Month: June 2025

Fascinating Politics

The 1960 Presidential vs. Down Ticket Elections

I recently found a most interesting source on the 1960 election, and it is Congressional Quarterly’s breakdown of the election by district, which tells a fascinating story of the politics of the day. The politics of 1960 stand as a great contrast to contemporary politics. The parties were far more ideologically diverse, although Democrats still got more of the black vote than Republicans, Republicans could still get a significant minority, and both parties were trying to appeal to the white South. Republican Richard Nixon and Democrat John F. Kennedy compared records during the campaign to make their cases of who was the most experienced. Today, experience is often seen as a liability in Washington, as voters regularly clamor for outsiders. Only two candidates who were perceived as establishment rather than outsiders won presidential elections since 1976: George H.W. Bush in 1988 and Joe Biden in 2020, and neither of them served a second term. This was a remarkably close election, and victories could be seen for both parties in all regions of the nation. Kennedy’s top three states paint a varied picture in Rhode Island, Georgia, and Massachusetts. Richard Nixon won in some areas that are out of bounds for Republicans today, such as Portland, Oregon. Although San Francisco was Democratic, it was not as Democratic as it is today, and one of its two House seats was held by a Republican with Nixon coming close to winning that district.

Although one must acknowledge the complexities of politics in 1960 that we don’t see today, such as a substantial contingent of Southern Democrats voting more or less conservative, one sees a considerable difference between Nixon’s electoral performance and the Republicans down ticket. This was highly noticeable in the South, and there were numerous Southern districts that were overdue for a flip to the GOP. Some were predictive of future elections; Alabama’s 9th district (Birmingham), represented by George Huddleston Jr., was the only district Nixon won in the state, and in 1964 the district would flip to the GOP. Same goes for Arkansas’ 3rd district based in Fort Smith, in 1966 that district would flip to the GOP and do so for good. In Florida, Voters in half of its Congressional districts voted for Nixon, but the only House Republican elected was William Cramer of St. Petersburg. Although North Carolina voted for Kennedy, 7 of 12 of its House districts would have elected a Republican if the district vote was the same for president and Congressional candidates, while in reality only Charles Jonas of the 10th district was elected. In Tennessee, 5 of 9 of the districts voted for Nixon as did the state, yet only the standard two Republicans from the 1st and 2nd districts were elected to Congress that year. Republicans were gaining strength in suburban areas of the South, while Democrats retained their large advantage in rural areas. For instance, in Florida’s 3rd district, constituting the state’s western panhandle, Kennedy got the highest percentage of the vote of any of the districts. This area was the most culturally Deep South of any of Florida’s districts, and it would elect Democrats until 1994. This also happens to be the area that Matt Gaetz represented until last year. Among Southern states, Georgia was a great exception to the South being a battleground area, as Kennedy was spectacularly popular in the state, having an even better performance there than in his home state of Massachusetts and winning all districts, putting him narrowly over the top in the Southern vote. Indeed, the Southern vote came out 51-49 for Kennedy. This would make Georgia’s vote for Barry Goldwater in 1964 all the more jarring. However, something to note is that the black vote for Kennedy was considerably stronger than the Southern vote, which was informative for the Democratic Party as to where its future was, with him winning 68% of the demographic. A Democrat getting a figure as low as 68% in the black vote is now unheard of.

This map is also roughly predictive of where Kentucky and Oklahoma are now. In the former, Democrats only won two districts, the 1st based in Paducah which came the closest in the state to seceding during the War of the Rebellion, and the 7th, represented by liberal Carl Perkins. In the latter, only the 3rd district with Carl Albert, known as “Little Dixie”, voted for Kennedy. Yet, both states only sent one Republican to Congress from the House, although Kentucky strongly voted to reelect Republican Senator John Sherman Cooper, a popular maverick. On the state level, Missouri was strongly Democratic with both its senators and 9 out of 11 of its representatives being Democrats, but Nixon won 7 of 11 of its districts, only losing in the districts based around St. Louis and Kansas City.

In the West Coast, Nixon outperformed down ticket Republicans in California and in Oregon, winning all districts in the latter. However, Oregon’s status as a Republican state was going downhill, as President Eisenhower’s land use and private power policies were not popular among the state’s voters. Even though the state’s voters went for Eisenhower twice, Republicans in the state took a beating for it, and they since haven’t gone back to the level of power they had before the Eisenhower Administration. Washington, on the other hand, sent a curiously mixed delegation to Congress: 5 of its 7 representatives were Republican yet both of its senators were Democrats, and the state narrowly pulled the lever for Nixon. Republicans outperformed Nixon in the state, but this wouldn’t last, and by 1968, the state would be down to two House Republicans and Nixon would lose it.

Former House Speaker Joe Martin (R-Mass.), who hung on despite Kennedy winning his district on account of his status as an institution in his district.

Although Nixon outperformed Republican candidates in the Midwest and Border States and especially the South, Congressional Republicans outperformed Nixon in eight states: the aforementioned Washington, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, prominent moderate Republican William Scranton would be elected from the Scranton-based 10th district while Nixon lost. Nixon way outperformed Republicans in the South, as voters were used to the idea of splitting their tickets. In Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy won in all of the Congressional districts and the state was his third best, but this did not translate into any defeats in the 6 House seats Republicans held nor did it result in the defeat of moderate Republican Senator Leverett Saltonstall, whose politics were pretty much perfectly calibrated for a Republican in the state; conservative enough to not tick off the GOP base but also liberal enough for him to have considerable crossover appeal. Another example of a successful Republican in the Bay State was former Speaker of the House Joe Martin, who had been in office since 1925 and who was holding on in a district that had been starting to vote Democratic as he was an institution, the many favors he had done for his constituents, and his increasingly moderate voting record. The performance of John F. Kennedy in 1960 in Massachusetts can be seen as predictive for the long-term of the state, which since 1997 has had an entirely Democratic delegation to Congress save for 2010-2013, when Republican Scott Brown served in the Senate. The only states in which Kennedy had a better performance were Georgia and Rhode Island, which reflects the highly dual nature of the Democratic Party at the time. Indeed, both candidates sought to appeal to black and Southern white votes. The House leadership team was Speaker Sam Rayburn of Texas and Majority Leader John W. McCormack of Massachusetts in what was known as the “Austin-Boston Connection”. Delaware was an interesting case, as although it gave Kennedy a victory, Republican Cale Boggs defeated Democratic Senator J. Allen Frear for reelection, but at this time Boggs was viewed as more liberal than Frear, who had often frustrated Democratic leadership with his conservative voting record. Delaware’s sole Congressman, liberal Democrat Harris McDowell, was reelected. Nixon also handily won Vermont, which at this time had the longest streak of voting for Republicans for president, but it should be noted that this would be broken in 1964 and neither its senators nor sole representative were of the conservative wing of the party.

The Strange Cases of Alabama and Mississippi

The South was competitive ground in the 1960 election, but there was a complication: the State’s Rights Party. They ran uncommitted slates of electors in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Although not enough traction was gained for a difference to be made in Louisiana, they had impact in Alabama and Mississippi. Although they were far from the only Jim Crow states, they were the most disaffected by the civil rights movement and this impacted how the states were voting this year. Alabama had the single strangest way of voting of any state that year, as people who voted Democratic were clearly voting for a slate of electors, with some pledged for Kennedy and others not pledged, for president. The percentage of the vote tabulated in Alabama thus doesn’t technically go to Kennedy, rather Democratic electors. The Democratic electors won, and Alabama’s electoral vote was split 6 for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia and 5 for Kennedy. A controversy remains to this day as to whether Nixon could be said to have won the popular vote in a plurality in Alabama because of this split.  

Mississippi was the only state that year to not cast electoral votes for either Nixon or Kennedy, with the state being won by “unpledged electors”, who cast their votes for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia. Kennedy got the lowest percentage of the vote here of any state, and Mississippi would go even further in its rejection of the national Democrats in the 1964 election with 87% of its voters (at the time nearly all white) voting for Goldwater. Kennedy’s Catholicism in many areas of Mississippi was seen as suspect, and they were generally aware that he was a liberal, which didn’t play well there.

Alternative Scenario: Presidential and Down Ticket Votes Mirror Each Other

An interesting conclusion can be drawn if we present an alternate scenario in which the Republican Party down ticket is just as popular as Nixon: Kennedy would have faced a Republican House with Republicans getting 227 seats as opposed to the Democrats’ 207, although what happens in Alabama and Mississippi in this scenario is quite disputable. While the Senate would have stayed Democratic given the drubbing Republicans suffered in 1958, but they would have gained four seats instead of two. This would have made Kennedy’s presidency more difficult. The popularity of down ticket candidates for the Democratic Party can be attributed to there being many Democratic voters willing to split their tickets. Indeed, ticket splitting was far stronger in 1960 than it is today, although this is because we have what are called ideologically responsible parties with a lot less ideological wiggle room. Furthermore, back in 1960, Democrats had a 17 million voter registration advantage, far more than they have today. I have also included below a sheet that makes the data a bit easier to read than CQ’s source. Bold italics indicate Republican Congressional winners while D and R designations indicate the presidential winner of the district. Alabama is asterisked due to its unique way of counting Democratic votes, thus percentages reflect votes for Democratic electors rather than Kennedy.

1960 Election Results:

1960 House ElectionDownload

References

1960 Official Vote In Each State, All Congressional Districts. CQ Almanac 1961. Congressional Quarterly Press.

Retrieved from

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal61-879-29204-1371757#=

1960 United States presidential election. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election

Fascinating Politics

Joe Waggonner: Louisiana’s Conservative Leader

On September 16, 1961, longtime Democratic Congressman Overton Brooks died in office. Brooks had been in office long enough to be among the legislators who shifted from supporting FDR’s liberalism to being of the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, Joe Waggonner (1918-2007) of Plain Dealing had already planned on challenging him in the 1962 primary over what was seen as insufficient conservatism. Waggonner was a leader in the state’s White Citizens Council and had refused to support John F. Kennedy in 1960, instead serving as an elector for the State’s Rights Party which was backing Virginia Senator Harry F. Byrd. One key point of contention for Waggonner was Brooks’ 1961 vote to expand the Rules Committee, thus weakening the obstructive power of conservative chairman Howard W. Smith (D-Va.). However, with Brooks six feet under, Waggonner had a clear path to run to succeed him, and his opponent would be oilman Charlton Lyons, who had only the previous year switched from Democrat to Republican. Both were in truth highly similar men differentiated mostly in party affiliation. Both were strongly conservative, and both were outspoken segregationists. Party affiliation won the day in Louisiana, with Waggonner prevailing by 10 points in the special election. Lyons’ 45% of the vote was, however, a strong showing for a Republican in that day, and it was the closest contest of Waggonner’s career.

Waggonner vs. National Democrats

Although a Democrat, as I mentioned before, Waggonner was strongly anti-Kennedy, and on most questions of importance, he voted with conservative Republicans. He even voted against some of the most popular proposals backed by Kennedy, such as educational television and job training programs. Indeed, in his first full year of Congress, Waggonnner got a 100% from Americans for Constitutional Action and a 0% by Americans for Democratic Action. The only major Kennedy measure of ideological salience that he backed was his tax reduction legislation. Waggonner likewise proved a strong opponent of President Johnson and the Great Society, voting against most key measures. However, in 1966, he did oppose multiple Republican efforts at budget reduction in certain departments in 1966, 1967, and 1968. He saw himself as something of an ambassador of conservatism in Congress, and by his own account spent a good deal of time trying to persuade liberals to see things his way. He stated, “The trend to socialism is not accidental, but reflects the attitude of the majority, or it would not be the prevailing trend. I spend all of my time talking to the liberals in Congress, doing all I can to persuade them of the rightness of our views, not to conservatives who already share our philosophy” (Minden Press, 1).  Waggonner was not without positions on foreign policy, and on April 5, 1966, he voiced support for Ian Smith’s minority white government in Rhodesia and commented, “Three generations ago, a group of resourceful white men went into the jungle of what is now Rhodesia and carved a civilized land by the sheer force of their brains and management ability. The lesson of history was crystal clear then as it is now: the natives were not capable of producing any semblance of what we call civilization. Now that the white man had led them out of savagery, the Socialist, left-wing camp is up in arms to turn the country back to them. This is, of course, a not too subtle way of building a Socialist bridge from Democracy to Communism” (Lake, 119). He was of course uncompromising in his opposition to the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Waggonner was not just an ideologue, however, he also was able to secure federal funds for his district, for instance for getting Interstate 49 between Lafayette and Shreveport constructed (WAFB 9).

Waggonner having a chat with Wernher von Braun.

New President, New Day

Although Waggonner had not gotten on with Kennedy and Johnson, he got on exceptionally well with Richard Nixon and was often of assistance even if at times he thought Nixon was too friendly to civil rights. In 1970, Waggonner cosponsored Gerald Ford’s (R-Mich.) resolution to impeach Justice William O. Douglas, in part as a retaliatory move for the Senate rejecting Supreme Court nominees Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell. However, this failed to gain traction. He marshalled Southern Democrats to support much of Nixon’s agenda, strongly supported him on the Vietnam War, and even became a personal friend. Waggonner’s stances on civil rights during this time seemed to ease up a bit since, being a savvy politician, he sensed the changing times. The Shreveport Times (1978) noted that by the early 1970s most people were not associating Waggonner with his earlier strong segregation stances, and that unlike some of the old segregationists, his popularity increased with time (16). One of the great elements of his success was not just his savviness, but also his attentiveness to his constituents.  As The Shreveport Times (1978) noted upon Waggonner’s announcement of his retirement, “Rarely, if ever, did a letter from a constituent go unanswered. If a favor could be done for a voter, it got done. For thousands of people, he has been a very personal line to the top level of government” (16).

During the summer of 1974, Nixon looked to him to give reports on where Congressional support stood on impeachment on the Democratic side, and a motivating factor for him to resign was Waggonner reporting that his support was crumbling among Southern Democrats. The Shreveport Journal (1976) noted, “On a personal level, he was among Richard Nixon’s closest friends and shared some of his most dramatic and emotional last experiences in the White House and he has continued that close relationship. During the past weeks, Waggonner has traveled to San Clemente for a long personal discussion with the former president” (13). He would also be a friend and political ally of Gerald Ford’s, although not quite as close as he was with Nixon.

A Scandal That Changed the Rules

Like his fellow Louisianan Otto Passman, Waggonner faced a scandal in 1976, although it was not for alleged bribery. The 1970s were an interesting time in political journalism, since before the press was willing to cover for politicians carrying on affairs, but with multiple political sex scandals making the news, this cover has since been gone. In June 1976, The New York Post revealed that Waggonner was arrested for solicitation of sex from an undercover female officer earlier in the year. He claimed entrapment, and because members of Congress had been immune from prosecution for misdemeanors in Washington D.C. for a century, Waggonner had not been prosecuted. In July 1976, this non-prosecution policy was scrapped. Waggonner was also in something of a difficult position that year, as he was clearly far more in alignment on policy with President Gerald Ford than Jimmy Carter, but the Democrats had more power to deny seniority for those who broke party line. Despite the aforementioned difficulties, he easily won reelection.

Waggonner’s Last Term

Joe Waggonner’s record on Carter was quite similar to his record with the previous Democratic president. In January 1978, he was interviewed and one of the subjects was on his stance on segregation. Waggonner did not disavow his previous political positions on segregation or on his votes against the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. He continued to express his opposition to the Voting Rights Act as it was, but expressed that if the law was applied throughout the nation rather than just the South and certain counties, he would support it (Flournoy). The year 1978 constituted a bit of an end of an era in the South, as numerous prominent legacy politicians were not running for reelection, such as Senators John Sparkman of Alabama and James Eastland of Mississippi, Congressmen Bob Poage and George Mahon of Texas, and Waggonner joined them. However, he didn’t do so before securing the construction of a new General Motors plant in Shreveport (The Shreveport Times, 16). In the Democratic primary for his successor, he endorsed Buddy Leach over future Republican Buddy Roemer over the latter’s criticism of the Red River navigation program. Although Leach would win in 1978, the other Buddy would win the 1980 primary. In his career, Waggonner sided with ACA 83% of the time and the liberal Americans for Democratic Action a mere 3% of the time. His DW-Nominate score didn’t seem to reflect this, as he got a 0.015, which is high for a Democrat.

After Congress

 Waggonner was a man who wore multiple hats while in Congress, and he was highly knowledgeable on Social Security. President Ronald Reagan thus appointed him to be part of the commission to investigate the long-term feasibility of Social Security. The commission’s recommendations informed the legislation passed in 1983 to save Social Security, or at the very least buy it time. In his later years, Waggonner expressed opposition to Louisiana conservatives moving into the Republican Party, but he nonetheless would at times back Republican candidates for public office, such as Bob Dole for president in 1996. In 1994, Waggonner attended Richard Nixon’s funeral. He would join Nixon in death in October 7, 2007 at the age of 89.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

ADA Voting Records

Flournoy, C. (1978, January 17). Waggonner Has Mellowed on Segregation. The Shreveport Journal, 19.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/602215909/

Former Congressman Waggoner dies. (2007, October 9). WAFB 9.

Retrieved from

https://www.wafb.com/story/7180968/former-congressman-waggoner-dies/

Joe Waggonner in a Political Vise. (1976, October 27). The Shreveport Journal, 13.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/602091876/

Lake, A. (1976). The “tar baby” option: American policy toward Southern Rhodesia. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Langeveld, D. (2012, May 6). Joe Waggonner: solicitation immunity. The Downfall Dictionary.

Retrieved from

https://downfalldictionary.blogspot.com/search/label/Joe%20D.%20Waggonner

Mitchell, T. (1978, February 11). Rep. Waggonner Will Not Seek Reelection. The Shreveport Journal, 13.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/602215206/

Says Waggonner, Missionary Work Among Liberals Is Necessary. (1963, June 3). Minden Press, 1.

Waggonner, Joseph David, Jr. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/10567/joseph-david-waggonner-jr

Waggonner’s retirement: Power loss. (1978, February 12). The Shreveport Times, 16.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/210855985/

Fascinating Politics

Clinton P. Anderson: Father of Medicare

In October 1917, 22-year-old South Dakotan Clinton Presba Anderson reports for duty to serve his nation for World War I. What he didn’t know was that he was suffering from advanced tuberculosis, and this was diagnosed by the army doctors, who gave him 6 months to live. Since antibiotics hadn’t been discovered yet, it was a common practice of those who suffered from tuberculosis to move to a hot and dry climate to recover or die, and he moved to Albuquerque, New Mexico, spending time in a sanitorium. Initially, it looked like the army doctors were going to be right, as Anderson’s lungs were hemorrhaging, and the doctors gave him less than five days to live. However, five days passed by, and he was still holding on. Then six months passed by, and he had still eluded the grim reaper. In nine months, Anderson (1895-1975) was well enough to start a career in journalism, and by 1919 he had recovered, but he would often struggle with his health throughout his life. While a journalist, Anderson developed a passion for politics in New Mexico. Republicans held the governorship from 1917 to 1923, and Anderson didn’t like how they were running the state, so he joined the Democratic Party and during the 1920s the party started to see significant successes; in 1922, they won the governorship, and in 1924 they won a Senate seat and maintained their hold of the governorship. Anderson was also involved in public health, having worked for the New Mexico Public Health Association starting in 1919, where he sought to improve the public health system, and in 1923, he entered the insurance business, starting his own firm in 1925. Given his health difficulties as well as his background in public health and insurance, it makes sense that his later career would be characterized by pushing for the expansion of health insurance. In 1928, Anderson became the head of the state’s Democratic Party, and they made long-term gains during the Great Depression, which were completed after the death of progressive Republican Senator Bronson Cutting in an airplane crash in 1935. Ultimately, from 1935 to 1962 there would be no federal Republican officeholders. In 1933, Anderson was elected Treasurer, and in 1934 he became the head of the state’s relief administration.

In 1940, Congressman John J. Dempsey was deprived from running again due to a dispute within the Democratic Party, and in his place, Clinton Anderson was elected. Although without doubt a supporter of FDR and backing numerous key policies such as Lend Lease, his voting record was not staunchly liberal, rather moderately liberal. In 1945, Anderson headed up a committee to investigate food production in postwar United States, and President Truman was so impressed with his report and recommendations that he nominated him to be his Secretary of Agriculture, a post in which he sought to move the US agricultural economy from wartime to peace time as well as addressing the food shortage in the postwar world. Anderson was one of the key people, working closely with President Truman and former President Herbert Hoover, in getting people in war-torn areas fed. Hoover would craft plans, and Anderson would implement them. However, in 1948, by which time the postwar food situation was stable, he resigned to run for the Senate after Carl Hatch announced his retirement. The Republicans picked former Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley, but this year was good for the Democrats, and Anderson prevailed by 15 points. In the Senate, he strongly supported President Truman’s agenda. Although Republicans were starting to make gains in New Mexico, most notably with the election of Ed Mechem as governor, Anderson was more than capable of hanging on, and in 1954, he won reelection against Mechem by nearly 15 points. Republicans would only get within single digits of defeating him in 1966, and that was a backlash election against the Johnson Administration.

Anderson and Eisenhower

As Secretary of Agriculture, Anderson had come to believe that flexible price floors were the right approach for agriculture and thus supported Ezra Taft Benson in his efforts to push agriculture more to a market-based system, which was not popular in rural areas. As a New Mexican, he supported the oil industry and in 1950 and 1956 he voted for legislation prohibiting the Federal Power Commission from regulating the price of oil. Anderson also supported maintaining the 27.5% oil depletion allowance. However, there were ways in which he waved his partisan flag. For example, Anderson had come to strongly dislike Lewis Strauss when he headed the Atomic Energy Commission. A key issue that the men fought on was public power generation and distribution; Strauss opposed, Anderson supported. Strauss had also once insulted Anderson when he said that he, the chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, had “a limited understanding of what is involved” in Cold War atomic energy policy (U.S. Senate). Although Anderson never forgave Strauss for that insult, he initially decided to put politics out of the way when in 1958 President Eisenhower made clear that he wanted him to be Secretary of Commerce. However, this was not stuck to as in the 1958 election Democrats won 12 seats, the issue of Strauss’s involvement in the revoking of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s security clearance came up, and Strauss came off badly in hearings as arrogant, combative, and condescending to the Senate. On this matter, he was his own worst enemy, and Anderson now put his full energy into calling for his nomination to be voted down, and it was, 46-49, on June 19th, Strauss being one of the few cabinet nominees in history to be voted down by the Senate. This event is notably portrayed in the 2023 film Oppenheimer. He was also known during his time in the Senate as a scholarly figure who had a hobby of collecting and reading old books about the American West, and this resulted in him having one of the finest personal libraries in New Mexico.

Anderson and Civil Rights

Although Senator Anderson generally supported civil rights and backed the major laws on final passage, he also supported Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson (D-Tex.) in his successful efforts to water down the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 to ease them for passage. Indeed, he sponsored with Senators George Aiken (R-Vt.) and Francis Case (R-S.D.) the amendment striking 14th Amendment implementation from the 1957 law. Anderson can be seen as both a supporter of civil rights but also a Senate institutionalist.

Advocacy for Medicare

Senator Anderson was one of the principal politicians, along with Albert Gore of Tennessee and Representative Cecil King of California, to push for the adoption of Medicare. President Kennedy had specifically designated Anderson as the leader of adopting the measure. Anderson would write on his role, “Perhaps a man who has spent much of his life fighting off the effects of illness acquires…an understanding of the importance of professional health care to all people” (U.S. Senate). Although the Senate rejected Medicare proposals in 1960 and 1962, in 1964, Anderson succeeded in getting the Senate to adopt a Medicare amendment to the pending Social Security legislation. However, in the course of doing so, he strained his health and found himself managing the measure from his hospital bed. Because the House and Senate could not agree upon a final version of the Social Security measure, Medicare would have to wait until the next Congress, which had more of the president’s supporters elected to the Senate and especially the House. After Anderson managed to get Medicare passed in the Senate in 1965, President Johnson invited him to the signing ceremony in which former President Truman and his wife, Bess, were given the first Medicare cards. Medicare would not be the only cause in which he specialized, as he also was the Senate’s leading advocate for wilderness conservation. Anderson wrote on the matter, “There is a spiritual value to conservation, and wilderness typifies this. Wilderness is a demonstration by our people that we can put aside a portion of this which we have as a tribute to the Maker and say–this we will leave as we found it” (Wilderness Connect). Anderson also supported most other Great Society proposals, but he proved more conservative on law-and-order issues. He supported several proposals to weaken the impact of Supreme Court decisions on criminal defendant rights, but did not support the Nixon Administration’s efforts to enact “no knock” warrants for drug cases. Anderson also supported efforts to withdraw from the Vietnam War, including the Cooper-Church Amendment in 1970 and the Mansfield Amendment in 1971. Despite his support for withdrawal, he tended to support increasing military spending for key missile delivery systems as well as taking a hardline stance on the USSR.

By 1972, Anderson’s health was clearly declining, and he chose not to run again. Throughout his Senate career, he agreed with the liberal Americans for Democratic Action 66% of the time, the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 23% of the time from 1955 to 1972, and his DW-Nominate score was a -0.201. In retirement, he continued his hobby of collecting and reading old books on the American West. Anderson was wise to have opted to retire, as on November 11, 1975, his 58-year streak of eluding the grim reaper came to an end with a massive stroke at the age of 80.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

ADA Voting Records

Anderson, Clinton Presba. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/165/clinton-presba-anderson

Clinton Anderson. Wilderness Connect.

https://wilderness.net/learn-about-wilderness/people/clinton-anderson.php

Clinton P. Anderson. The Miller Center.

Retrieved from

https://millercenter.org/president/truman/essays/anderson-1945-secretary-of-agriculture

Clinton P. Anderson Dead; Ex-Senator Was in Cabinet. (1975, November 12). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Medicare Signed Into Law. United States Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Medicare_Signed_Into_Law.htm

Simmons, M. (2014, December 26). Trail Dust: Clinton P. Anderson went from newsman to senator. Santa Fe New Mexican.

Retrieved from

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/trail-dust-clinton-p-anderson-went-from-newsman-to-senator/article_27d72c92-0379-5041-b936-7e70f3cdc31d.html

The Administration: The Strauss Affair. (1959, June 15). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,892639,00.html

Fascinating Politics

Otto Passman: The “Cajun Cassius”

In 1946, the American public elected a Republican Congress for the first time since the Great Depression. One of the fresh faces in Washington who vanquished a Democrat was another Democrat in Otto Ernest Passman (1900-1988) of Monroe, Louisiana. Passman, an appliance manufacturer and salesman by profession, had succeeded in ousting conservative Democrat Charles McKenzie in the 1946 nomination contest. However, if national Democrats got their hopes up that he would be more loyal to party line than his predecessor, they were in for a great disappointment. Passman was one of the most agreeable in the House to the conservative agenda of the 80th Congress; in his first year, Americans for Democratic Action scored him a 25%, one of the lowest among House Democrats that year.

Passman the “Lord High Executioner of Foreign Aid Bills”

Passman was a frequent thorn in the side of the internationalist leadership in both parties. As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on foreign aid, he was frequently pushing for budget cuts, with his critics calling him the “Cajun Cassius” and being responsible for reduction of annual presidential foreign aid requests by an average of 20% from 1955 to 1965, resulting in Time Magazine (1965) calling him the “lord high executioner of foreign aid bills”. He had also been one of the few Democrats to vote against the Marshall Plan in 1948. Passman so ticked off President Eisenhower that he once told an aide something similar to what President Truman told an aide regarding J. Robert Oppenheimer, “Remind me never to invite that fellow down here again!” (Time Magazine) President Kennedy wasn’t terribly happy with him either. He once told an aide in exasperation, “What am I going to do about him?” (Time Magazine) Appropriations Committee Chairman Clarence Cannon (D-Mo.) would not rein him in, as although he wasn’t an opponent of foreign aid himself, he also would sometimes push for budget cuts regardless of whether the president wanted it or not, regardless of party. Passman said regarding presidential support, “What the President wants does not mean a damn thing to me unless it makes sense” (Time Magazine, 1957). Both Cannon and Passman could be peppery in the carrying out of their duties, further aggravating presidential and Democratic Party leadership. The essence of Passman’s critique of foreign aid was that it propped up despots whose regimes might have otherwise collapsed (Curtis). There has since been research that suggests that Passman was right. For instance, a 2016 paper by Faisal Z. Ahmed (2016) found that “U.S. aid harms political rights, fosters other forms of state repression, and strengthens authoritarian governance”. Passman did, however, do a solid for the Johnson Administration when he successfully pushed a compromise to allow shipments of wheat to the USSR and Hungary in 1963 against fierce Republican opposition.

Passman the Powerless

Passman’s power was conditioned on Cannon permitting him free reign, and Cannon’s death in 1964 resulted in a far less favorable successor in George Mahon of Texas. Although Mahon was not a liberal, he was willing to cooperate with his fellow Texan Lyndon B. Johnson, and this included the subject of foreign aid. Although he allowed Passman to stay on as chairman, he reduced the membership of his subcommittee from 11 to 9, making most of its membership favorable to foreign aid and resulting in Passman losing committee votes, and Mahon even deprived him of the ability to write reports on pending legislation as they contradicted what the majority wanted (Time Magazine, 1965).

Foe of 1960s Domestic Liberalism

Among the Louisiana delegation, Passman was strongly opposed to most of the liberal domestic programs of the 1960s. He voted against aid to medical schools and students and accelerated public works in 1963, against urban mass transit legislation, food stamps, and the Economic Opportunity Act in 1964, and federal aid to education and Medicare in 1965. Passman did have something of a soft spot for minimum wage legislation, and backed increases in 1961 and 1966. His record on civil rights is what you’d expect from a Louisiana representative of his time and place. Given Passman’s dissatisfaction with liberalism in the 1960s, he was certainly looking for an alternative, and one came with Richard Nixon in 1968.

Embracing Nixon

Although a Democrat, we have already established that Otto Passman was not the sort of Democrat we think of today, and he was quite pleased with President Nixon. As he had with President Johnson, he supported President Nixon’s Vietnam War policies. On social issues, Passman was largely on the conservative end, but he made a rather striking exception in his opposition to a school prayer amendment to the Constitution in 1971. His support for Nixon even extended beyond his resignation, with him being one of only three representatives to vote against adopting the report on his impeachment proceedings. Passman stated in support of Nixon after his resignation, “I contend that Richard M. Nixon is the greatest President this country ever had. Rather than take any chance of doing anything offensive to this great man, I decided to vote ‘no’” (Rosenbaum). Can you imagine a Democrat today saying this about President Trump? Passman’s overall ideology differs somewhat between sources. He was in accord with the position of Americans for Constitutional Action 70% of the time from 1957 to 1976, only 17% with the liberal Americans for Democratic Action from 1947 to 1976, and his DW-Nominate score was a -0.056, which is conservative for a Democrat.

Koreagate

In 1976, a scandal broke regarding South Korean millionaire lobbyist Tongsun Park. Park had been spreading money around Washington both to promote his rice business and to maintain US military presence in South Korea as a bulwark against North Korean aggression, and Passman was one of 31 representatives named by Park as having accepted money from him. His involvement in this scandal resulted in his narrow loss for renomination in 1976 to Jerry Huckaby. On April 1, 1978, Passman was indicted for accepting $98,000 in illegal gratuities or bribes from 1972 to 1975, and allegedly in exchange he lobbied Congress to maintain Park’s monopoly as an agent for selling American rice to South Korea (Columbia Missourian). However, Passman managed to get the venue of his trial changed to his home city of Monroe, given that there was also a tax evasion charge. His attorney portrayed him as “an unknowing victim of an evil Korean conspiracy” and he was acquitted (The New York Times). This acquittal, however, many have been produced by the move in venue as well as sympathy he got from his poor health.

Sex Discrimination

Although Passman had been one of many members of Congress to vote for the Equal Rights Amendment, he has the dubious distinction of being the first member of Congress to be sued for sex discrimination. In 1974, he fired his assistant, Shirley Davis, and wrote in her termination letter that it was essential that a man be in her role. She sued him, and the case established a Supreme Court precedent in 1979’s Davis v. Passman, which affirmed that members of Congress can be sued for discrimination. The case was settled for an undisclosed amount that year.

The Last Years

Passman ended up living longer than would be expected given his poor health in the late 1970s. His wife died in 1984, and he soon remarried to his secretary, who was over 25 years younger than him. Passman died on August 13, 1988, at the age of 88.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

ADA Voting Records

Ahmed, F.Z. (2016). Does Foreign Aid Harm Political Rights? Evidence from U.S. Aid. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 11: 1-35.

Retrieved from

Click to access ahmed_qjps2016.pdf

Curtis, J. (2021, March 17). Author details Otto Passman’s life in latest book. The Ouachita Citizen.

Retrieved from

https://www.hannapub.com/franklinsun/community/author-details-otto-passman-s-life-in-latest-book/article_5ab63372-81bc-11eb-b400-1f3c2fc3b4bf.html

Passman Is Acquitted On Charges of Taking Payments by Korean. (1979, April 2). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Passman, Otto Ernest. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/7228/otto-ernest-passman

Rosenbaum, D.E. (1974, August 21). House Formally Concludes Inquiry Into Impeachment. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Second congressman indicted. (1978, April 1). Columbia Missourian.

Retrieved from

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwibhteY-_mNAxX2BDQIHSDUBXoQFnoECBQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmdh.contentdm.oclc.org%2Fdigital%2Fapi%2Fcollection%2Fcolmo7%2Fid%2F126569%2Fdownload&usg=AOvVaw0KlKnyDSz57wgFM3ECkxgq&opi=89978449

The Congress: A Tartar Tamed. (1965, September 17). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,842094-1,00.html

The Nation: The Gutting of Foreign Aid. (1957, August 26). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6800125/the-nation-the-gutting-of-foreign-aid/

Fascinating Politics

The Confirmation of David Souter: A Tale of Mistaken Expectations

Last month, Supreme Court Justice David Souter (1939-2025) passed into history. If I had to pick the most uncontroversial justice in the time of his service, I would pick him. What strikes me as most interesting about Souter, however, is what was expected of him and what the reality was. The short story is that he was nominated by Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1990, and contrary to expectations that he would be on the court’s conservative wing, before long he was voting with its liberal wing. What I will explain today is why conservatives thought he would be on their team and why liberals were afraid he would constitute a shift in the court to the right.

The Story

In 1990, Justice William Brennan, the intellectual architect of the Warren Court decisions and the foremost intellectual liberal during his time on the bench, was stepping down, and doing so at a rather worrisome time for liberals. Democrats had been out of the White House since the 1980 election, and President George H.W. Bush was interested in getting conservatives on the Supreme Court. However, one thing that weighed heavily upon his mind was President Reagan’s failed nomination of Robert Bork. Bork had a long ideological paper-trail, and one that liberal activists were able to use effectively to derail his nomination. Bush didn’t want a repeat, and thus he thought that going obscure in his pick would be the best path. Republican Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, a moderate conservative who had served as the state’s attorney general before Souter, recommended him. Margaret Carlson (1990) of Time Magazine described the political motivation of Bush, “In Souter, Bush may have found the last person in America who does not think in opinionated sound bites. Souter, with his Yankee reticence, does not presume anyone would be interested in what he thinks if legal scholars have already thought about it. In that, he may be the answer to the President’s secret moderate dreams: someone conservative enough to allay right-wing suspicions that he has been insufficiently sympathetic to their causes but at the same time unknown enough to keep liberals from finding anything on which to hang another bruising confirmation fight.” Souter was also in a number of ways a quirky and enigmatic individual. At 50, he was a lifelong bachelor which to some suggested homosexuality, but no evidence ever surfaced that this was the case, and he had a history of dating women. Souter was also noted for his love of spending his evenings reading classic literature in silence, attending the opera, antique books, and hiking. At the time, conservatives were pleased as punch about his nomination. Chief of Staff John Sununu, who had known Souter when he was serving as New Hampshire’s governor, told conservatives that he would be a “home run” for their team (Lacayo). Indeed, there were some indicators that he would be a conservative in philosophy.

Souter had served as the state’s attorney general under Governor Meldrim Thomson, Jr., from 1976 to 1978, and frequently defended his stances and policies. Governor Thomson was notable for his ultra-conservatism, and had seen fit to tap him for the New Hampshire Superior Court (their Supreme Court). Souter’s record on the New Hampshire Superior Court gave mixed indications for those trying to read the tea leaves on what he would be on the Supreme Court. He ruled favorably on environmental and consumer protections, but tended to side with the prosecution on criminal justice cases. Souter also had three months on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, but this was insufficient to establish how he would vote on the federal level. Souter also wrote in a court decision in 1986, “the court’s interpretive task is to determine the meaning of…((constitutional language)) as it was understood when the framers proposed it” and in 1976 he had spoken of affirmative action as “affirmative discrimination” (Carlson).

Although Souter’s political background, especially as attorney general under Governor Thomson, would suggest conservatism, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-1 to recommend Souter’s confirmation. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) was the sole dissenter, stating, “I am troubled that, if Judge Souter joins the current closely divided Supreme Court, he will solidify a 5-4 anti-civil rights, anti-privacy majority inclined to turn back the clock on the historic progress of recent decades” (Savage). Most Democrats were okay enough with him and his lack of federal jurisprudence to vote for him, and his confirmation vote came out to a resounding 90-9 on October 2nd. He was nonetheless opposed by the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, and the American Conservative Union counted his confirmation as a conservative vote. Both positions seem most peculiar in retrospect if you didn’t know the context in which he was confirmed and his background. The senators who voted against Souter were entirely from the Democratic Party’s liberal wing, and they were Alan Cranston of California, Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, Bill Bradley and Dan Lautenberg of New Jersey, Quentin Burdick of North Dakota (yes, North Dakota at one time could elect liberals statewide), and Brock Adams of Washington.

Although in his first year on the Supreme Court, Bush seemed to have had an unqualified success with Souter as he did indeed vote conservative on criminal justice cases in his early years, but in 1992 he joined the majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which rather than overturn Roe v. Wade as conservatives hoped, strengthened it. In law school, Souter had taken to the philosophy of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and as a justice acted accordingly. In his rulings, he favored strict separation of church and state, upholding affirmative action despite his prior criticism, voted to uphold government using eminent domain for purposes of economic development, and was among the four dissenters in Bush v. Gore (2000). By the late 1990s, Souter was voting solidly with the court’s liberal wing, thus making Bush’s nomination of him only a partial success in the long run, in the sense that he didn’t get a bruising Senate confirmation fight. In 2001, Kennedy expressed his regret that he voted against him given what his record proved to be (CNN). Souter opted to wait until George W. Bush was out of office to fulfill his wish to retire, doing so in 2009, thus allowing President Barack Obama to pick Justice Sonya Sotomayor, currently the strongest liberal sitting on the court.

The Souter confirmation taught conservatives a lesson; that they needed to carefully ideologically vet the people they were voting on for the Supreme Court. Indeed, for them, Souter was one of a series of appointments that Republican presidents made that was a mistake. Others included Justices Warren and Brennan by Eisenhower, Justice Blackmun by Nixon, and Justice Stevens by Ford. Some conservatives also consider the appointments of Burger and Powell by Nixon as well as O’Connor and Kennedy by Reagan to have been mistakes at least over the issue of abortion. I would say that Souter was the last justice picked by a Republican president who turned out to be a court liberal, even if there are some occasional rumblings about justices such as Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett for not always doing what the activist right wants. He also happened to be the last justice nominated by a Republican to get a majority of Democratic votes.

References

1990 ADA Voting Record. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Click to access 1990.pdf

Carlson, M. (1990, August 6). David Souter: An 18th Century Man. Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6715550/david-souter-an-18th-century-man/

David H. Souter. Oyez.

Retrieved from

https://www.oyez.org/justices/david_h_souter

Lacayo, R. (2009, May 2). Evaluating Souter: A Strange Judicial Trip, Leaning Left. Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6914477/evaluating-souter-a-strange-judicial-trip-leaning-left/

PN1414 – Souter Nomination. CPAC Center for Legislative Accountability.

Retrieved from

http://ratings.conservative.org/bills/US-1990-senate-PN1414

Savage, D.G. (1990, September 28). Panel Approves Souter; Kennedy Only Dissenter. Los Angeles Times.

Retrieved from

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-28-mn-1196-story.html

Ted Kennedy Discusses Current Congressional Issues. (2001, July 21). CNN.

Retrieved fromhttps://transcripts.cnn.com/show/en/date/2001-07-21/segment/00

Fascinating Politics

Truman to Eisenhower: The Democrats

Sam Rayburn of Texas, House Democratic leader in both the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations.

In this follow-up to the post tracking the Republicans between the Truman to Eisenhower Administrations I was thinking that given the Republican movement, especially in the House, during the Eisenhower era that there might be similar Democratic movement, but the truth I found I must confess was pretty unexciting in the House: Democrats in the House averaged an agreement rate with Americans for Democratic Action of 67% during the Truman Administration and a 66% during the Eisenhower Administration. This makes them a moderately liberal party in this time, and it averages out this way because of the increasingly stark differences observed between Northern and Southern Democrats by Americans for Democratic Action. Southern Democrats were figured as moderate during both administrations, with an average of 42% and 41% respectively, while Northern Democrats were solidly liberal, with an 85% and 86% respectively. Many people who conduct research wish to only report the exciting results, but sometimes the research is done, and the results are mundane, but true. I think there’s a good argument to be made that the current Democratic Party is more liberal than the Northern Democrats in that time.

The Senate was a bit more of an exciting story, although this is because there were considerable shifts in the Senate and more votes on civil rights and foreign aid that attracted crossover votes in a way they didn’t in the House. The Senate Democrats figured at 65% and 55% respectively, with Southern Democrats having a pronounced decline from 45% to 33%. Northern Democrats too had a decline, from 82% to 75%. An example of such decline is James Murray of Montana, who agreed with ADA 97% of the time during the Truman years but had a decline to 85% during the Eisenhower years. In part this was due to his willingness to back compromising amendments to civil rights legislation and his support for sustaining Senate rules. Senate Democrats had a decline in liberalism by ADA standards as opposed to House Democrats at least in good part because the Senate considered a wider range of issues. On foreign aid, it was usually the case that amendments cutting foreign aid of some sort were counted in the Senate while foreign aid passage votes were counted in the House. Votes on the former are not exactly equivalent to the latter. The same goes with the coverage of civil rights in the House as opposed to the Senate. More Northern legislators crossed to the position opposed by ADA on the subject in the Senate than in the House. Furthermore, more civil rights votes were held and counted in the Senate than in the House. By ADA standards, House Democrats were remarkably consistent while Senate Democrats saw a decline. It is also interesting when we look at how little the Senate Republican score rose as opposed to the House Republican score, highlighting to me the importance of trying to balance out the House and Senate when determining scores. After all, if one branch holds 20 tariff votes and the other holds only one, a legislator could be judged more conservative or liberal by the mere fact that he or she is in the House instead of the Senate. One must bear in mind of course that I am basing my results on the standards of a liberal organization. Conservatives to be sure saw legislators in a different light; the conservative organization Americans for Constitutional Action did not register the Southern Democrats quite as conservative as ADA did in the Eisenhower years. ADA, however, is the only non-DW-Nominate source that covers both the Truman and Eisenhower years. When I finalize my own set of ratings, that can accomplish with ADA does but with more consideration for the conservative position.

The numbers, based on agreement with ADA position:

Truman to Eisenhower DemsDownload
Fascinating Politics

Kit Clardy: “Michigan’s McCarthy”

From 1950 to 1954, there were certain figures in politics who were trying to have their own anti-communist crusades, thus taking after Senator Joseph McCarthy. Kit Clardy (1892-1961) was one of them. A lawyer by profession, he made first attempt for Congress in 1950, challenging incumbent Republican William W. Blackney, but he lost. However, Blackney only wanted one more term, thus leaving the door open for 1952. Clardy had first made his mark in Republican politics when he had launched a campaign to oust incumbent Governor Alex J. Groesbeck in favor of Fred Green in the Republican primary, and he succeeded (The Grand Rapids Press). Green rewarded Clardy by making him assistant state attorney general, and he served from 1927 to 1931 and sat on the Michigan Public Utilities Commission from 1931 to 1934.

In 1952, Clardy ran for Congress, campaigning on a staunch anti-communist platform. One newspaper ad touted that there would be “no compromise with communism” and “no sympathy for socialism” (The Flint Journal). He also strongly opposed what he called “Trumanism”. In the Detroit Free Press (1952) there was a point-counterpoint between Democrat Donald Hayworth and Republican Clardy. Hayworth touted the Truman record, writing, “Real wages are the highest in history, business profits are the highest in history and farmers can now expect a decent price for their products. The social legislation and the foreign policy of cooperation withing the UN have been so sound that both parties have accepted them. I do not deny that mistakes have been made – and these must be corrected – but no one can take away the progress of the past 20 years for all sections of the country and for all economic and social groups” (15). Clardy had an answer for this, in which he points out that Hayworth glazed over the nature of the mistakes of the Truman Administration and some of the economic downsides. He wrote, “(Hayworth) supports the big government theory – the Socialist ADA line – all the way, as I predicted. There will be no change unless the Republicans win. His omissions are truly significant. Korea, graft and corruption, inflation, high taxes, and high prices are conveniently forgotten…He overlooks the record high in living costs when he talks of high wages. He forgets taxes when he talks of profits. He rejoices over the war-created false prosperity. But apparently he isn’t troubled about inflation, high taxes, or the cost of living” (Detroit Free Press, 15). On Election Day, Clardy prevailed by over 5 points.

As a member of Congress, Clardy’s record was strongly conservative. His DW-Nominate score was a 0.645, making him the third most conservative individual in the House in his day. Clardy voted 11% of the time with Americans for Democratic Action, only siding with them on their support for the admission of Hawaii and in favor of the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway, which all Michiganders voted for. Clardy stood for more conservatism in politics and called for the US to break diplomatic relations with the USSR (Lansing State Journal). His specialty, however, was ferreting out communism and its influences domestically, particularly in government, universities, and labor unions. Clardy’s zeal for this subject resulted in him becoming known as “Michigan’s McCarthy”.

In November 1953, Clardy held hearings in Lansing, Michigan, regarding alleged communist infiltration of the University of Michigan. Three professors who refused to give information to the committee were suspended by the University Michigan, with two being fired and one being reinstated (Peters).

In Flint, he held hearings for a subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, aiming to expose communist ties and influence within the left-wing United Auto Workers-CIO union. The proceedings were frequently heated, and there were several hostile witnesses, including Buick worker Martin Trachtenberg, who in the process of refusing to answer any questions by citing the first ten amendments of the Constitution as well as the Constitution as a whole, repeatedly banged the witness table with the Bill of Rights, shouted at the committee that the hearing was illegal, and threatened Democrat Clyde Doyle of California with a loss of political support, an outburst that resulted in a threat of citation for contempt by Clardy and a removal of the witness by police (The Flint Journal, 14). Clardy was reportedly no prince either at these hearings. He was said to have “not only abused the witnesses but incited violence against them” and favorably commented on a 1937 incident in which college students had thrown UAW-CIO organizers into the Red Cedar River. The aftermath of these hearings was a series of acts of mob violence against allegedly left-wing workers and retaliations against hostile witnesses and their families such as evictions from their homes (Moorehouse).

The 1954 midterms were highly unfavorable to McCarthy’s brand of politics, and several politicians who had hitched their wagons to such politics lost reelection. Michigan had some unfavorable results for the Republicans, with Senator Homer Ferguson losing reelection to UAW-CIO favorite Pat McNamara and Democratic Governor G. Mennen “Soapy” Williams winning reelection by over 11 points. In this environment, and with Clardy strongly targeted for defeat by organized labor, he lost to Donald Hayworth. Michigan’s 6th, by the way, was not usually a Democratic district, only electing Democrats to Congress up to that point in the 20th century in 1932 and 1936, which were dismal years for Republicans. Kit Clardy never backed down on his ways, and before exiting Congress he alleged the existence of “a gigantic” network of communists that remained in the State and Labor Departments (Pearson). The district reverted to its Republican ways in the 1956 election with the more moderate Charles Chamberlain prevailing in the Republican primary over Clardy and winning the district. He would hold it until his retirement in 1974. In his last years, Clardy lived in Redondo Beach, California and headed up We, the Peoples, an ultra-conservative anti-communist organization. He was also a member of the Board of Policy of Willis Carto’s Liberty Lobby. On September 2, 1961, Clardy went into a Redondo Beach hospital for surgery, but he succumbed to a heart attack on September 5th, aged 69.

References

Advertisement for Kit Clardy for Congress. (1952, October 29). The Flint Journal, 2.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/1168908817/

Clardy, Kit Francis. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://www.voteview.com/person/1748/kit-francis-clardy

Death Takes Kit Clardy. (1961, September 6). The Grand Rapids Press, 45.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/1113729949/

In This Corner. (1952, September 14). Detroit Free Press, 15.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/97457000/

Kit Clardy Is Dead in California. (1961, September 6). Lansing State Journal, 1.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/210484814/

Moorehouse, B. (2018, October 22). Meet the craziest Congressman in Livingston County history, Kit Clardy. The Livingston Post.

Retrieved from

Meet the craziest Congressman in Livingston County history, Kit Clardy

Pearson, D. Behind Swan Song of Kit Clardy. (1954, December 22). Winston-Salem Journal, 10.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/935127267/

Peters, J.W. (1999, October 13). Former professor dies at age 82. The Michigan Daily.

Retrieved from

https://web.archive.org/web/20041225025936/http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1999/oct/10-13-99/news/news3.html

Police Remove Defiant Witness. (1954, May 14). The Flint Journal, 15.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/1169254672/

Fascinating Politics

The 1932 Election: The Triumph of Triumphs for the Democrats

The Republican Party was in terrible trouble in 1932. President Herbert Hoover was deeply unpopular and for multiple reasons; an economy in depression with over 20% unemployment and rising and a president who appeared to many voters as doing little, Hoover stubbornly clinging to Prohibition while public opinion was strongly souring on it, and the cherry on top was the disastrous dispersing of the bonus marchers. The news only seemed to be getting worse over the months. The 1930 midterms had already been bad for the GOP, with the House becoming Democratically controlled after the deaths of 14 representatives, including Speaker of the House Nicholas Longworth (R-Ohio).

On the presidential level, Democratic candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt soundly defeated Herbert Hoover, winning all but six states with 472 electoral votes and 57.4% of the popular vote, with Hoover only holding on in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Only William Howard Taft’s loss in 1912 was worse for a Republican candidate. He would be on the outs in the political scene until after FDR’s death, and he was able to serve as an elder statesman.

The losses Republicans sustained in Congress were arguably more disastrous than the presidential election, with them losing a whopping 101 seats. This gave Democrats 313 seats in the House, outnumbering Republicans by nearly 200. In Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Oklahoma, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia Republicans suffered a complete wipeout, with all House seats going to the Democrats. Delaware’s and Nevada’s only House seats went Democratic too. Democrats had their largest gains in Illinois (seven seats), Iowa (five seats), Michigan (six seats), Ohio (seven seats), and Pennsylvania (net of seven seats). Further helping Democratic gains was the population growth in the cities, which were voting increasingly Democratic.  

Some of the most notable House freshmen in this election included Republican Everett Dirksen of Illinois, Democrat Guy Gillette of Iowa, Democrat John Dingell Sr. of Michigan, Democrat William M. Colmer of Mississippi, Republican Charles Tobey of New Hampshire, Republican William Lemke of North Dakota (Union Party candidate for president in 1936), Democrat Stephen Young of Ohio, Democrat Francis E. Walter of Pennsylvania, Democrat James P. Richards of South Carolina, Democrat Willis Robertson of Virginia, and Democrat Jennings Randolph of West Virginia.

In the Senate, Democrats won 12 seats from Republicans, a glorious result for the former and a catastrophic one for the latter. This would also be the last time Democrats ever won a Senate seat from Kansas. Notable victories for Democrats included former Secretary of the Treasury William G. McAdoo in California over incumbent Republican Samuel Shortridge, Democrat Elbert Thomas besting Republican Reed Smoot (as in, “Smoot-Hawley Tariff”) in Utah, Fred Brown narrowly dispatching stalwart conservative incumbent George Moses in New Hampshire, future Senate powerhouse Pat McCarran knocking out popular incumbent Tasker Oddie in Nevada, and Fred Van Nuys ending the career of Senate Majority Leader James Watson of Indiana. Democrat Joe Robinson of Arkansas, who had been the vice-presidential candidate in 1928, was now elevated to majority leader and would loyally shepherd the passage of major New Deal legislation in the Senate. Notable Senate freshmen included McAdoo of California and McCarran of Nevada. Democrat Hattie Caraway of Arkansas, first appointed by Arkansas’ governor after her husband’s death, was elected to a full term, the first time a woman was elected to the Senate. Of the Republicans who lost in the Senate in this election, only John Thomas of Idaho would return. With 59 senators and 313 representatives, the Democrats were more than well-positioned to enact newly elected President Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda. This was the single greatest election for the Democrats in their history, and the last one in which the House shifted by over 100 seats.

The 1932 election marked a sea change in the direction of politics in the United States. The legacy of FDR not only with numerous groundbreaking policies but also his navigation through two different major crises proved endearing, and he was highly successful at courting union workers and black voters in his direction while keeping Southern whites in the party. This would be known as the New Deal coalition, and it would hold for over three decades. Until 1994, Republicans would only win the House in two elections and the Senate in five elections and although the New Deal coalition was cracked in 1968, the Democratic brand remained solid even when their presidential candidates lost in landslides. Many people could just as easily vote for the Republican presidential candidate as they did their Democratic representative or senator.

References

1932 United States House of Representatives elections. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

1932 United States presidential election. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_United_States_presidential_election

1932 United States Senate elections. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_United_States_Senate_elections

Fascinating Politics

Truman to Eisenhower: A Move Towards Liberalism for the GOP

The 1952 election produced the first Republican presidential win in 24 years as well as a Republican Congress, thus united government. From the onset of the Great Depression until 2001, the 1953-1955 session of Congress would be the only time the GOP would have united government. Although the Republicans, particularly the House Republicans, stood against the Truman Administration agenda staunchly, their resolve against liberalism lessened during the Eisenhower Administration, at least per how much they agreed with the votes Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) from 1947 to 1960 determined as important for liberal policies. I would have loved to use Americans for Constitutional Action for this, but they did not exist during the Truman Administration.

One of the most prominent and dramatic examples was that of Republican House leader Joe Martin of Massachusetts. While he proved a strong partisan against liberalism and the Truman Administration, he shifted during the Eisenhower Administration to accommodate its priorities which were considerably more moderate than the anti-New Deal politics of many of the Congressional Republicans during the Truman years. Despite opposing public housing during the Truman Administration, as Speaker in the 83rd Congress Martin supported the administration’s request for public housing. He had only supported ADA’s position 6% of the time during the Truman Administration. During the Eisenhower Administration, it was 53% of the time. Martin’s successor as leader of the House Republicans, Charles Halleck of Indiana, went from 6% to 35%, and Republican Whip Les Arends of Illinois went from 5% to 29%. Some Republicans who stood previously stood resolute against foreign aid under Truman were supporting Eisenhower’s Mutual Security legislation (economic and military aid). Another interesting phenomenon was that a few of the most conservative Republicans by DW-Nominate standards actually moved rightward during the Eisenhower Administration. Illinois’ Noah Mason agreed with ADA 10% of the time during the Truman Administration, only 4% of the time during the Eisenhower Administration. Likewise, Wint Smith of Kansas, Bob Dole’s predecessor in the House and possibly the most conservative individual Kansas elected to Congress in the 20th century, had gone from siding with ADA 4% of the time to 1%. Iowa’s H.R. Gross, who started his career as something of a populist, saw his agreement decline from 37% to 13%. Overall, the House Republicans increased their agreement with ADA positions from 19% to 30%. The effect was far less dramatic, however, in the Senate. Interestingly, some of the Senate’s moderates during the Truman Administration moved to the right during the Eisenhower Administration (such as Massachusetts’ Leverett Saltonstall and Vermont’s Ralph Flanders) but the trend did still exist, although only 27% to 30%.

Sheet w/Scores and Averages:

Truman to EisenhowerDownload

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

ADA Voting Records