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: