist” (Bencel, 171).
Although Ellender backed the Marshall Plan and Greek-Turkish aid during the 80th Congress, he would become disillusioned with foreign aid starting in 1951, when he toured Europe for a fifth time. He found what he considered to be waste and extravagance, and only backed continued aid to Austria and West Germany (Bencel, 188). From then on, he voted against Mutual Security legislation. Following a 28-nation tour in 1957, Ellender condemned economic aid as having been an “abysmal failure” in all instances (Fried). That year, he voted against the establishment of the Development Loan Fund.
In other ways, Ellender was a flexible legislator, and indeed his support was key to the enactment of the 1949 Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill, providing for public housing. Taft represented the Republicans, Ellender the Southern Democrats, and Wagner the Northern Democrats. Ellender, as chairman of the Senate Agricultural Committee, was staunchly for retaining high price supports during the Eisenhower Administration, contrary to the push towards lower and flexible price supports by Eisenhower and Republicans, seeking more of a free market approach. On civil rights, Ellender found that the position of the South had weakened in the ability to stop such legislation since Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and recalled in 1971 that this ability was dealt a fatal blow with the admission of Alaska and Hawaii, which he had opposed (Cates).
Controversial Views on Developing Nations
Ellender was outspoken in his views on foreign policy, and he could be undiplomatically so when it came to developing nations. In 1956, he referred to South Koreans as no better than “bloodsuckers”, commented that a public market in Mogadishu, Somalia was “untidy”, called markets in Addis Ababa “filth”, and implied that the Nepalese were lazy (Time Magazine). In 1962, while visiting Morocco, he expressed his doubts that black Africans could self-govern. He proceeded to make numerous racist comments while touring Africa, including “Egypt hasn’t achieved anything great since the Pharaohs began practicing desegregation with their slaves”, “Ethiopia would have nothing if it weren’t for the Italians”, and “The average African is incapable of leadership except through the assistance of Europeans” (Time Magazine). The nations and their people that were targets of his undiplomatic remarks were not pleased. Ellender was barred from entering Uganda, Taganyika, and Ethiopia. However, one point Ellender would make, which he repeated in a 1971 interview that proved prescient was on the problems surrounding the concept of nationhood among Africans given the many differences among tribes (Cates). This continues to be a difficulty in the governance of African nations to this day.
Ellender and the 1960s Democratic Administrations
Senator Ellender tended to vote against budget cuts to existing programs, but would usually vote against new programs. On foreign policy, while proving an opponent of foreign aid as well as the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, he did vote for the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963. Ellender also opposed Republican efforts to block the sale of grain to the USSR and Hungary.
In 1964, Ellender participated in the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, voted against tax reduction, voted against the Economic Opportunity Act, and voted against Senator Albert Gore’s (D-Tenn.) Medicare amendment. The following year, Ellender voted against the Appalachian Regional Development bill and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He also opposed Medicare, but supported the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Housing and Urban Development Act, and rent subsidies. Ellender also supported both of Senator Dirksen’s proposed Constitutional amendments, on legislative reapportionment and school prayer. Despite his vote for the latter, Ellender was not a religious man. Although he professed a belief in God, he didn’t hold rigidly to Christian doctrines, did not attend church, and was turned off by extravagance in church ceremonies, especially in poor areas (Bencel, 150). Were Ellender alive today, he’d certainly feel a sense of revulsion towards megachurches. In contrast to his vote for the Wage and Hour bill in 1937, he voted against increasing the minimum wage in 1966. On civil rights, he regarded Brown vs. Board of Education as a tragedy and lamented that many blacks seemed to hate the South (Cates).
Later in his life, Ellender became receptive to warming relations with the USSR. As George McGovern recalled while the two were at the Senate gym getting a massage, Ellender told him, “George, when I die I want you to take up my mission of convincing the Senate and the country that the Russians are not ogres out to destroy us and that we should seek better relations with the Soviet Union” (Fried). He was largely supportive of President Nixon and although he had become vocally critical of the Vietnam War, he felt bound to support the president in a war situation, and this included him voting against the Cooper-Church (no more funds for operations in Cambodia) and McGovern-Hatfield (timetable for withdrawal from Vietnam) amendments in 1970. In 1971, Ellender became chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee. Despite being 81 years old in 1972, Ellender wanted to run for renomination, and he was making a go at it. Despite his mind and spirit being into having another term in the Senate, his heart was not, and he died on July 27th at Bethesda Naval Hospital of a heart attack. Ellender is a complex figure whose perspective, although overall turned more towards conservatism than liberalism in his last two decades in office, was a man who on numerous questions was not rigid, and in some categories such as housing was quite supportive of the liberal position. Ellender’s DW-Nominate score was a -0.089, which is rather high for a Democrat. His Americans for Democratic Action scores in by the 1950s and 1960s were showing a consistent conservatism, while his Americans for Constitutional Action scores showed him to be more of a moderate who leans conservative.
References
Alford, J. (2009, November 1). Ellender maintains stature in U.S. Senate history. Houma Today.
There are certain legislators who I regard as “links” in political eras given their longevity of service. One big example of this I have noted in the past is Joe Cannon, who served in Congress from 1873 to 1923 with only two interruptions in his service. Another is Carl Hayden, who represented Arizona in Washington first as a representative and then as a senator from the timespan of 1912 to 1969. One such figure for the Deep South is Joseph Lister Hill (1894-1984), who served in the House from 1923 to 1938, and then the Senate from 1938 to 1969.
Hill was the son of prominent surgeon Dr. Luther Hill, who had been a pupil of the famous and revolutionary British surgeon, Dr. Joseph Lister. This would prove a most fitting name for him. Although Hill initially was going to follow in his father’s footsteps in medicine, he decided against it after he became nauseous to the point of having to leave the room watching his father operate (Bennett). Instead, Hill chose the legal profession, and would serve in World War I. He was well positioned for politics as his family, per Hill himself, “pretty well ran city politics in Montgomery” (Bennett). In 1923, Montgomery’s representative, John R. Tyson, died in office, and Hill succeeded him.
Hill vs. Coolidge & Hoover
Congressman Hill was a frequent opponent of the policies of Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. He supported veterans bonus legislation, supported the Howell-Barkley bill which would essentially result in closed shop for railroad workers as only unions would be representing workers on the proposed national adjustment boards to mediate labor disputes, and supported public ownership of power generation. Hill also opposed tariff increases as was expected of most Southern Democrats. During the Great Depression, he backed public works spending for the purposes of creating employment, supported government aid to agriculture, supported veterans bonus legislation, and supported a few measures to curb government expenditures.
Hill & FDR: Best Buds
During the Roosevelt Administration, Hill was a staunch supporter of the New Deal, and this continued throughout FDR’s presidency even as some Alabama politicians had second thoughts. The only New Deal measure of significance he voted against during FDR’s first term was the Guffey Coal Act in 1935, which conservatives condemned as a step towards socialism and many Southerners considered harmful to the region’s economy. As the chairman of the Military Affairs Committee, he wrote the bill creating the Tennessee Valley Authority and was among its foremost advocates throughout his career. In 1937, Hill was one of only a few Southerners in the House to support the Wage and Hours bill (for a minimum wage), which was killed in one of the first victories of a forming conservative coalition (the Fair Labor Standards Act would be passed the next year). That year, Senator Hugo Black resigned his seat as he was confirmed to the Supreme Court, and in the election to succeed him Congressman Hill faced off against former Senator Tom Heflin. Heflin ran to Hill’s right in opposition to the Wage and Hours bill and charged him with being soft on communism. However, Heflin’s age of 68 (of which he fully seemed) as well as his history of, as Time Magazine put it, “loud and bigoted clownishness”, proved too much of a liability for his return against the young (44) Lister Hill. Hill won the primary by 40,000 votes. Heflin was, contrary to his reputation, graceful in defeat, stating per his secretary, “The Lord takes care of His children and there are other things to be thankful for” (Time Magazine). Alabamians were ready for a new face in the Senate.
Senator Hill
Hill’s loyalty to FDR and the New Deal managed to land him a plum place in the 1940 Democratic National Convention, officially placing FDR’s name for nomination for a third term, however his accent was widely mocked by FDR’s opponents (Hill). He was staunchly supportive of FDR’s foreign policy, backing the 1939 repeal of the arms embargo, supporting the peacetime draft, and endorsing Lend Lease. Hill became so well regarded among his Democratic colleagues that he was elected majority whip in 1941. Although he was more supportive of Roosevelt than many Southern Democrats on domestic policy during World War II, he nonetheless supported the Smith-Connally Act in 1943 to stop wartime strikes over his veto. Hill would also buck FDR on solider voting, supporting states having control over the federal government of soldier voting, as well as oppose him on the extent of price control regarding commodities produced by Southern states.
During the Truman Administration, Hill would prove one of the most supportive of Southern Democrats. In 1947 and 1948, his Americans for Democratic Action scores were 100% as minority whip, just like they were for Minority Leader Alben Barkley of Kentucky. This included voting to sustain President Truman’s vetoes of income tax reduction and most notably of the Taft-Hartley Act, a measure to limit the recent substantial power of labor unions that got overwhelming support in the South. It was in the 80th Congress that we see Hill paired with his colleague, John Sparkman. These men were loyalists to the national Democratic Party and New Deal principles, and even though their state had voted for the Dixiecrats in 1948, they stuck with Truman. Truman’s embrace of a civil rights program and Alabama’s 1948 defection had a consequence for Hill, in that he recognized that he would not be able to serve as whip under a national Democratic Party that officially endorsed civil rights, and stepped down from leadership.
Alabama’s Democratic Party was by the 1940s divided between its conservative and liberal wings. Although federally they all, with the sole exception of Luther Patrick of Birmingham, voted the same on civil rights. However, until 1964 there was this divide that existed and, in the Senate, Hill and his colleague Sparkman were representative of those in Alabama who had opted to stay loyal to President Truman in the 1948 election instead of bolt to the State’s Rights (Dixiecrat) ticket of Strom Thurmond. Alabama had for some time been considered the most liberal state of the South due to its significant liberal presence in Hill and Sparkman in the Senate, as well as Albert Rains, Carl Elliott, Kenneth Roberts, George Huddleston Jr., and Robert Jones in the House. However, the liberalism of these legislators would be tested as younger liberals were increasingly favorable to causes that were not well received in the white South, most notably civil rights.
The Hill-Burton Act
Hill’s most notable achievement in the Senate was the Hill-Burton Act of 1946, which he sponsored with Harold Burton (R-Ohio). This law dramatically expanded the construction of hospitals in the South, and proved revolutionary in public health for Southern blacks as hospitals that received funding under the act were not allowed to deny admittance based on race, although segregation was still permitted. Southern blacks did, however, get a lot of medical attention that they previously had often been denied. However, the Hill-Burton Act had the unanticipated consequence of resulting in overbuilding hospitals in the South and not building enough in Northern urban areas. Although the law’s admission requirements for hospitals constructed under such funds remain, the law no longer provides funds as of 1997 (Health Resources & Services Administration).
Hill vs. Eisenhower
Lister Hill was in many respects an opponent of President Eisenhower. He frequently opposed him in the ways in which he was conservative, including efforts to enact free market reforms to agriculture, reduce funds for the Hill-Burton Act, and to limit the Tennessee Valley Authority. Hill also opposed him on his support for a strong civil rights bill in 1957. However, Lister Hill was supportive of President Eisenhower’s internationalism as he had been for President Truman.
Hill and Relations with Kennedy and Johnson
The 1960s would prove complicated for Senator Lister Hill regarding the politics of the national Democratic Party. Although he was supportive of John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier by and large, he voted against Medicare in 1962, as he had in 1960. Hill’s support of Kennedy would be taxing for him politically, as many Southern whites were coming to despise Kennedy for his stances on civil rights, and this was not helped for him when on September 27, 1962, President Kennedy sent 30,000 federal troops to quell the Ole Miss riot against the admission of James Meredith to the University of Mississippi.
The 1962 Midterms: The Beginning of the End of the New Deal Coalition
There were already signs of trouble in Alabama for support of the national Democrats in 1960, since the result was complicated, as five of the state’s electors voted for Kennedy and six of the state’s “uncommitted” electors voted for Virginia Senator Harry Byrd on a segregationist line. Its neighbor, Mississippi, had outright voted for Byrd.
The 1962 election seemed to have a major impact on Alabama Democrats, as this was the election in which the anti-Kennedy and militantly segregationist George Wallace was elected governor. Senators Hill and Sparkman had been keen to support most of Kennedy’s initiatives as they had FDR’s New Deal and Harry S. Truman’s Fair Deal. Hill himself had a very close call in this election as Republican James Martin, a young (for politics) and telegenic figure who ran on an anti-Kennedy platform and charged Hill with not doing enough to stop civil rights measures, came within two points of victory on an anti-Kennedy platform. By contrast, in 1956 he had easily won renomination with 68% of the vote against the extremely bigoted Rear Admiral John G. Crommelin (who would later serve on the advisory board of Willis Carto’s white supremacist group National Youth Alliance) and unanimously won reelection. Hill may have only been saved by the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The 1962 midterms would also be a portend of what would happen in 1964: Alabama’s House delegation would go from 8-0 Democrat to 5-3 Republican.
Ideology of the Later Years
Hill did not figure favorably with conservatives. In 1960, Americans for Constitutional Action rated him a 15% based on 77 votes cast from 1955 to 1959. However, by the 1960s, neither Americans for Constitutional Action or Americans for Democratic Action were happy with Hill’s record. Although Hill had previously scored 100% in 1947, 1948, and 1951 from ADA, their political emphases had shifted, and the strongly civil rights and urban direction of their emphasis was not in the direction of Alabama’s white voters.
Hill had, like with Sparkman, moved right after the 1962 midterms that saw the rise of George Wallace. In 1964, Hill as well as Sparkman vote against the Economic Opportunity Act, votes they likely wouldn’t have cast had it been proposed during the Truman Administration when Alabama voters would have been more motivated by their progressive economic stances. They both did, however, vote for programs such as the Appalachian Regional Development Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and Medicare in 1965. While it is undoubtedly true that Hill moved rightward, some proposals were present in the 1960s that simply weren’t in the days in which Americans for Democratic Action gave him 100%. For example, Warren Court decisions on civil rights and other issues had not been issued yet. Hill voted for both of Minority Leader Everett Dirksen’s (R-Ill.) proposed constitutional amendments in the Great Society Congress; to allow legislative reapportionment in one state legislative house not to be based on population alone and for school prayer. He would also, for reasons that were more political than anything else, oppose every civil rights measure. To do otherwise in his time and place would have been career suicide, the best he could do was not be a race-baiter, which he regarded as beneath him (Hill). For 1960s liberals, Hill was out of date, and for conservatives, Hill was not conservative enough. Per Americans for Constitutional Action’s standards, Hill was from 1964 to 1968 a moderate, while by Americans for Democratic Action standards, he had become a staunch conservative. By DW-Nominate, Hill scores a -0.265 based on his entire career in Congress. The New York Times reflected on Hill as “trapped by the racial history of [his] region . . . who [nevertheless] dared to be progressive on every issue except civil rights” (Hamilton).
In 1968, Hill at 74 opted not to run for reelection. Although still in good enough health to have gone for another term, the political winds were moving against him, and he faced the possibility of a difficult primary with the challenger being James B. Allen, Alabama’s conservative lieutenant governor. Allen would indeed succeed Hill. Hill would outlive his considerably younger successor in office and died on December 20, 1984, less than two weeks short of his 90th birthday.
References
Bennett, T. (1984, December 21). Former U.S. Senator Lister Hill from Alabama Dead at 89. The Atlanta Journal, 13.
Retrieved from
Dec 21, 1984, page 13 – The Atlanta Journal at Newspapers.com
Hamilton, V. (2007, March 13). Lister Hill. Encyclopedia of Alabama.
Retrieved from
Lister Hill – Encyclopedia of Alabama
Hill-Burton Free and Reduced-Cost Healthcare. Health Resources & Services Administration.
Retrieved from
Hill-Burton Free and Reduced-Cost Health Care | HRSA
Hill, Joseph Lister. Voteview.
Retrieved from
Voteview | Sen. HILL, Joseph Lister (Democrat, AL): Sen. HILL is more liberal than 61% of the 90th Senate, and more conservative than 61% of Democrats
Hill, R. Alabama Liberal: Lister Hill. The Knoxville Focus.
Retrieved from
Alabama Liberal: Lister Hill | The Knoxville Focus (knoxfocus.com)
The Congress: Victory & Defeat. (1938, January 17). Time Magazine.
Mad Politics: The Bizarre, Fascinating, and Unknown of American Political History 