Although the 1950s is often thought of as a period of moderate Republicanism and with some good reason, by Americans for Constitutional Action standards, conservatives reside primarily on the Republican side of the aisle. Southern Democrats are particularly weak on public works, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and agriculture issues. However, on issues of organized labor, education, spending, and permitting state anti-subversive laws, there is substantial Southern Democrat support for conservative positions. There were 9 votes counted for 1957, 12 for 1958, 19 for 1959, and 10 for 1960.
Civil rights do not yet appear as an issue for Americans for Constitutional Action in the House, but agriculture votes figure significantly in the 85th Congress, with five of twenty-one votes being inherently agricultural. There is also a vote on establishing a food stamp program, which does fall into typical liberal-conservative splits and has relation to agriculture. Thus, radical Adam Clayton Powell’s (D-N.Y.) higher-than-expected scores at 25% in 1957, 44% in 1958, 13% in 1959, and 13% in 1960 and some lower-than-expected scores among Southern Democrats. Per ACA, in the second term of Eisenhower’s presidency, Republicans were overall on domestic issues quite a conservative group. In 1959 in particular, scores are quite elevated for Republicans; Gerald Ford (R-Mich.) scores his one and only 100% by the group that year, as do Republicans Howard W. Robison and Charles Goodell of New York, both who would be noted for their ideological turns later, with the latter being a far more dramatic case than the former. In that year as well as 1958 there are no foreign aid votes counted.
The GOP’s leader in the House, Joe Martin of Massachusetts, scores a 56% in 1957 and an 89% in 1958. Three of his five votes against the conservative position in that session are on foreign aid. He in the 86th scores an adjusted 93% in 1959 and an adjusted 33% in 1960. This is counting pairs for and against legislation. Although this wasn’t ACA’s practice, it is a more complete ideological judgment. Martin’s successor, Charles Halleck (R-Ind.), gets a 63% in 1957, a 92% in 1958, a 94% in 1959, and a 70% in 1960. If we are to count officially announced positions from President Eisenhower on votes, he scores a 14% in 1957, a 67% in 1958, a 92% in 1959, and a 57% in 1960. Averaging these out gives Eisenhower a 58%, which is consistent with the popular historical view of him as a moderate. I see these scores as reflecting a conservative view on what was important in the 1950s, and there are certainly some differences than with Americans for Democratic Action. Trade votes do not figure in the ACA’s scoring during the latter part of the Eisenhower presidency. Also not included are votes regarding the Mallory rule of evidence and statehood for Alaska and Hawaii.
I would evaluate the Senate as well, but I haven’t cracked the breakdown of the scores yet. The Senate is considerably harder to do than the House, because there are far more unique votes there that can effectively rule out more votes in this process of deduction.
The members of Congress who did no wrong by Americans for Constitutional Action by adjusted scores in the 85th Congress included:
H. Allen Smith, R-Calif. Edgar Hiestand, R-Calif. Glen Lipscomb, R-Calif. James B. Utt, R-Calif. E. Ross Adair, R-Ind. Charles Brownson, R-Ind. Howard W. Robison, R-N.Y. John R. Pillion, R-N.Y. Gordon Scherer, R-Ohio William Minshall, R-Ohio
The members of Congress who did no wrong by them in the 86th Congress by adjusted scores were:
H. Allen Smith, R-Calif. Hamer Budge, R-Idaho Elmer J. Hoffman, R-Ill. Noah Mason, R-Ill. August Johansen, R-Mich. Clare Hoffman, R-Mich. Gordon Scherer, R-Ohio Clarence J. Brown, R-Ohio Samuel Devine, R-Ohio Frank Bow, R-Ohio Bruce Alger, R-Tex. Richard Poff, R-Va.
On September 1, 1983, news has just reached the United States on the Soviets shooting down Flight KAL 007, killing 269 people, one being Congressman Larry McDonald (D-Ga.). Washington’s senator, known as a hawkish figure on matters regarding the USSR, at a televised press conference in Seattle blasts the Soviets for this act. Only hours later, despite publicly appearing to be in good health, he suffers a massive heart attack and despite the best efforts of cardiologists at Everett’s Providence Hospital, he is pronounced dead less than two hours later at the age of 71. This ended the 42-year long career of one of Washington’s true political giants, Senator Henry Martin “Scoop” Jackson (1912-1983).
The Start of a Career
Washington was in 1940 even more of a Democratic state than it is now…indeed Postmaster General James Farley at the time described the United States as 47 states and “the Soviet of Washington” (Will). This election, however, sends 28-year-old Jackson, a crusading prosecutor from Everett, to Congress. Although a loyal New Deal Democrat, one of his first votes is against Lend-Lease. A number of Washington’s politicians are non-interventionist, including one of its senators, Homer T. Bone. However, Jackson votes to permit U.S. merchant ships to enter belligerent ports later that year and after World War II, he would readily embrace the postwar internationalist consensus, backing the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. The approach of actively countering the Soviets abroad was the position of almost all postwar liberals, and this consensus would hold until the Vietnam War.
Defeating Cain
The 1946 midterms had gotten elected a number of Republicans who probably would not have been elected under other circumstances. One of these was Republican Harry P. Cain of Washington. Its not that he was a bad legislator, rather that ideologically he was quite to the right of the state of Washington’s consensus, and in 1952 Congressman Jackson challenged him for reelection. He had been the only Democrat up for reelection to Congress who had weathered the 1946 midterms and was highly popular. Cain didn’t benefit at all from Eisenhower’s landslide win, with Jackson winning by over 12 points. Although Jackson defeated Cain, Cain would later become supportive of him.
Senator Jackson – Domestic Policy
Senator Jackson stands as a staunch advocate of liberalism in domestic affairs, such as for the Great Society. He voted for the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 as well as Medicare. Jackson also proves a strong supporter of civil rights legislation and takes the lead on environmental causes. In 1969, he introduced the National Environmental Policy Act, which created the Council on Environmental Quality, and pushed for more lands to be protected from development and regulating surface coal mining. Jackson also stood as an outspoken foe of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s (R-Wis.) style of anti-communism, asserting that he and his committee were “hunting headlines instead of hunting Communists” and voted, as did all other voting Democrats, to censure him in 1954 (Shribman).
Although a liberal, Jackson was one who wanted to get “tough on crime”; in 1970 he voted for “no knock” warrants in drug cases and in 1974 voted to restore the federal death penalty. Along with colleague Warren Magnuson they were a powerhouse for the state of Washington. With Magnuson as chairman of Appropriations and Jackson as chairman of the Interior committee, the two, often referred to as “Maggie” and “Scoop” (Jackson’s childhood nickname) secure a great deal of federal money for the state. Jackson was also known as the “Senator from Boeing” for his pushing for Boeing being awarded military contracts; which at the time was the largest employer in Washington. Jackson’s support for Boeing also came out in his support of government funding for the Supersonic Transport. Although he supported that business, he was strongly supportive of government placing limitations on the economy overall, including backing wartime price and rent controls in the 1940s and 1950s as well as price controls, including on oil, in the 1970s.
Statehood for Alaska and Hawaii
During the 1950s, Jackson was one of the leading senators pushing for statehood of both Alaska and Hawaii, and in 1955 he introduced legislation to admit them both, which died in the House. Alaska and Hawaii statehood would both be signed by President Eisenhower in 1958 and 1959 respectively.
Foreign Policy: Anti-Communist and Anti-Detente
While Senator Jackson’s stance on aggressive anti-communism wasn’t so different from Democrats in the 1950s, indeed he critiqued the Eisenhower Administration for supposedly not doing enough on defense. He was and remained throughout his life a firm believer in internationalism and supported a number of treaties for arms control, including the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1969, and the ABM Treaty in 1972. However, on September 14, 1972, Jackson proposed an amendment to the SALT Interim Agreement, which passed 56-35, which mandated that future treaties assure each nation of rough numerical equality in intercontinental deterrent forces. Indeed, his differences with liberals on defense would become particularly notable by the Nixon Administration.
This New Deal liberal would be out of step with Northern Democrats on Vietnam and military spending, although to what degree he changed and liberal Democrats changed is disputable. In 1970, Jackson voted against the McGovern-Hatfield “End the War” Amendment and on May 31, 1973, he was one of only three Democrats to vote against Sen. Thomas Eagleton’s (D-Mo.) popular amendment pulling out all funds from Cambodia and Laos. Jackson would even after American involvement in Vietnam believe that the U.S. was right to enter. Many people who would later figure in Republican policy on foreign policy, including UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz, had started as staffers for or supporters of Jackson. Jackson in many ways remained a liberal on foreign policy despite his hawkishness, voting for barring the importation of Rhodesian chrome in 1973 and voting to advance the Treaty on the Prevention of Genocide in 1974.
Presidential Bids
In 1972 and 1976, Jackson sought the Democratic nomination for president, but was hampered by his hawkishness on the Vietnam War, a significant break from the liberals. He didn’t gain a lot of traction in 1972 and did marginally better in 1976, winning the Alaska, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington primaries. However, he was overshadowed by figures like the audacious California Governor Jerry Brown and George Wallace, who had at this point had renounced segregation. Jackson was also, despite his success in Washington state politics, not an enthusiastic national campaigner.
Jackson-Vanik Amendment
In 1974, despite the objections of the Nixon Administration and the Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright (D-Ark.), Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, denying most favored nation status to non-market nations that refuse their citizens the right of emigration. President Nixon regarded this as hindering his efforts at detente and this was in response to the USSR imposing hefty taxes on those who wished to emigrate, especially Jews. As Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky (2004) later wrote, “…Kissinger saw Jackson’s amendment as an attempt to undermine plans to smoothly carve up the geopolitical pie between the superpowers. It was. Jackson believed that the Soviets had to be confronted, not appeased. Andrei Sakharov was another vociferous opponent of détente. He thought it swept the Soviet’s human rights record under the rug in the name of improved superpower relations. … One message he would consistently convey to these foreigners (the press) was that human rights must never be considered a humanitarian issue alone. For him, it was also a matter of international security. As he succinctly put it: “A country that does not respect the rights of its own people will not respect the rights of its neighbors” (3).
President Carter: A Mixed Relationship on Foreign Policy
Although Senator Jackson was a strong supporter of President Carter on domestic policy, his record with Carter on foreign policy is mixed. In one of the earliest key votes in the Carter presidency, Jackson dissented. This was on the nomination of Paul Warnke as head of the SALT II talks; he had been Senator George McGovern’s (D-S.D.) advisor on defense issues during the 1972 election and had proposed reducing the military by 1/3 (Mauravchik). Jackson was able to get 40 senators to vote against Warnke, indicating that he could sink any agreement that didn’t meet his standard of rough equality between the US and USSR in intercontinental deterrent forces. Although Carter and Brezhnev signed SALT II in 1979, Jackson was staunchly opposed and Carter withdrew it from the Senate for ratification on January 2, 1980, in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Glass). Both sides would adhere to the unratified SALT II until 1986. Jackson also opposes Carter’s 1978 sale of jet fighter planes to Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia; it was seen as overall unfavorable to Israel, back in the day in which strong support of Israel was more indicative of liberalism than today. Jackson, however, did support Carter on barring imports of Rhodesian chrome and on the Panama Canal treaties.
Reacting to Reagan and Legacy
Although President Reagan was more in line with Jackson’s approach to confrontation rather than detente with the Soviets, the ship of detente had sailed with the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan appreciated Jackson’s stances on the Soviets and offered him he nomination as Secretary of Defense, but he declined. Instead, Jackson was mostly an opponent of the Reagan Administration and won reelection in 1982 by campaigning against “Reaganomics”. He would continue to oppose Reagan’s domestic policy while embracing confrontation with the Soviets until his death. Overall, Jackson was quite a liberal, but he has become more known for where he broke with liberalism than where he stood, which was in truth most of the time. Organized labor remembered him fondly, with president of the AFL-CIO Lane Kirkland holding that “Labor had no stauncher friend. He shared our commitment to social and economic justice and to a strong national defense adequate to protect those values against totalitarians of the left or the right” (Shribman). Yet in the process he gained the admiration of some conservatives, such as George Will; in 1987 wrote an article titled “Henry Jackson, The Greatest President That U.S. Never Had”.
References
Abrams, E. (2014, March 24). The Real Scoop Jackson. The Washington Examiner.
Quick! Who are the foremost Democrat in Name Only politicians? If you were to say Joe Manchin and up until her switch to independent Kyrsten Sinema, your response would be understandable in a present-day context but quite wrong in a historical context. Many political questions are difficult to resolve and up for much debate, but for the question of who the most conservative Democrat was to serve in Congress in American history, the answer is without doubt Lawrence Patton McDonald (1935-1983) of Georgia. Professor Donald Wilkes (2003) scathingly wrote on him, “Conservative to a psychopathic degree, the very embodiment of the lunatic fringe of the far right, chairman of the John Birch Society, Larry McDonald was the most fanatical right-wing extremist ever to sit in Congress” (1).
The 1974 midterms resulted in many new liberal Democrats in Congress, but one district in which this was decidedly not the trend was in Georgia’s 7th, centered in Cobb County. Incumbent John W. Davis was a moderate Democrat who although he had had a segregationist record in the 1960s, he was accused of being insufficiently anti-busing. McDonald, who had unsuccessfully tried to defeat him in 1972, ran his campaign on busing, which was deeply unpopular in the South as well as nationwide generally and this resulted in him winning the primary. He won election by less than a point against Republican Quincy Collins, the closest contest in Georgia that year. However, McDonald would improve his numbers on Collins, winning by over 10 points in 1976.
When it came to party loyalty, it turned out that just about the only thing that he regularly voted with Democrats on was who to elect House speaker. In his time in office, he was by DW-Nominate standards to the right of every single elected official in Congress, with a whopping 0.884. This is further to the right than Marjorie Taylor Greene. His lifetime American Conservative Union score was a 99%, while he averaged a 5% by Americans for Democratic Action. McDonald, however, regarded himself as a Democrat in the tradition of Jefferson and Jackson.
McDonald supported returning to the gold standard, backed transferring all the functions of the Great Society to states, campaigned against the Panama Canal treaties, and expressed his belief that there was a global conspiracy to implement socialism in the United States, stating, “The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and communism under the same tent, all under their control…Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent” (McDonald). This talk of conspiracy elicited comparisons to Senator Joseph McCarthy, who he was a fan of. For journalist Jack Anderson, McDonald was “Bush league McCarthy” (Dorman).
The 7th District Democratic organization censured him in 1978 over his refusal to support President Carter, his membership in the John Birch Society, his belief that the Constitution had no implied powers, and his advertising methods (Marion, 109). McDonald would win reelection by a greater margin than in 1976. Although successful in his district, political scientist Michael Barone (1984) would note in The Almanac of American Politics that “McDonald has fine credentials: a good education, a successful career as a urologist. But his politics are so far out, and his political skill so limited, that he has little impact”. On July 23, 1980, McDonald proposed to ban trade with the USSR after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but it cratered 124-284. On June 27, 1977, and again on July 22, 1980, he proposed denying any Legal Services Corporation funds for gay rights legal cases, and these amendments passed overwhelmingly, but would not get through the Senate. Of course, he opposed the very existence of the Legal Services Corporation, but he took vote wins where he could get them. McDonald also opposed all US participation in the United Nations, and in 1983 he sponsored a resolution with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) to put this into effect. Indeed, he sponsored many resolutions and bills that went nowhere, including:
. Repealing the Gun Control Act of 1968.
. Cutting Congress’ pay by 10% if the budget is not balanced.
. Barring women from U.S. service academy membership.
. Ending all federal involvement in education.
. Eliminating the income limit for Social Security recipients.
. Abolishing the Federal Election Commission.
. Repeal the Occupational Safety and Hazard Act of 1970, thereby ending OSHA.
. Recreating the House Internal Security Committee.
(Congress.gov)
McDonald and Foreign Authoritarians
Despite McDonald’s stated belief in American freedoms, he seemed quite keen on embracing authoritarians if they were anti-communist. He had a portrait of Generalissimo Francisco Franco in his office and more controversially, once suggested in a debate nominating Rudolf Hess, at one time Hitler’s number three man in Nazi Germany and incarcerated in Spandau Prison for life, for a Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-communism. McDonald had a bit less controversially called for the release of Hess on account of old age. The British had been pushing for this and President Nixon had supported it in 1974 (Baker).
Quackery, Civil Rights, and MLK
As a urologist, McDonald embraced quackery in his pushing of laetrile as a treatment for cancer in late-stage patients and was ordered to pay a judgment in a malpractice lawsuit on the matter in 1976. His record was one of repeated opposition to civil rights measures, voting against extending the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 1975 and 1982, opposing all funding measures for the Civil Rights Commission, and he was even one of only three representatives to vote against the Equal Credit Opportunity Act Amendments, which expanded the 1974 ban on credit discrimination on sex to race. His reasons appeared to have to do with his staunch opposition to federal anything, but he was also a critic of MLK.
McDonald was one of the few legislators to consistently vote against any honors for civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr., asserting that per FBI evidence he “was associated with and being manipulated by communists and secret communist agents” (The Spokesman-Review). He was also thus one of the few opponents of the MLK holiday who engaged in personal attacks against King. McDonald instead proposed honoring Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver (Congress.gov).
Western Goals Foundation & John Birch Society
In 1979, McDonald founded with General John K. Singlaub and John Rees the Western Goals Foundation, which attracted support from America but more so from abroad. Although his impact on Congress was nil, this was not an insignificant organization and he used it to conduct his own surveillance of potential communist activities. This included an officer of the Los Angeles Police Department copying records on left-wing activists to be destroyed and their addition to the organization’s database for further monitoring, for which they were sued by the ACLU. This organization’s advisory board included such figures as Singlaub, Joseph McCarthy’s counsel Roy Cohn, Congressmen Bob Stump of Arizona and Phil Crane of Illinois, General George S. Patton IV, novelist Taylor Caldwell, economist Henry Hazlitt, theoretical physicist Edward Teller, and former FBI agent and John Birch Society figure Dan Smoot. With this organization, McDonald sought to fill in the gap left from the end of the House Internal Security Committee (formerly House Committee on Un-American Activities) in 1975. Interestingly enough, a good deal of the funding came from West Germany from men who wore medals and never traveled to the United States (Dorman). The organization also provided funding for the Contras after the adoption of the Boland Amendment in 1983.
By 1983, John Birch Society founder Robert W. Welch was at 83 years old ailing, and as the only Bircher in Congress, McDonald was the natural choice to succeed him. He sought to grow the organization from 50,000-80,000 estimated members to half a million members. However, McDonald would never get to implement his vision.
McDonald’s One Way Flight
On August 30, 1983, McDonald boarded KAL 007 to Seoul, South Korea, where he was to attend an anti-communist conference sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. Unfortunately, the flight entered Soviet airspace on September 1st and the Soviet air force shot it down, killing all 269 passengers on board. Thus, he was the only member of Congress ever killed by the USSR.
There were some conservatives who afterwards thought that McDonald was specifically targeted for assassination, but this is highly unlikely given his boarding of KAL 007 was a last-minute decision. What’s more, I personally think the Soviets had better things to do than to assassinate McDonald; there were much greater anti-communist targets out there. Although his widow Kathy ran for his seat, ultimately the Democratic primary was won by Buddy Darden, who was far better suited for the state’s Democratic Party, and he then won the election. The John Birch Society reverted back to Welch as the leader until his death on January 6, 1985.
References
Baker, L. (2007, September 27). Life imprisonment of Nazi Hess a “charade”. Reuters.
Marion, N.E. & Oliver, W. (2014). Killing Congress: assassinations, attempted assassinations and other violence against members of Congress. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
McDonald, L.P. Introduction for Allen, G. (1976). The Rockefeller File. Seal Beach, CA: 76′ Press.
McDonald’s peers note tragic irony. (1983, September 2). The Spokesman-Review.
I’m going to level with you: I love it when the Supreme Court issues rulings as it gives me immediate thought on what to write about and given the recent of news of momentous Supreme Court decisions on a number of hot button issues including affirmative action, it reminds me of a time past in which the Supreme Court shook up the administration of criminal justice 51 years ago. Richard Nixon had run for president in 1968 on platform involving cracking down on crime and appointing “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court and by 1972, he had picked four justices: Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and William Rehnquist. That year, the Supreme Court issued its conflicted ruling in Furman v. Georgia, which ruled all death penalty laws in the United States as having violated the 8th (“cruel and unusual punishment”) and 14th Amendments on account of the “arbitrary and capricious” manner of imposition (Justia). The facts of the case were that William Furman, a black house robber, had killed a homeowner in 1967 while fleeing by either firing blindly behind him or accidentally firing after tripping. A mental evaluation of him found that he had “well below the average of IQ of Texas prison inmates” (Justia). Possibly playing a role in his being sentenced to death rather than a term of imprisonment were his race and intelligence, the former as he was convicted in a state that had elected as its governor Lester Maddox, a man who had closed his diner rather than serve black customers.
The decision issued on June 29, 1972, was 5-4, but every justice had their own opinion, and the majority were not agreed on what the future of the death penalty should be. Justices Byron White and Potter Stewart thought that the death penalty could be constitutional but that the current laws were unconstitutional given disproportionate imposition on people who were poor, black, and young. As Stewart wrote, “These death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual” (Glass). Justice William O. Douglas found the death penalty to contravene the 8th Amendment but he didn’t necessarily call for its abolition. Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, on the other hand, were opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and regarded all such instances as unconstitutional under the 8th and 14th Amendments given the “evolving standards of decency” (Justia). In dissent were all of Nixon’s picks to the court, who disputed that a law existing in 40 states was against “evolving standards of decency”. Chief Justice Burger contested the application of the 8th Amendment while Justice Rehnquist contested the application of the 14th.
Nixon and Congress Respond
President Nixon was not pleased with the Furman decision and pushed Congress to pass a substitute federal death penalty to address the Supreme Court’s objections. Heading up this effort in the Senate was Roman Hruska (R-Neb.) who brought forth a bill restoring the death penalty for treason and murder as well as if a death occurred because of kidnapping, hijacking, escape from custody, and blowing up public buildings (Weaver). The bill passed the Senate 54-33 on March 13, 1974, with Democrats splitting 25-25, Republicans voting 27-8 for, and the Conservative and Independent senators both voting for. The bill got the support of all the Senate’s conservatives, many of its moderates, and even a few noted liberals such as Abe Ribicoff (D-Conn.) and Birch Bayh (D-Ind.). Also of note, Joe Biden, a longtime opponent of the death penalty, voted against and no Southern Democrats voted against. This bill, however, didn’t get through the House and a federal death penalty would not be restored until 1988.
Return of the Death Penalty
The death penalty’s support was meandering at the time of Furman, as in 1972, the death penalty’s approval among the public stood at 50%, but by 1976, absence appeared to make the heart grow fonder among the public as it stood at 66% (Politico). Although the death penalty met its demise in Georgia, it was also there it would be resurrected. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Gregg v. Georgia, 7-2, that the death penalty itself didn’t constitute a violation of the 8th Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” as all states had death penalty laws at the time of its adoption and set conditions that the death penalty must meet to be constitutional, with Brennan and Marshall in dissent. Interestingly, Justices Blackmun, Powell, and Stevens would later express their regrets for the vote, coming to believe that there is no way to achieve a just death penalty law.
References
Frommer, F.J. (2022, June 29). Three justices backed the death penalty – then changed their minds. The Washington Post.
Although the Democratic Party was rising in Oregon in the 1950s with the party switch of progressive Republican Wayne Morse and the defeat of Republican Senator Guy Cordon for reelection in 1954 by Democrat Richard Neuberger, the Republicans managed to get a star in their corner: the young Mark Hatfield (1922-2011). He made his way up through the Oregon State Legislature and was a progressive Republican. Hatfield most notably as a state legislator got passed and signed into law legislation barring racial discrimination in public accommodations and was a critic of the methods of Senator Joseph McCarthy. In 1956, he was elected Secretary of State, and this positioned him well for a gubernatorial run. As a consequence of his maverick tendencies, Hatfield was not popular with the national GOP, which wouldn’t support him in his bid for governor in 1958. However, the motivation to win for the state GOP overrode such issues. What’s more, one of the state’s prominent Democrats made a big mistake. Five days before the election, Senator Wayne Morse accused Hatfield of lying in his testimony in a civil case surrounding his accidentally running over a young girl who had darted across the road as a teenager, a charge regarded as an especially low blow by the voters of Oregon. Arguably because of the national GOP’s lack of support and sympathy votes after Wayne Morse’s attack, that year at 36 years old he defeated incumbent Democrat Robert Holmes, one of the few bright spots in a catastrophic year for the Republican Party. Hatfield, whose pitch for growing the state was “Payrolls and Playgrounds”, proved popular with voters and he convincingly won reelection in 1962 by double digits. This was an impressive accomplishment for an Oregon politician, for he was the first to serve two full terms in the 20th century.
In 1966, Hatfield ran for the Senate to succeed Maurine Neuberger and faced Democrat Robert Duncan. Duncan was supportive of LBJ’s execution of the Vietnam War, and Hatfield was an early opponent of the Vietnam War. He was again helped by Wayne Morse, but this time in the form of an endorsement for his stance, as opposition to the Vietnam War had become his obsession. In 1968, Hatfield backed Nixon for president, seeing him as the best way to exit the Vietnam War quickly at the time and Nixon apparently considered making him his vice presidential nominee. However, this appears per Nixon’s memoirs to not have been a serious consideration; he was considered too liberal by party conservatives. Hatfield would quickly differ with the Nixon Administration on many questions, especially on Vietnam. In 1970, Hatfield sponsored with George McGovern (D-S.D.) the “End the War” Amendment, cutting off funding for the Vietnam War. This amendment was unsuccessful, but he became a popular figure in the peace movement. He also sponsored with Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) in the same year a proposal for an all-volunteer army, which although unsuccessful, would be implemented later by the Nixon Administration.
In 1971, Hatfield was suffering from popularity issues in Oregon because of his perceived lack of attentiveness to the state’s interests, so he hired Gerry Frank as chief of staff, who helped him to right the ship, and instead of serving on the Foreign Relations Committee he accepted a committee assignment on Appropriations, a post that would prove valuable to Oregonians in the future (Lloyd). This course correction worked, and Hatfield beat back Wayne Morse’s attempt to return to the Senate in 1972. Hatfield became a popular and admired figure in Oregon due to his principled stances; he was anti-war, anti-death penalty, and pro-life. He was a strong supporter of civil rights measures across the board. Hatfield was interestingly enough an evangelical whose strong Christian beliefs motivated his political views.
Holding the Purse Strings
The 1980 election produced a Republican majority in the Senate, and this made Hatfield the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee from 1981 to 1987. In this role, he used his position to steer a lot of federal money to Oregon. Although his critics regarded his allocations as “pork”, Hatfield would justify it as Oregon got little money in national defense spending, which is what the Reagan Administration was pushing for. What’s more, he told Senator Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) that Washington used to get all the money when Senator Warren Magnuson (D-Wash.) was chairman, saying to him, “now I’m chairman. And now Oregon is getting all of the money” (Lloyd). Hatfield was also a bit of an awkward chairman for President Reagan as they were at cross-purposes on defense spending, but he wasn’t an obstructionist. Thus, Hatfield wouldn’t attempt to block measures in committee but would argue and vote against them on the floor. Sometimes he would also help Reagan with budget cuts, he backed tax reduction, and supported oil deregulation. Hatfield did clash with the Reagan Administration on efforts to curb busing and in his veto of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988.
Ethics Issues
Despite his public reputation for integrity, which was such that some detractors sarcastically referred to him as “St. Mark”, in 1984 journalist Jack Anderson revealed that his wife, Antoinette, had gotten $55,000 in real estate and decorating fees from a Greek financier who had recruited Senator Hatfield to support a trans-Africa oil pipeline (Lloyd). However, Hatfield was able to resolve this scandal by donating the money to charity and he was reelected by an overwhelming margin that year. In 1992, he was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting and failing to report gifts to the tune of nearly $43,000 between 1983 and 1988, most from Dr. James B. Holderman, former president of the University of South Carolina (CQ Press). While Hatfield was chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Congress granted $16.3 million to the university. He was also cited for three unspecified travel reimbursements. However, due to finding no evidence of criminal violations or intent from Hatfield, the committee didn’t recommend any formal discipline by the Senate. For context, the Senate Ethics Committee in its ruling had regarded Hatfield’s shortfall as worse than four of five of the “Keating Five” (CQ Press).
The New Republican Majority
After the 1994 midterms, Hatfield was again chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but he was in many ways out of step with the Republican majority’s agenda, and no instance highlighted this more than his vote against the Balanced Budget Amendment, which was decisive in its defeat in the Senate. Adding to the pressure for Hatfield to vote differently, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) was trying to make this a centerpiece of his 1996 presidential campaign.
In 1996, Hatfield decided at 74 years old to retire from politics, not wishing to be a doddering old senator propped up by his aides. Unlike many former legislators who stay in Washington D.C., he would return to Oregon and teach government at the George Fox University as well as at the Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University. I think I can safely say that the Republican Party today has no one serving in the House or Senate who is as liberal as Mark Hatfield was. Although he would be on board with today’s GOP on abortion, there wouldn’t be many other things he would be in accord with them on. His lifetime MC-Index score is a mere 32%. In declining health for years, Hatfield died on August 7, 2011, at 89.
Hatfield is without doubt considered one of the greats of the history of Oregon politics. His obituary in The Oregonian called him “Oregon’s first statesman”, and he is one of numerous historical figures who would have no place in today’s politics.
References
Cloud of Scandal Hovers Over Capitol Hill. CQ Almanac 1992.
Recently Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was censured by the House entirely on party lines over his pushing of the Trump/Russia collusion narrative. Critics of the House majority either seem to think that the Trump/Russia collusion was true or that Schiff was being censured as petty retaliation for action against Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). I’ve got news for those folks for the latter. People have been censured for smaller things than this. One of them was Rep. William Bynum (D-Ind.).
The Reed Congress
The results of the 1888 election gave Republicans unified government for the first time since the Grant Administration, and Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed (R-Me.) aimed to make the most of it. He dramatically increased the power of the speaker and did so primarily by eliminating the disappearing quorum, in which members who were physically present would literally not answer their names as a way of denying the House the ability to conduct business. This would result in a ridiculous number of roll calls in which names were called out. Thus, with a small majority, Reed needed all the Republicans he could get, and this was proving a difficult task. Thus, one day he just counted people as present whether they answered their names or not. This resulted in a cacophony of protest from Democrats, Democrats trying to hide behind desks, and one kicking a door down to escape. Reed’s power consolidation led to his critics calling him “Czar Reed”. One representative was particularly heated in his condemnation of Reed’s rule. Minority Whip William D. Bynum (D-Ind.) angrily weighed in against “the arbitrary, the outrageous, the damnable rulings of the Chair” (Tuchman). However, although Bynum’s anger at the Speaker is cited as the cause of his censure, on further investigation I discovered this isn’t actually true. The issue actually related to a prominent Pittsburg resident.
Bynum spoke on the House floor against James Campbell, who had been accused of forgery, calling him a “liar and a perjurer” (The Sunday Herald). Republican Thomas Bayne read into the Congressional Record Campbell’s letter defending himself and called for Bynum’s remarks to be removed. Bynum, in response, called Bayne “the sewer through which this attack of Campbell made its way into the record” and upon objection changed it to “conduit pipe” and went on to say regarding Bayne that “I want to say now that I accept and am willing to believe that I have as great confidence in the character of Mr. Campbell as I have in the character of the gentleman who makes this attack upon me” (The Sunday Herald).
For this insult to another member, the Republican majority voted to censure Bynum for “unparliamentary language” on May 17, 1890, on a party line vote. The Democrats would win the House in 1890, but Bynum would lose reelection in the Republican sweep of 1894. Ironically, he would himself dissent from the Democratic Party come 1896 when they nominated William Jennings Bryan, instead running the party organization of the “National Democratic Party”, which supported the Gold Standard. President McKinley would in 1900 appoint him to the commission codifying U.S. criminal laws, where he would serve until 1906.
References
To Adopt the Last Part of the Resolution Regarding the Censure of William D. Bynum. (P. 4864). Govtrack.
The victorious Democratic leaders: Speaker Sam Rayburn & Majority Leader LBJ.
The 1958 midterms don’t usually get a whole lot of attention, but they were in truth quite a turning point for conservatism vs. liberalism. The 1950s have been seen as a politically conservative period, which had at least been true in Congress. Conservatives had considerable strength for the past two decades, with it being particularly strong in the 78th, the 80th, and the 82nd and 83rd Congresses. In the Senate, the Democrats had only a 49-47 majority before this election, and after they had a commanding 62-34 lead, only to turn into a 65-35 lead after the addition of Alaska and Hawaii to the Union. This was the most severe blow the Conservative Coalition had experienced since its rise in the 1938 midterms and would set the stage for the liberal politics of the 1960s.
The following Senate seats either had Republicans defeated or retiring Republicans were succeeded by Democrats:
California – William Knowland (R) (MCI: 71%) retired to run for governor, succeeded by Rep. Clair Engle (D) (MCI: 22%).
Connecticut – William Purtell (R) (MCI: 61%) was defeated for reelection by former Rep. Thomas Dodd (D) (MCI: 19%).
Indiana – William Jenner (R) (MCI: 96%) retired, Vance Hartke (D) (MCI: 10%) defeated Harold W. Handley (R) to succeed him.
Maine – Frederick Payne (R) (MCI: 52%) was defeated for reelection by Governor Edmund Muskie (D) (MCI: 5%).
Michigan – Charles Potter (R) (MCI: 75%) was defeated for reelection by Phil Hart (D) (MCI: 1%).
Minnesota – Eugene Thye (R) (MCI: 57%) was defeated for reelection by Rep. Eugene McCarthy (D) (MCI: 2%).
Nevada – George Malone (R) (MCI: 84%) was defeated for reelection by Howard Cannon (D) (MCI: 37%).
New Jersey – H. Alexander Smith (R) (MCI: 63%) retired, former Rep. Harrison Williams (D) (MCI: 6%) defeated Rep. Robert Kean (R) to succeed him.
Ohio – John W. Bricker (R) (MCI: 98%) was defeated for reelection by former Rep. Stephen Young (D) (MCI: 18%).
Utah – Arthur Watkins (R) (MCI: 86%) was defeated for reelection by Frank Moss (D) (MCI: 10%), who benefited from the entry of Republican J. Bracken Lee, who ran as an Independent to Watkins’ right and won 26.4% of the vote.
West Virginia – W. Chapman Revercomb (R) (MCI: 84%) was defeated for reelection by Rep. Robert Byrd (D) (MCI: 28%), John Hoblitzell (R) (MCI: 76%) was defeated for election to a full term by former Rep. Jennings Randolph (D) (MCI: 25%).
Wyoming – Frank Barrett (R) (MCI: 87%) was defeated for reelection by Gale W. McGee (D) (MCI: 17%).
The following Senate seats had retiring Republicans succeeded by more liberal Republicans:
Pennsylvania – Edward Martin (R) (MCI: 90%) for Rep. Hugh Scott (R) (MCI: 53%), who defeated George M. Leader (D).
Vermont – Ralph Flanders (R) (MCI: 62%) for Rep. Winston Prouty (R) (MCI: 56%), who defeated Frederick J. Fayette (D).
Additionally, with the two states of Alaska and Hawaii being added to the union, the following senators were elected:
Alaska
Bob Bartlett (D) (MCI: 14%) Ernest Gruening (D) (MCI: 16%)
Hawaii
Oren Long (D) (MCI: 5%) Hiram Fong (R) (MCI: 52%)
Among the defeated or retired who were solid or ultra-conservatives were Jenner, Malone, Bricker, Martin, Watkins, Revercomb, and Barrett. Moderate conservatives defeated or retired were Knowland, Potter, and Hoblitzell. The moderates defeated or retired were Purtell, Payne, Thye, Smith, Ives, and Flanders. Every senator who defeated or succeeded another senator, with the exception of replacing Irving Ives (MCI: 47%) with Kenneth Keating (MCI: 54%), was more liberal and often considerably more liberal than his predecessor. Every single one of the new senators would support the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and Medicare and all won reelection in 1964 save for Kenneth Keating, who lost reelection to RFK, and Clair Engle, who died of a brain tumor. Democrats adding 15 seats provided a solid liberal base in the Senate for over two decades. Particularly notable was the defeat of Payne in a state that had previously had a registration ratio of 3 to 1 Republican…his opponent Edmund Muskie had as governor made massive inroads with voters for the Democratic Party (U.S. Senate).
The House: A Triumph for Liberalism
The Democrats increased their lead in the House from 234-201 to 283-153 lost 48 seats, which solidified their position in the majority until 1994. Democrats won a lot in the Midwest, gaining three seats in Illinois, six in Indiana, three in Iowa, two in Kansas, one in Michigan, two in Nebraska, one in North Dakota, three in Ohio, and two in Wisconsin. In New England, they defeated all six Republican representatives in Connecticut, won a seat in Maine, won a seat in Massachusetts, and won a seat in Vermont. The latter result was particularly jarring as William Meyer was the first Democrat to win an election to Congress from the state since before the Republican Party’s founding in 1854. This would be a temporary victory for them, as Rockefeller Republican Robert Stafford would defeat him in 1960, but it would prove a portend of the future. In Massachusetts, Republican Richard Wigglesworth was succeeded by Democrat Jimmy Burke, a hilariously shameless figure on spending and taxes who I’ve written about before (but from an electoral standpoint, was he wrong?). The seat would never again be held by a Republican. Also, the two Republicans (Silvio Conte and Hastings Keith) who kept seats being departed by retiring Republicans (John Heselton and Donald Nicholson) were more liberal than their predecessors. This election also hit home for President Eisenhower, as his district’s representative, Pennsylvania Republican S. Walter Stauffer, lost reelection to Democrat James M. Quigley (Time Magazine).
Another interesting tidbit was that moderate conservative Republican John J. Allen of California narrowly lost reelection to ultra-liberal Democrat Jeffery Cohelan. The district he lost covered Berkley and Oakland. To this day, Allen is the last Republican to represent these cities in Congress and today they are represented by Barbara Lee, one of the most liberal members of Congress.
Gubernatorial Elections
In these elections, Democrats gained a net of six governorships.
Democratic Gains
Alaska – William A. Egan (D) defeated John Butrovich (R) in the state’s first gubernatorial election.
California – Pat Brown (D) defeated Senator William Knowland (R) to succeed Goodwin Knight (R).
Maryland – J. Millard Tawes (D) defeated Congressman James Devereux (R) to succeed Theodore McKeldin (R).
Nebraska – Victor Andersen (R) was defeated for reelection by Ralph Brooks (D).
Nevada – Charles Russell (R) was defeated for reelection by Grant Sawyer (D).
New Mexico – Edwin Mechem (R) was defeated for reelection by John Burroughs (D).
Ohio – C. William O’Neill (R) was defeated for reelection by Michael DiSalle (D).
South Dakota – Ralph Herseth (D) defeated Phil Saunders (R) to succeed retiring Joe Foss (R).
Wisconsin – Vernon Thomson (R) was defeated for reelection by Gaylord Nelson (D).
Wyoming – Milward Simpson (R) was defeated for reelection by John J. Hickey (D).
Republican Gains
Arizona – Paul Fannin (R) defeated Robert Morrison (D) to succeed Ernest McFarland (D).
New York – Averell Harriman (D) was defeated for reelection by Nelson Rockefeller (R).
Oregon – Robert D. Holmes (D) was defeated for reelection by Mark Hatfield (R).
Rhode Island – Dennis J. Roberts (D) was defeated for reelection by Christopher Del Sesto (R).
Causes & Consequences:
For causes, the economy was in a recession in 1958, and this led to many Republicans being turned out of office, with President Eisenhower not being popular at the time. Although the primarily worked against Republicans, in New York it worked against Democratic Governor Averill Harriman, who was defeated by Nelson Rockefeller, providing a major boost to the latter’s profile. Another factor was simply the good looks of candidates themselves, as the more attractive candidates were consistently winning (Time Magazine). There was also the perception that the US was behind in the Cold War because of the launch of Sputnik. Also, organized labor was heavily mobilized to turn out for this election, and they did in droves to fight “right to work” proposals in certain states as well as the Eisenhower Administration’s support of such proposals. Such a proposal on the ballot in Ohio was widely believed to be the deciding factor in the defeat of Bricker, who had a history as a popular governor and VP nominee, was previously believed to be unbeatable (Hill).
After this election there were leadership changes in both chambers. In the House, the Republicans voted their leader Joe Martin of Massachusetts out in favor of Charles Halleck of Indiana. In the Senate, William Knowland of California had been their leader, and the Republicans elected whip Everett Dirksen of Illinois in his place although Rockefeller Republican John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky made a spirited run for the post.
The South
Before this time, Northern and Southern Democrats were fairly evenly divided, but with Northern Democrats now outnumbering Southerners by almost two to one, this would distinctly disadvantage them on the direction of the party (U.S. Senate). Most notably, the party would become bolder on civil rights. Among the senators newly elected in 1958, only Robert Byrd of West Virginia would vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
References
Hill, R. John W. Bricker of Ohio. The Knoxville Focus.
Maryland’s 6th district has been one of the less liberal and Democratic districts in the state, even with the redistricting from the 2010 census that made the area lean Democratic. From 1943 to 1959 it was represented by Republicans J. Glenn Beall Sr. and DeWitt Hyde, who were both moderate conservatives. However, 1958 was a pretty bad midterm for the GOP and they lost all three of the Maryland House seats they held. The only one they won back in 1960 was the 6th, and Charles McCurdy “Mac” Mathias (1922-2010) was their champion.
Moving to the Rockefeller Wing Early
Although Mathias criticized incumbent John Foley for voting with Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) (he had done so 8 out of 9 times in 1959 and 9 out of 9 times in 1960), it took him but a year for his record to move from that similar to his Republican predecessors to being in the liberal camp. While in 1961 he had scored a 30 by the ADA and 67 by Americans for Constitutional Action, he scored an 88 from the former and a 27 from the latter the next year. A portend for this development was that his third vote in Congress was to increase the House Rules Committee from 12 to 15, adding two Democrats and one Republican to counter the power of Chairman Howard W. Smith (D-Va.) and the conservatives on the committee who were blocking liberal legislation.
Mathias was a vote for the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Medicare, and other Great Society programs. However, he did dissent from the liberal position on food stamps and Urban Mass Transit. Mathias was also a strong supporter of civil rights and played a significant role in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1966, he attempted to broker a compromise on fair housing legislation through his amendment, which would impose no limitations on discrimination from the homeowner or for owner-occupied rental establishments but would impose discrimination prohibition on the real estate broker. The bill was defeated in the Senate, but fair housing would be the core of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Boot Brewster!
In 1968, Mathias decided to run for the Senate against incumbent Daniel J. Brewster. Brewster had been Mathias’ college friend and was at the time for Democrats a rising star, the “Golden Boy” of Maryland’s politics. He was, unfortunately, suffering from alcoholism and he would later face corruption charges at least mostly on account of the acts of a corrupt aide. Brewster ultimately would plead no contest to a charge after a new trial was going to be held after his first trial resulted in an acquittal. Mathias would win by a plurality in a three-way race, with Brewster in second and perennial candidate George P. Mahoney running in third.
Aggravating Nixon
Not since ideological turncoat Charles Goodell of New York had a Republican senator gotten the goat of the Nixon Administration. Mathias voted against both Clement Haynsworth of South Carolina and G. Harrold Carswell of Florida for the Supreme Court. He was a Vietnam War dove and his record only had gotten more liberal from his House years. As Maryland Senate President Thomas Mike V. Miller Jr., put it, “He was an enemy to the Nixon White House…He didn’t like the Vietnam War and thought the Nixon Administration wasn’t progressive enough on civil rights” (Borda). On the latter, this was over President Nixon’s opposition to busing as well as his effort to cater to the South by nationalizing coverage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Rowland Evans and Robert Novak (1971) also observed this development, writing that he was “the new supervillain…in President Nixon’s doghouse…not since [Charles Goodell] was defeated with White House connivance has any Republican so outraged Mr. Nixon and his senior staff as Mathias. The senator’s liberalism and tendency to bolt party lines have bred animosity in the inner sanctum”.
In 1973, he was one of the earliest Republican supporters of an investigation into Watergate. Mathias would during his next election quote Edmund Burke, “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment, and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion”, to which he added, “I would point out that Edmund Burke was defeated at the next election”, but which he rejoined with, “But it was still the right answer” (Clymer). This time was also perhaps the height of his liberalism, but he disputed the degree of it. Although Americans for Democratic Action had only scored him wrong on one issue in 1973 (confirming Gerald Ford VP), the following year he said, “I’m not all that liberal. In fact, in some respects I’m conservative. A while ago I introduced a bill preserving the guarantees of the Bill of Rights by prohibiting warrantless wiretaps. I suppose they’ll say it’s another liberal effort, but it’s as conservative as you can get. It’s conserving the Constitution” (Clymer). This argument would certainly get the agreement of such people as Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Thomas Massie today.
Thanks to his conflicted relations with the Nixon Administration, he was spared from the Watergate backlash in 1974. Mathias won reelection by about 15 points against future Senator Barbara Mikulski in a state in which Democrats outnumbered Republicans three to one in registration. Her vote overwhelmingly came from Baltimore, indeed the only county she won was Baltimore, but did so with only 51%.
Conservation
Mathias was a strong supporter of environmental legislation, and his most notable work involved preserving the Chesapeake Bay. His advocacy finally in 1984 resulted in the creation of the Chesapeake Bay Program to clean up and protect the bay under the Clean Water Act. He also successfully pushed for the passage of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.
Conflict with Reagan and Retirement
Mathias disapproved of the rising conservative influence in the party, and in 1976 outright considered running as an independent. This didn’t come to pass and in 1980 he made no such move despite his numerous reservations about Reagan. Although Mathias often voted with the Reagan Administration on taxes, he often was at loggerheads with him, and in 1986 he voted against elevating William Rehnquist to chief justice. Mathias also continued to back socially liberal positions and was opposed to much of Reagan’s foreign policy. He also continued his civil rights advocacy and played a significant role in the passage of the extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 1982.
Although it initially looked like Mathias might run for reelection in 1986, he chose to retire, and Barbara Mikulski won the election to succeed him. His lifetime MC-Index score was a 23%. Although he remained a Republican until his dying day, in 2008, he endorsed Democrat Barack Obama in the presidential election. Two years later, Mathias died of Parkinson’s Disease. To this day, Mac Mathias is the last Republican to represent Maryland in the Senate.
References
1966 Civil Rights Act Dies in the Senate.CQ Almanac 1966. CQ Press.
On June 8, 2023, televangelist and political influencer Pat Robertson died at the age of 93. I am not covering his legacy today, but that of his father, Absalom Willis Robertson (1887-1971), a political actor in his own right.
Robertson, an attorney, started his political career in Virginia young, in 1915 being elected to the Virginia State Senate, getting elected at the same time as a major player in Byrd. There he would author the Robertson Road Act, providing $14 million to assist localities for road construction, and was okay with using some bonds to fund road construction (Heinemann). He was a man of deep religious faith, after all he was named after the third son of King David, Absalom (Hill). Robertson, who would go by A. Willis, would pass on this faith to his children, most notable of course being Marion Gordon “Pat” Robertson. Although Pat’s central figure of instruction was his mother, Gladys, who was even more Biblically focused than her husband (Epps). Robertson would move out of the legislature in 1924 to serve as Commonwealth Attorney for Rockbridge County and would serve until 1928.
Robertson Goes to Congress
In 1932, Willis Robertson is elected to Congress At-Large from Virginia in the Roosevelt landslide. His territorial district is the 7th, and this would be restored with the 1934 midterms. The 7th was not the most secure territory for Democrats, as Republican John Paul had briefly served in the 67th Congress and the 1928 landslide by Herbert Hoover brought into office Republican Jacob Garber for a single term. Robertson was initially a supporter of FDR’s New Deal, backing the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the National Industrial Recovery Act, but he would soon have major disagreements with Roosevelt, and in 1935 he voted against work relief and Social Security. Although Robertson often quoted the Bible, he was in truth foremost devoted to the Constitution according to his friend Senator John C. Stennis (D-Miss.), stating, “He almost worshiped the Constitution — and had a fine knowledge of it, too” (Epps).
Robertson in the Senate
Robertson, like most Virginia politicians, was part of the Byrd Organization, and after Carter Glass’ death in 1946, he competed against Congressman Howard W. Smith and former Congressman Colgate Darden for the seat. These men all being friends of Byrd, he maintained neutrality in the contest. The primary was challenging, but Robertson pulled ahead after Darden withdrew and his supporters went to him. Winning the primary in Virginia at the time was tantamount to election.
Although a conservative, Robertson is considerably more moderate than Byrd himself. Unlike the hyper cost-conscious Byrd, he joins most Democrats in voting for Greek-Turkish Aid and the Marshall Plan. He was, like Byrd, an opponent of the Fair Deal. Also, unlike him, Robertson maintains loyalty in backing the Democratic Party’s candidates nationally. He backed Truman in 1948 and while Byrd found himself unable to endorse Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956 on account of his liberalism, Robertson considered him a quality nominee and backed him whatever ideological differences existed. He also was far more devoted to his Senate duties than Byrd (he had a near perfect attendance record) and regularly studied legislation (Hill).
By the 1960s, Robertson is roughly equal to Harry Byrd in his conservatism but is independent of the Byrd Organization and is the chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee due to seniority. Although he publicly backs Byrd’s “Massive Resistance” policy to desegregation, he does so lukewarmly and has private reservations about its wisdom. This doesn’t mean that he slacks in his opposition to civil rights legislation nationally; on one occasion he dislocated his shoulder while gesticulating against a civil rights bill. Robertson also votes against the New Frontier and Great Society programs including LBJ’s “War on Poverty” and voted against its flagship legislation, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. He stated on the law, “Jesus said, ‘The poor ye shall always have with you'” (Epps). It is also no surprise given Robertson’s vote against Social Security that he voted against Medicare and Medicaid the following year. Robertson, among the many ways he crossed liberals, was in his opposition to financial disclosure statements from senators. But this was not out of fear that it would expose how wealthy he was, rather “He didn’t want anybody to know how poor he was because then they might run against him” (Epps).
The Lady Bird Whistle Stop – The End of a Career
Although Robertson is getting increasingly out of the times on his civil rights stances, it is a personal affront that most directly brings about his defeat. In 1965, Robertson was one of four Southern senators to snub Lady Bird Johnson in her traveling by train to Southern states to encourage support for civil rights legislation. This ticks off President Johnson, who sees an opportunity to end Robertson’s career. This wouldn’t have been possible in the last election as the Byrd Organization was a solid force, but in 1965 Byrd resigns due to his terminal brain cancer and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 dramatically increased voter participation of blacks and poor whites. Thus, Johnson recruits State Senator William B. Spong, a moderate, to run against Robertson in 1966. Spong criticizes a number of his conservative votes and him as being a man of the past. Robertson’s age doesn’t help as a few days before the primary election, Byrd, who was two weeks younger than him, slipped into a coma (Epps). Spong prevails in the primary by only 611 votes (Heinemann). His MC-Index score, which covers his entire career, is a 73% and his adjusted* ADA average score, covering 1947 to 1966, is a 14%. Robertson subsequently engaged in consulting work for the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. He maintained an active lifestyle and good health until his sudden death on November 1, 1971. Robertson’s legacy partially lived on in his son, who one friend would state, “spent 50 years as a professional politician, with an alert bright son who just absorbed piles of this stuff — and then the very strange, remote, religious mother. The result is almost what you’d get if you wrote that novel” (Epps).
* – Not counting unopinionated absences towards ideology.
References
Epps, G. (1986, October 19). Pat Robertson’s a Pastor, But his Father Was a Pol. The Washington Post.
If anyone remembers Senator Roman Lee Hruska (1904-1999), it is probably for an unflattering argument he made for Supreme Court nominee G. Harrold Carswell in 1970. Leading the advocacy for Carswell in the Senate, he held that he was being opposed for being a Southerner and went on to say, “Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they? We can’t have all Brandeises and Frankfurters and Cardozos” (Pearson). This was lampooned and there were even questions about whether there was an anti-Semitic tinge to it as all the justices he mentioned were Jewish. Hruska would not be the only senator to make an unfortunate argument for the allegedly mediocre Carswell, but his words stuck the most, both to Carswell and himself. This is unfortunate, as Hruska was a productive and accomplished legislator.
The 1952 Election: Congress
Hruska’s ascension to the national political scene coincided with Dwight Eisenhower’s, with him representing the 2nd district of Nebraska. However, he wouldn’t be there for long; in 1954, Senator Hugh Butler died of a stroke less than three months after Nebraska’s other senator, Dwight Griswold, had died of a heart attack. Although Samuel Reynolds was appointed to fill the Butler vacancy that year, he was merely a placeholder and it was Hruska who ran to complete the term. He was seated just in time to vote on Joseph McCarthy’s censure, which he voted against. Contrary to what Voteview and Govtrack report due to a data error, it was his colleague, placeholder Hazel Abel, who voted to censure McCarthy (UPI).
Hruska in the Senate
Hruska quickly established himself as a staunch conservative, but also a productive legislator and this got the positive attention of Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.). Hruska would become his best friend in the Senate and the main conservative he would turn to for advice and assistance in passing and opposing legislation. It also helped Hruska that he was a highly effective speaker and campaigner. He was even at one point considered as a possible leading public face for a conservative resurgence in the late 1950s, but Barry Goldwater was chosen by leading conservatives for this role as he was thought to be more telegenic (Hagel).
In 1957, he voted against the striking of 14th Amendment implementation from the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the jury trial amendment. Although Hruska was often opposed to Democratic proposals on foreign policy including repeatedly voting against foreign aid, Dirksen got him to vote for the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963.
In 1964, he served as one of the floor managers for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although he voted to strike Title VII (employment discrimination) from the legislation, Hruska voted to keep Title II (public accommodations) and he voted to end debate. His, along with Norris Cotton’s (R-N.H.) and Karl Mundt’s (R-S.D.) votes were won by an agreement that some Republican amendments would get a vote. The votes were held and rejected and Hruska voted for the bill.
In 1965, Hruska sponsored the constitutional amendment providing for a constitutional procedure for succession to the president. He also co-sponsored the Constitutional amendment giving citizens the vote at 18, and was a driving force behind legislation giving D.C. a delegate in Congress and establishing a federal criminal code. Hruska stood as a foe of what he regarded as excessive violence and pornography in media, and sponsored legislation to limit them (Honan).
When Everett Dirksen was elected minority leader in 1959, one of the key senators he turned to was Hruska. He helped get some conservatives on board with the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which Dirksen was pushing for. When Thomas Kuchel lost renomination in 1968, Dirksen wanted Hruska to be his whip, but Republican senators voted for the moderate Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania instead. An unhappy Dirksen sidelined Scott as much as he could, but Dirksen died on September 7, 1969 of complications from lung cancer. Hruska became a candidate for minority leader, but dropped out to unify the conservative vote behind Dirksen’s son-in-law Howard Baker Jr. of Tennessee, who had won the support of Barry Goldwater of Arizona. However, Scott won the post with moderate conservative Robert P. Griffin of Michigan getting the whip post.
Hruska was, although to the right of Nixon, a loyal supporter of him and supported President Ford’s pardon of him, thinking it necessary for the nation to move on. In 1976, now a man of 72, he decided to retire from the Senate. Hruska’s record and reputation were staunchly conservative, averaging an adjusted (unopinionated absences don’t count against) 5% ADA score. Hruska also scored a 96% on the MC-Index. After the Senate, he practiced law, never fully retiring.
Hruska lived long enough to see Republicans gain the majority in Congress in 1994. He reflected that his favorite president to serve under was Nixon, stating, “I think he had a better understanding of domestic and foreign affairs than any other president when he entered the office” and credited him with transferring significant powers from the federal government to the states (Horning). Hruska died from complications of a fall on April 25, 1999 at the ripe old age of 94.
P.S.: Update on the MC-Index
I have altered the MC-Index slightly, now if there is a tie among the top ideologically extreme legislators per DW-Nominate on one pole, it will be the next one who decides the direction rather than the vote being excluded.
References
Censured McCarthy plans new investigation. (1954, December 2). UPI.
Mad Politics: The Bizarre, Fascinating, and Unknown of American Political History 