Some time ago I wrote about politicians who were absentee, those who saw being a representative either as another status symbol or as a mere springboard to something else. Such folks include William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, and William Sharon. Today, however, I cover the opposite, someone who was always present for votes and always at work. While many people may think Congress consists of a bunch of bums, this could not be said for Democrat William Huston Natcher (1909-1994) of Kentucky.

Something that is not remembered so well about Kentucky, today the state of Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, is that it was once a predominantly Democratic state. Such was especially the case with the state’s second district, based in Bowling Green, one of two House seats that didn’t go Republican when the Hoover landslide swept Kentucky in 1928. Natcher was serving as Kentucky’s attorney for the Eighth Judicial District when on April 30, 1953, his district’s representative, Garrett Withers, died unexpectedly. He was nominated and won a special election that year. Natcher would prove so popular that he would face no opposition in the 1954 midterms. He was a man dedicated to his work for his district and would not accept campaign contributions; what few campaign expenses he had, came out of his own pocket. Natcher spread the word of himself as a representative by personally traveling around his district and talking to people, and this in-person approach worked wonders. President Bill Clinton called him a “citizen legislator”, and there’s nothing I’ve read about him so far that contradicts this label. Natcher’s philosophy was simple, and he described it in 1992, “When we got to Washington we talked about the assignment and we decided we’d try to do it right. And that’s the way I’ve done, I’ve tried to do it right” (Modlin). Natcher indeed followed this approach sitting on the Appropriations Committee, and over the years became an expert on budgetary issues, including being able to memorize portions of budgets.

Ideology

Natcher was very much a traditional Democrat: pro-New Deal and looking out for his district, namely through his support for infrastructure projects, including the cable bridge between Indiana and Kentucky ultimately completed in 2002. Sometimes he clashed with others in his support for highway projects, including Washington D.C. officials as chairman of the D.C. subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee for insisting that certain highway projects be funded before Metrorail funds (Barnes). He also tried to get the proposed Three Sisters Bridge over the Potomac River authorized for construction before any release of Metrorail funds, but this effort was thwarted by a group of representatives after massive public opposition from D.C. and Congress narrowly voted to fund Metrorail over his objections on December 2, 1971 (Eisen). He also was a strong supporter of federal funding for libraries. Natcher was most notable for never having missed a vote from his first day in office to March 3, 1994, having cast a total of 18,401 consecutive votes (Barnes).

Natcher on the Issues

Natcher was supportive of JFK’s New Frontier and LBJ’s Great Society programs, although he did oppose federal aid for mass transit. However, on some social issues Natcher proved conservative, such as his support for school prayer. He was also supportive of spending on the military, including for funding the B-1 Bomber and MX Missile. This translated to Natcher being, on net, a moderate liberal – his ACA scores ranged from an 8% in 1961 to a 59% in 1969. On environmental issues, he had a mixed record, with the League of Conservation Voters giving him a 45%.

Natcher and Civil Rights

Congressman Natcher was on civil rights very much a man of his region in the 1950s and 1960s. While he supported certain voting rights measures such as the 24th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, he opposed the McCulloch-Celler Amendment for federally appointed voting referees, joined all but one member of the state’s House delegation in opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and voted against fair housing. However, he curiously voted to strengthen the 1964 act’s anti-employment discrimination enforcement through the proposed Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1966. Natcher would ultimately go along with the Democratic leadership on most civil rights questions in later years, including opposing an anti-racial quota and an anti-affirmative action amendment in 1978. Natcher also voted for the Equal Rights Amendment in 1971 and 1983. He did, however, maintain opposition to busing as a means of desegregation.

At Long Last…Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the End

Although Natcher served for a long time, he had the misfortune of having people ahead of him in seniority for the House Appropriations Committee: the man immediately senior of him, Appropriations Chairman Jamie Whitten of Mississippi, would serve in Congress for 53 years, while Whitten’s predecessor, George Mahon of Texas, had served in Congress for 44 years. Natcher’s chance finally came in 1992; Chairman Whitten, who like Natcher was an octogenarian, suffered a stroke in February 1992 and was months later persuaded to step down. Although being chairman was the pinnacle of his career, his time would only be long enough for the start of the Clinton Administration, for by 1994 his health was failing. On March 6th, he was brought into the House on a gurney connected to tubes and an oxygen tank to cast his last votes. Natcher died of heart failure on March 29th, with the only votes he ever missed being on account of his final illness. President Clinton attended his funeral. Political Science Professor Ed Yager of Western Kentucky University assessed his legacy thusly, “He was an absolute expert on parliamentary procedure and he was also an expert on the budget and had many parts of the budget memorized. And so this professional competence was extremely important. But on the other hand he also had the personal qualities which were extremely important to getting things done in the House of Representatives. He was civil. He thought of himself as an American first, and as a Democrat second” (Modlin).

Although he holds the record for most consecutive votes, believe it or not, he’s not Kentucky’s longest serving representative. That goes to Republican Hal Rogers, who has served in Congress since 1981. Kentucky’s move from Democratic to Republican state was occurring about the time of Natcher’s death, and although in 1992 Natcher had won reelection by over 60% of the vote, his successor was Republican Ron Lewis, who won by over 10 points. The 2nd district has been represented by a Republican ever since. Natcher came from a different era of Democratic politics, coming to Congress in the age in which the New Deal coalition was still alive and well and the Austin-Boston Connection (named for Speaker Sam Rayburn of Bonham, Texas and Majority Leader and later Speaker John W. McCormack of Boston, as well as for Speaker Tip O’Neill of Boston and Majority Leader Jim Wright of Fort Worth) was effective.

References

Barnes, B. (1994, March 31). Rep. William H. Natcher Dies at 84. The Washington Post.

Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1994/03/31/rep-william-h-natcher-dies-at-84/0d130e54-9fef-4cc0-8bff-90ea6a168290/

Eisen, J. (1971, December 3). House Releases District Subway Funds. Washington Post. 

Modlin, D. (2010, June 7). Influential Kentucky politicians series: William Natcher. WKMS.

Retrieved from

https://www.wkms.org/2010-06-07/influential-kentucky-politicians-series-william-natcher

Representative William Natcher (D). League of Conservation Voters.

Retrieved from

https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/william-huston-natcher

Connecticut seems to be just out of reach for Republicans. Although George Logan came close to winning a Congressional seat last year, the state hasn’t elected a Republican governor or member of Congress since 2006. Those who won office were of a distinctly moderate to liberal variety: Chris Shays was the last Republican ever elected to Congress from the state and he was often thought of as a RINO, but more so than him was his predecessor, Stewart Brett McKinney (1931-1987).

A businessman primarily focusing on cars, McKinney was well placed in the community of Fairfield, Connecticut to run for public office. Although his first effort at running in 1965 as a town selectman was unsuccessful, the following year his political career kicked off, being elected to the Connecticut State House. His chance to move up came soon, as in 1970 Congressman Lowell Weicker ran for the Senate, with McKinney going for his seat in the 4th district. Both men won their races, with the latter winning by 14 points. Indeed, the 4th district was consistently represented by a Republican from 1969 to 2009.

Congressman McKinney: A Liberal Reputation

In the House, Congressman McKinney developed a record that was supportive of social welfare measures, including government-run childcare and extending the Economic Opportunity Act in 1971. He also was supportive of organized labor, voting against amendments prohibiting food stamps for households that need assistance because the head of household is on strike. McKinney defied the Nixon Administration multiple times on Vietnam, supporting a defined pullout date. However, he also had a mixed record on busing as a means for school desegregation, supported anti-subversive legislation, and backed the B-1 Bomber. In 1973, McKinney supported the Crane (R-Ill.) proposal legalizing the private ownership of gold, but also supported raising the minimum wage over President Nixon’s veto and foreign aid. That year, he drafted the D.C. Home Rule Act, which granted D.C. residents the ability to elect their own mayor and city council. Indeed, McKinney was so passionate in his advocacy for D.C. that the district’s non-voting delegate, Democrat Walter Fauntroy, regarded him as “my vote on the House floor” (Specter & Pearson). McKinney’s modified ACA-Index scores ranged from 15% in 1977 to 54% in 1971. The American Conservative Union gave him a lifetime score of 27%.

During the 95th Congress, McKinney served on the Committee on Assassinations, and agreed with the majority conclusion that there was a fourth shot coming from the grassy knoll in the JFK assassination based on a Dictabelt recording, but this turned out not to have been a recording from Dealey Plaza (Sabato). In 1979, he led the drafting of the Chrysler bailout, and this wouldn’t be the last time he’d be involved in business bailouts. In 1984, there was a run on the Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co., and as Congress was conducting hearings on a bailout package, McKinney stated, “We have a new kind of bank. It is called too big to fail. TBTF, and it is a wonderful bank” (Ryssdal & Hollenhorst). His use of “too big to fail” popularized the now commonly used term.

McKinney and Reagan

Although Congressman McKinney backed a number of Reagan’s budget and tax reduction proposals, he would be one of the most visible dissenters within the GOP, including on social issues and on military spending. In 1983, he voted for the Equal Rights Amendment and against funding the MX Missile and the B-1 Bomber. It was also during this time that he would have his last achievement in the Homeless Assistance Act, which he sponsored with Representative Bruce Vento (D-Minn.). This established aid programs for the homeless and would be signed into law by President Reagan on July 22, 1987.

Personal Life and End

Although a married man with children, McKinney was bisexual and had relations with multiple men. He also struggled with his health over the years, including needing to undergo multiple-heart-bypass surgery in 1979. In 1985, McKinney was diagnosed with HIV, and on April 22, 1987, while being hospitalized for pneumonia he would be diagnosed with AIDS, dying on May 7th. McKinney’s physician Dr. Cesar Caceres stated, “I believe that Mr. McKinney contracted the disease from the many blood transfusions he received while undergoing multiple-heart-bypass surgery in 1979. This was during the period between 1978 and the spring of 1985 when no testing of blood donors for [HIV] was done” (Specter & Pearson).

References

Rep. Stewart McKinney. American Conservative Union.

Retrieved from

http://ratings.conservative.org/people/M000527

Ryssdal, K. & Hollenhorst, M. (2023, April 13). The history of “too big to fail”. Marketplace.

Retrieved from

https://www.marketplace.org/2023/04/13/the-history-of-too-big-to-fail/

Sabato, L.J. (2013, November 21). Is there more to JFK assassination? CNN.

Retrieved from

https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/15/opinion/sabato-jfk-assassination/index.html

Specter, M. & Pearson, R. (1987, May 8). Rep. Stewart B. McKinney Dies of AIDS Complications. The Washington Post.

Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/05/08/rep-stewart-b-mckinney-dies-of-aids-complications/19f9f106-7bde-49e7-b987-b3011d7d7915/

I have written about this subject before, namely that I regard the narrative that Nixon of being a liberal as a myth, rather that he was moderately conservative, but there are some greater details I’d like to delve into, namely how he fared with the top two interest groups that issued ratings based on liberalism and conservatism: Americans for Democratic Action and Americans for Constitutional Action. Some takeaways:
Ideologues were not pleased with Nixon’s first two years. For conservatives, the complaints included that under his administration there was the largest expansion of the federal government since 1945 (Kotlowski). However, like I’ve covered before, some of these changes such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act amendments, received consensus support to the degree that such votes are rendered worthless for ascertaining liberalism and conservatism among legislators.

If Nixon was counted by ACA and ADA scorecards based on the positions he took on their votes, this is how it would come out:

Years	ADA (S)	ADA (H)	ACA (S)	ACA (H)
1969	13	17	22	30
1970	21	44	75	67
1971	17	8	55	91
1972	14	29	100	55
1973	11	11	100	80
1974	33	17	89	60
Average	18	21	74	64

The scores regarding Americans for Constitutional Action can be searched on this website under Americans for Constitutional Action Project: An Update. For Americans for Democratic Action, the votes counted can be looked up on Voteview’s website for Nixon’s positions. However, the vote count is incompletely presented for 1970 and 1974 on ADA’s website, so I have filled in the blanks. The 1970 ADA file available consists of interim ratings designed to influence voters for the 1970 midterms, which ADA regarded as of the utmost importance. The complete version, released later, had 25 House votes rather than 18 and 32 Senate votes rather than 20.

The missing roll call votes for 1970 in the House, with the pro-ADA position, are: 335, Yea; 382, Nay; 383, Nay; 400, Nay; 404, Yea; 410, Yea; 439. Yea.

The missing roll call votes for 1970 in the Senate, with the pro-ADA position, are: 483, Yea; 496, Yea; 501, Yea; 503, Yea; 553, Yea; 559, Nay; 571, Yea; 596, Yea; 608, Yea; 623, Yea; 642, Yea; 647, Yea.

The missing roll call votes for 1974 in the House, with the pro-ADA position, are: 699, Yea; 701, Yea; 707, Nay; 739, Yea; 776, Yea; 779, Nay; 796, Yea; 861, Yea; 862, Yea; 863, Yea; 874, Yea; 897, Nay; 933, Yea; 947, Nay; 971, Nay; 988, Nay.

The missing roll call votes for 1974 in the Senate, with the pro-ADA position, are: 671, Nay; 713, Yea; 750, Yea; 784, Yea; 799, Yea; 804, Yea; 806.

1969 provides a fascinating contrast between how liberals and conservatives saw Nixon: both groups thought he was bad news but for different reasons. Of particular note is how low he scores with Americans for Constitutional Action, which was achieved by him only siding with them on three of ten issues in the House and two of nine in the Senate. Nixon’s sins from a conservative perspective included:

Accepting too high raises of the debt ceiling.

The Family Assistance Plan.

Compromising with Republican liberals on the issue of busing as a means of desegregation.

Leading otherwise conservative Republicans into taking more liberal positions to be in line with the president.

Supporting increases in foreign aid.

Supporting extensions of anti-poverty programs without their functions being transferred to states.

Supporting farm subsidy payments.

1970 strangely has Nixon moving in a rightward direction from ACA but a leftward direction from ADA.

ADA’s problems with Nixon were many, but among some more notable ones:

His support for Supersonic Transport, which ACA didn’t regard as sufficiently indicative of conservatism to count in their ratings.

Vietnam War policy.

His support for altering the Voting Rights Act to make application nationwide as well as his opposition to a voting rights extension over the inclusion of an 18-year-old vote provision. Although it is true that Nixon signed into law an extension of the Voting Rights Act, he did that in spite of the 18-year-old vote provision, which was struck down by the Supreme Court and thus necessitated a Constitutional amendment.

Nixon does better by ACA in both Houses in 1970, and afterwards did much better. After being reelected, he looks downright princely in the Senate by ACA standards and just okay in the House. Overall, Nixon figures as a moderate by ACA standards in the House and as a moderate conservative in the Senate. By ADA standards, he figures as a conservative in the Senate and as a moderate conservative in the House. I have noticed that when looking at historic figures for liberalism, a standard that seems akin to that of radical conservatives Kent and Phoebe Courtney, whose 1961-1962 ratings I have covered, is often used. Such a standard ought to cause them to blush, were they still alive, and it doesn’t account for where conservatives and liberals were standing at the time. ACA itself was already considered very conservative, yet by their standards Nixon doesn’t do too shabbily.

References

Kotlowski, D.J. (2002, June 9). Was Richard M. Nixon a closet liberal? The Baltimore Sun.

Retrieved from

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2002-06-09-0206080271-story.html

Senator Charles Sumner (R-Mass.), most noted as an abolitionist, was also a supporter of the proposed Christian Amendment to the Constitution.

Lately, we have heard some GOP showhorses talk about the United States as a “Christian nation”. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, for instance, said last year that she was “tired of this separation of church and state junk – that’s not in the Constitution”, while adding that “The church is supposed to direct the government” and not the other way around (Dress). Non-Republicans lament of what the GOP has become over such a sentiment and others, seeming to believe that the GOP was once a more secular party. The Senate GOP’s 29-3 vote for a school prayer amendment to the Constitution in 1966, which I have covered before, says otherwise. Although the latter part of Boebert’s statement about church directing government is completely off as to the intentions of the Founding Fathers, she is on solid ground with holding that government is not supposed to direct the church as well as the first part as the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, rather Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. Her sentiments on religion and state also have more in common with founding figures of the Republican Party than such non-Republicans think. From the adoption of the United States Constitution, there were those who saw the absence of God in it as a deficit, and during the 1860s a number of Republicans saw fit to do something about it.

Proposing the Christian Amendment

In 1861, eleven representatives from Protestant denominations met and saw the War of the Rebellion as a form of divine punishment for failure to include God in the Constitution, and proposed to alter the preamble to mention God. The following year the National Reform Association was founded to push this amendment and proposed it to President Lincoln, who was noncommittal. The proposed amendment would add, “We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the inalienable rights and the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to ourselves and our posterity, and all the people, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (Allison). Prominent supporters included such big names in the early Republican Party as Senators Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, Zachariah Chandler and Jacob Howard of Michigan, B. Gratz Brown of Missouri, John Sherman of Ohio, and Justin Morrill and George Edmunds of Vermont.

Despite this promising start of support, the War of the Rebellion was consuming the time of government, and the assassination of President Lincoln further disrupted any push forward this amendment might have had. There was also some growing hesitation among its supporters. Charles Sumner, for instance, grew concerned about how his Jewish constituents would respond (Allison). The proposed amendment suffered a great blow when Lyman Trumbull (R-Ill.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, regarded the amendment as unnecessary in 1865 and cited examples of the Constitution indirectly supporting the notion of God, including public oaths for office and a right for free exercise of religion. Trumbull then asked for the Judiciary Committee to be discharged from the duty of consideration of the amendment and it was agreed to (Allison). Efforts persisted, with petitions being presented by numerous members of the House and Senate. Senator Richard Yates (R-Ill.), stated in his support,

“So far as I am concerned. I must say that this nation is too much indebted to the Christian religion for its national superiority for it to ignore Christianity. This is the religion which aroused our fathers in the old country and caused them to migrate to this continent and to lay here the foundations of religion and freedom. It crossed the ocean with our Pilgrim fathers; it has carried our institutions to the distant frontier; it has erected temples dedicated to the true God. The spirit of its philanthropy has filled our land with colleges and school. Its benevolence has established institutions for the relief of the disabled and the diseased, and for the amelioration of our race. And now, sir, nine-tenths of the people of my State demand that there shall be an amendment to the Constitution by which the supremacy of God shall be acknowledged by this great nation to that Being to whom we are indebted for all that we are — for our successes in many wars, and for the establishment of equal rights and liberty throughout the land” (Allison).

The amendment was not without its opponents, including Senators Francis P. Blair (D-Mo.) and Carl Schurz (LR-Mo.) who objected to consideration with the latter citing petitions from over 10,000 people in opposition. No action was taken over concerns that the amendment had potential to impair free exercise of religion.

The nation that existed when this amendment was proposed was an overwhelmingly Protestant one, with Protestantism being taken as a given with Catholic and other religious schools being regarded as “sectarian”. There have been periodic efforts since to amend the Constitution to make it more of a Christian document, with the most recent example being school prayer, which I have covered before. Although the school prayer amendment is on its face neutral and could potentially be neutral in application, the motivation for it comes from Protestants who want prayer in the classroom, as it existed in many American schools before the 1962 Supreme Court decision Engel v. Vitale.

References

Allison, J. (1998). The NRA (National Reform Association) and the Christian Amendment. The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State.

Retrieved from

https://candst.tripod.com/nra.htm

Dress, B. (2022, June 28). Boebert says she is ‘tired’ of separation between church and state: ‘The church is supposed to direct the government’. The Hill.

Retrieved from

Boebert says she is ‘tired’ of separation between church and state: ‘The church is supposed to direct the government’

Vile, J.R. (2009, January 1). Christian Amendment. Free Speech Center.

Retrieved from

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/christian-amendment/

The election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency in 1980 provided a real promise of conservative governance, with a conservative president, a Republican Senate, and a House that although was not Republican, promised to be majority conservative. However, what was the score for Reagan and the Congress on the issues? They counted for the 1981 and 1982 House 24 and 23 votes respectively, and for 1981 and 1982 Senate 21 votes for both years. Among the issues, they supported indexing tax brackets for inflation, retaining funds for the B-1 Bomber and MX Missile, the Solomon Amendment, overturning a Federal Trade Commission regulation requiring used car sellers to inform their customers of major known defects with automobiles, a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, and school prayer. They opposed busing, the proposed American Conservation Corps, raising the debt ceiling, bilingual ballot requirements, US participation in international development banks, and overriding President Reagan’s vetoes on spending bills. President Reagan himself gets, based on issues he made his opinion known on, an 80 and 100 in the House in 1981 and 1982, and a 70 and 73 in 1981 and 1982 in the Senate respectively. A bit lower than expected, honestly, but ACA finds him having gone wrong by supporting raising the debt limit in 1981 and 1982, supporting US involvement in international development banks in 1981, supporting the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway in 1981, opposing Sen. Harrison Schmitt’s (R-N.M.) amendment on disapproving federal regulations in 1982, and opposing a debt ceiling amendment to the Balanced Budget Amendment in 1982.

Some notable figures and their ACA scores, modified to count pairs for and against:

Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz.
1981 – 81
1982 – 72

John Rhodes, R-Ariz. – House Minority Leader
1981 – 74
1982 – 76

Joe Biden, D-Del.
1981 – 33
1982 – 29

Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
1981 – 74
1982 – 96

Bob Dole, R-Kan.
1981 – 71
1982 – 71

Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.
1981 – 16
1982 – 20

Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
1981 – 4
1982 – 10

Jack Kemp, R-N.Y.
1981 – 82
1982 – 78

Howard Baker, R-Tenn. – Senate Majority Leader
1981 – 62
1982 – 74

Al Gore, D-Tenn.
1981 – 14
1982 – 26

Jim Wright, D-Tex. – House Majority Leader
1981 – 26
1982 – 39

Ron Paul, R-Tex.
1981 – 79
1982 – 74

Robert Byrd, D-W.V. – Senate Minority Leader
1981 – 29
1982 – 48

Dick Cheney, R-Wyo.
1981 – 79
1982 – 100

The ACA made their scores particularly tough to get all right or all wrong. In the 1981 Senate, for instance, only Chris Dodd of Connecticut scored a 0 and no senators scored a 100. In 1982, only Bill Armstrong of Colorado scored a 100 and no senators scored a 0. Jesse Helms of North Carolina missed one vote for each year. His sins by the standards of ACA? Voting to raise the debt limit in 1981 and voting to table an amendment allowing states to veto a nuclear waste storage site unless both Houses of Congress overrode the state’s veto.

Americans for Constitutional Action continued not to count abortion as an issue, a significant difference with the emerging new right It also counted the House vote for the conference report on the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act in 1982 as a vote FOR the conservative position, as opposed to Americans for Democratic Action, which considered it a vote FOR the liberal position and American Conservative Union, which considered it a vote AGAINST the conservative position. This highlights a difference in the emphasis ACA put on deficit reduction to tax reduction. This wasn’t the only issue in which the organization sided with Americans for Democratic Action in this Congress: they shared their opposition to the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, a project President Reagan favored.

Note: Errors

The data I used to ascertain the issues behind these scores comes from Voteview legacy’s website as well as the Almanac of American Politics 1984 edition. There were some errors in the process that I discovered, and this was through being unable to replicate the exact set of ratings. The 1981 Senate one given how much does fit I am 99% sure about.

The Senate has multiple instances, including:

Paula Hawkins (R-Fla.) – Improper in both 1981 and 1982, 1982 possibly a repeat of Lawton Chiles’ (D-Fla.) 57 score.
Charles Mathias (R-Md.) – His 1981 score appears to be erroneously a repeat of his 1982 score of 14.
Paul Tsongas (D-Mass.) – His 1981 score is listed as a 13, but appears to be a 16 instead.
Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.) – His 1981 score appears to count a pair for ending debate on an anti-busing amendment as a vote for.
Howard Baker (R-Tenn.) – He is counted as 67, but has an absence for the Metzenbaum amendment on oil price deregulation, which he was for.

The House’s issues:

In 1981, Bill Hefner (D-N.C.) was listed as having a score of 49. This is not mathematically possible with 24 votes, he scored a 48.
In 1982, Beryl Anthony (D-Ark.) was listed as having a score of 65. This happened to be the same as neighboring Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt (R-Ark.) and I was unable to find a proper combination of votes that would give Hammerschmidt and Anthony both a 65. I conclude this score was put in by mistake as a duplicate of Hammerschmidt’s.

Despite these, I believe I have hit upon an accurate counting of ACA’s scores, as I have found no other way to reconcile how all the other senators’ scores can be achieved at the same time. It was a truly tall order to find how ACA counted ultra-conservative Steve Symms’ (R-Idaho) score as an 81 in 1981, meaning he voted against their position four times. Same goes for ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) getting three votes right by their standards that year. What strikes me as interesting about these ratings is that they show how less ideological partisanship was in times past. Admittedly, the ACA has picked a few oddball votes for counting conservatism that contribute to this, but I can see how a case could be made for them.

The votes used for the ACA-Index:

The ACA-Index Scorecards:

Jamie Whitten of Mississippi, who underwent a tremendous change from 1965 to 1981.

A mere two posts ago, I talked about the 89th Congress, which most notably passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and tried for fair housing on civil rights as well as the ideologies at play given modified Americans for Constitutional Action scores. I have done it yet again and found the scores for 1981 and 1982, and the picture painted for civil rights remains, on final passage anyway, regional but also more ideological. I will post details on the ACA-Index for 1981 and 1982 in the near future. While the final passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 got 74 House votes against and 18 Senate votes against, the 1982 extension got 24 House votes against and 8 Senate votes against.

The vote of the 97th Congress regarding civil rights demonstrates that as a regional issue, the Voting Rights Act was largely dead, as the opposition was minimal. It is worth noting, however, that in the House only six votes against came from outside of the South: Bob Stump (D-Ariz.), Eldon Rudd (R-Ariz.), former John Bircher John Rousselot (R-Calif.), George Hansen (R-Idaho) (who had voted against the original act), and Dan Crane (R-Ill.). In the Senate, the regional factor was negligible as four nays came from outside the South: Republicans S.I. Hayakawa of California, James McClure and Steve Symms of Idaho, and Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire. The reason for Hayakawa’s vote was his staunch support for “English only” policies and thus he objected to bilingual ballots. The most opposed state by far was Virginia, with nine of ten representatives voting against extending as well as Senator Harry Byrd Jr. A “nay” that would come back to haunt him later would be Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who later as Republican Senate Majority Leader would get in hot water after his ill-considered approach to praising Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday. The most opposed among the senators were easily North Carolina’s Jesse Helms and John Porter East. The former repeatedly voted against civil rights measures throughout his career and the latter, who had been the only senator on the Judiciary Committee to vote against sending the bill to the floor, condemned the Voting Rights Act as “punitive and vexatious” and a “slap in the face to the South” (CQ Press).

Of the elected officials listed, only Joe Biden (D-Del.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) are in elected office today. There were also some interesting changes from 1965 to 1982 on voting on the Voting Rights Act as well as ideology. Senators Russell Long (D-La.), John Stennis (D-Miss.), Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), John Tower (R-Tex.), and Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) had opposed both votes on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but voted for the 25-year extension. The same went for Representatives Jack Edwards (R-Ala.), Don Fuqua (D-Fla.), Jamie Whitten (D-Miss.), Larry Fountain (D-N.C.), and Jim Broyhill (R-N.C.). Truth be told, many of the old foes of the Voting Rights Act were out of Congress by this point, although Bill Dickinson (R-Ala.) and George Hansen (R-Idaho) continued to oppose. There were also some notable ideological changes in 17 years; Paul Findley of Illinois, who I have written about before, went from 89% and 81% for 1965 and 1966 respectively to 58% and 48% for 1981 and 1982 respectively. Jamie Whitten of Mississippi’s change was even greater, going from 85% and 91% in 1965 and 1966 respectively to 35% and 33% in 1981 and 1982 respectively.

Vote on Voting Rights Act Amendments with modified ACA scores:

References

Voting Rights Act Extended, Strengthened. CQ Almanac 1982.

Retrieved from

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal82-1164618

Florida right now is on a bit of a conservative kick, and it seems to be growing. There was, however, a time in which not only Florida was part of the Solid South for the Democrats, but also in which its voters statewide elected Claude Pepper (1900-1989).

The Florida Senatorial Deaths and Succession

The year 1936 saw both of Florida’s longtime senators die: Park Trammell on May 8th, and Fletcher Duncan on June 17th. Although the immediate successor for the latter was William Luther Hill, he was a mere placeholder. The man who won the 1936 election to succeed him was attorney and former state legislator Pepper. This had not been his first try for the Senate; in 1934 he had won the first round in the Democratic primary against incumbent Park Trammell thanks to his talented oratory, and Trammell only narrowly fended off defeat in the runoff.

Pepper became known for his staunch support of the New Deal, including the Fair Labor Standards Act. However, he also voted to kill the “court packing plan” in 1937, a point of contention with Roosevelt. The following year, Pepper won a full term in a victory for President Roosevelt in his toughest election year yet with over 58% of the vote (Hill). He would support Roosevelt in most matters and was one of the most outspoken interventionists, sponsoring Lend-Lease in 1941. Roosevelt was a big fan of Pepper’s, even once telling him, “Claude, if you were a woman, I’d kiss you!” (Mormino) Like the president, Pepper saw the federal government as a tremendous force for aiding poor Americans with tax dollars. His spirit of politics was expressed thusly, “My colleagues, when you go home tonight and you close your eyes and you sleep and you ask, ‘What have I done today to lighten the burden upon those who suffer,’ at least you could say, ‘I helped a little bit today; I voted to help those who needed help.’ It may not answer all the problems, and it does not, but it will give comfort. It will cool the brow of many who suffer. It will give hope to many who almost are despaired” (The Claude Pepper Foundation). Although Pepper was reelected in 1944, his strongly liberal views on domestic issues was taking its toll. He had won the Democratic primary with slightly over 51% of the vote when the challenger was the little known and poorly financed J. Ollie Edmunds (Hill).

Early Civil Rights Supporter

Claude Pepper was the first Southern Democrat to support civil rights legislation. Although he had opposed an anti-lynching bill in 1937 (which he later regretted), he would support banning the poll tax. Although Florida had no poll tax, the state was expected to stand with the rest of the South over a federal poll tax ban lest it open the door to other federal interventions on civil rights. He even sponsored the 1942 bill, which fell to a Senate filibuster.

Pepper and Communism

While many politicians were always suspicious of the USSR and saw Stalin as a threat, Pepper saw a potential long-term ally in Stalin and a global partner in the USSR. He saw himself as filling in the role of international statesman and, he hoped, FDR’s eventual heir to the White House. Pepper even visited Moscow, interviewed Stalin, and delivered a speech praising the USSR, stating, “Probably nowhere in the world are minorities given more freedom, recognition, and respect than in the Soviet Union and nowhere in the world is there so little friction, between minority and majority groups, or among minorities” (Hill). He would also call for the destruction of all atomic weapons, received praise from The Daily Worker for a pro-Soviet speech, and according to one FBI report he had spoken before 23 communist front groups (Clark, 77-79). Worse yet, according to FBI files, Pepper used economist Charles Kramer, who had worked in the Roosevelt Administration as part of his “brain trust”, as a speechwriter and advisor during the 1940s (Orlando Sentinel). Kramer was, per FBI files, a Soviet agent. He had participated in the Ware Group Soviet spy ring.

Pepper’s stance on the Soviets was deeply unpopular in Florida, and he was aware of this, believing that he would be able to mend fences in time to win reelection in 1950. In 1947, he voted against the Greek-Turkish Aid Act, which was a core component of Truman’s foreign policy, objecting to the aid not going through the UN. In the Republican 80th Congress, Pepper was otherwise a staunch liberal Democrat, and this included voting to sustain President Truman’s veto of the Taft-Hartley Act, standing alone among Florida politicians to do so. While Floridians in the past were more amenable to his liberal views, especially during the Great Depression, they had become far less so with the years.

“Red Pepper” vs. “Gorgeous George” Smathers: The 1950 Election

Pepper, never held in high esteem by President Truman, really crossed him by making it known that he tried to lobby General Dwight Eisenhower to replace him for the Democratic nomination, and he backed photogenic Congressman George Smathers to take him on. Pepper faced an uphill battle given the nation’s anti-communist mood and the stagnating war effort in Korea. Although “Gorgeous George” was far from the most conservative of Florida politicians, he aggressively ran against his record on communism in one of the most negative campaigns in the state’s history and joined others in calling Pepper “Red Pepper” for his prolonged support of the Soviets. Despite this, Pepper did vote to sustain a loan to Spain’s Francisco Franco in 1950. While it is fair to question his judgment regarding Stalin, the Soviets, and some of his associations, a communist he was not. Pepper lost renomination by nearly 10 points.

A Comeback and Remaking of Image

Although Pepper’s defeat for renomination in 1950 might have been the end, he made a remarkable comeback. Although he lost his bid to defeat Spessard Holland in the primary in 1958 by 14 points, after twelve years of absence in Congress he was elected to the House in 1962, representing Miami. Although still a New Dealer on domestic issues, he voted for a number of anti-communist measures on foreign policy. No doubt a factor in this was the staunchly anti-communist Cuban American population in his district. In 1964, he was the only member of the Florida delegation to Congress to vote for the Civil Rights Act. Pepper was the state’s most unflinching supporter of the Great Society as well and stood as a staunch advocate for maintaining Social Security, Medicare, and other programs for the elderly. He could be said to be one of the people who effectively made Social Security a third rail of American politics.

A Power in the Reagan Years

Claude Pepper’s second act was perhaps his greatest as he found himself in quite a position of power in the House in the 1980s; from 1983 to 1989, he was chairman of the House Rules Committee. Instead of a maverick as he was in his youth, he was now a major player in the Democratic Party’s establishment. The Los Angeles Times wrote of him, “As chairman, Pepper can bottle up legislation he considers obnoxious, and he can attach his pet causes to virtually any bill” (Rosenblatt). Even in his eighties, he proved a powerful campaigner. Pepper was considered by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Tony Coelho (D-Calif.) to have been “…our most potent weapon, more responsible than any other individual in our party” for the Democrats gaining 26 House seats in the 1982 midterms and he went on to state that “In 1984, he protected Democrats when the issue was very tough, and in 1986 all the Senate winners used him” (Rosenblatt). Pepper’s peak of power in the House coincided with the presidency of one of the greatest challenges New Deal politics had ever faced in Ronald Reagan, but Pepper remained a New Dealer to the last, writing in his autobiography, “I was a New Dealer before there was a New Deal. I remained one when the ideology behind it came under bitter attack. I remain one today” (Rosenblatt).

On May 26, 1989, President Bush awarded Pepper the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Four days later, he passed away at the age of 88, 39 years after suffering a defeat that would have ended many a politician’s career and 20 years after the man who bested him had retired from politics. Pepper was a liberal contender for some time, but in the end the reality of Florida politics only allowed him to continue as a representative, albeit a successful one. In numerous ways Pepper stood alone among Florida colleagues, including when not politically expedient to do so, and that in itself merits some respect. He is also one of those examples of persistence paying off.

References

A Report Card for 80th Congress. (1947). Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Click to access 1947.pdf

ADA World: Voting Record – 88th Congress, 2nd Session. (1964, October). Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Click to access 1964.pdf

ADA World Congressional Supplement. (1950, September). Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Click to access 1950.pdf

Clark, J.C. (1998). Road to defeat: Claude Pepper and defeat in the 1950 Florida Primary. University of Florida.

Retrieved from

https://archive.org/details/roadtodefeatclau00clar/page/n85/mode/2up

FBI Material: Pepper Met with Communists. (1991, August 18). Orlando Sentinel.

Retrieved from

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/1991/08/18/fbi-material-pepper-met-with-communists/

Hill, R. Claude Pepper of Florida. The Knoxville Focus.

Retrieved from

https://www.knoxfocus.com/archives/claude-pepper-florida/

Mormino, G.R. (2020, October 30). The strange career of Claude Pepper. The Tampa Bay Times.

Retrieved from

https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2020/10/30/the-strange-career-of-claude-pepper-column/

Senator Claude Pepper. The Claude Pepper Foundation.

Retrieved from

https://claudepepperfoundation.org/about/senator-claude-pepper/

Rosenblatt, R.A. (1988, January 2). Career Goes Back to F.D.R.: Pepper, Ally of the Elderly, is a Power in the House. Los Angeles Times.

Retrieved from

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-01-02-mn-34289-story.html

To recommit to the Committee on the Judicial Branch of Government S. 1392, a bill to reorganize the judicial branch. Govtrack.

Retrieved from

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/75-1/s42

Bill McCulloch, the GOP’s man on civil rights.

One of my motivators, one that has been present since I was a teenager, has been to set the record straight regarding conservatives and civil rights, as I felt they got a bad shake and the implication of this approach is, “You were wrong on these issues, so you’ll be wrong on all the others” regardless of how out there, how anti-capitalist, or coercive certain proposals are. The 89th Congress presents an interesting picture on both ideology and civil rights. While conservative Republicans are mostly supportive of the Voting Rights Act, it should be noted that Americans for Constitutional Action counted a vote for the Voting Rights Act as against their position. There’s a bit of an uncomfortable dual reality for modern conservatives to face regarding civil rights: although historically the record pf conservative Republicans gets savaged far more than deserved, it was a post-World War II truth that major conservative organizations and numerous prominent thinkers opposed the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. While for some thinkers, such as Southerners Medford Bryan Evans and James J. Kilpatrick, it was about defending segregation, for others it was about defending wider concepts such as property rights, freedom of contract, and yes, state’s rights. Americans for Constitutional Action (ACA) was on record against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and fair housing laws. Their issues were the ones that applied nationally, although ACA assistant director John J. Synon was with Evans and Kilpatrick. They also were against granting the attorney general sweeping powers of enforcement. William F. Buckley Jr. himself underwent a major change between 1957 and 1965 on the subject. An interesting piece on Buckley’s change is listed in references, and its worth a read.

Many conservative officeholders on the Republican side, however, didn’t heed the call of these organizations on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, most of them didn’t on the Voting Rights Act (only two Republican senators, both from the South, did), but many did on fair housing. The latter two issues can be seen in this document, and the Civil Rights Act of 1966 would indeed not make it past the Senate, with fair housing having to wait until 1968. The latter issue was a far more national one than the previous two, both of which involved remedies for racial discrimination that primarily applied in the South, whereas housing discrimination was a far more national phenomenon. The GOP’s point man on civil rights, Bill McCulloch of Ohio, got an 85% in both 1965 and 1966, respectable scores from a conservative standpoint. One should bear in mind that for the House, of the five votes I include, four were counted by ACA. For voting rights, the regional character of support and opposition is quite striking as there were only five Republican representatives outside the South who were on record opposing both House passage and the conference report: H. Allen Smith of Glendale, California, James B. Utt of Santa Ana, California, George Hansen of Pocatello, Idaho, H.R. Gross of Waterloo, Iowa, and Robert McEwen of Ogdensburg, New York. Of these three, Gross and McEwen would support at least one other civil rights measure in the 89th Congress. Interestingly, times have largely changed for these districts, two are currently represented by Democrats: Glendale is currently represented by Adam Schiff of all people and Democrat Lou Correa represents Santa Ana. Ogdensburg is represented by Elise Stefanik, head of the House Republican Conference. There were only two Democrats outside of the former Confederacy to oppose the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Representative Paul C. Jones of Kennett, Missouri, and Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. The former represented an area of Missouri that was culturally Dixie and today is represented by Republican Jason Smith, and Byrd had a past in the KKK.

The ACA scores I have here are modified to count for officially recorded pairs and on occasion, announcements for or against. I do this because I consider it a more complete picture on ideology. CQ polls for and against are not counted ideologically, although they are displayed for the listed civil rights votes. The file is below:

References

Felzenberg, A. (2017, May 13). How William F. Buckley, Jr., Changed His Mind on Civil Rights. Politico.

Retrieved from

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/13/william-f-buckley-civil-rights-215129/

Nebraska has historically been a Republican state, but it hasn’t always been a conservative state. Although the voters were at heart social conservatives, they could embrace politicians who pushed reform from the left, most notably the populistic three-time presidential contender William Jennings Bryan and Senator George W. Norris. Bryan served to inspire many aspects of the New Deal while Norris was a strong supporter and was central to the passage of the Tennessee Valley Authority. However, all was not well for liberalism in Nebraska in the 1930s. The New Deal was declining in popularity in Nebraska, including on agricultural policy that was touted as helping the Midwest. The 1938 midterms were a conservative wave, and Curtis, who had switched from Democrat to Republican in 1936, was one of the beneficiaries, defeating populistic Democrat Charles Binderup for reelection.

Curtis stood for lower taxes, limited federal government, and against social welfare measures, and voted that way in Congress. The New York Times (2000) described him as a “…spirited critic of the New Deal and any program that smacked of social welfare. He opposed the school lunch program, for example, saying his own character had been bettered for having had to carry his own lunch to school as a youth”. He was also against American involvement in European wars, voting against all major Roosevelt Administration measures prior to Pearl Harbor. Unlike many Republicans who had taken such stances, Curtis remained firm after World War II, voting against aid to Greece and Turkey in 1947 and against the Marshall Plan in 1948.

Curtis would be elected to the Senate in 1954, and would only grow his conservative reputation from there. He voted against the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, food stamps, and Medicare. Curtis led the push in the Senate to defeat the latter, but was way outnumbered in the Great Society Congress. He also regarded organized labor as having become too powerful because of the 1935 Wagner Act and voted for efforts to curb their power, including the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. Although a staunch conservative, Curtis didn’t forget the folks at home. He would vote at times for federal programs to aid farmers, and counted among his accomplishments bringing flood control and irrigation to the Midwest (Barnes). He frequently received scores between 90-100% from the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action and between 0-10% from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action.

Curtis and Civil Rights

Interestingly, Carl Curtis had a bit of a change in mindset on the subject of civil rights; in his early career in the House, he voted against anti-lynching legislation in 1940 as well as anti-poll tax legislation in 1943 and 1945. However, as a senator he would prove considerably more supportive. Curtis’ votes for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, retaining the public accommodations section of the 1964 act, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were the only votes that prevented him from scoring 100% by Americans for Constitutional Action in those years. In 1972, he was one of 84 senators to vote for the Equal Rights Amendment.

Curtis vs. Organized Labor

Carl Curtis was on the McClellan Committee investigating racketeering in labor unions and there became known for his piercing questions to witnesses on television. He supported numerous measures to counter union corruption, including the McClellan Union “Bill of Rights” amendment, which provided for freedom of speech of union members and fair elections for union leaders. Curtis was strongly opposed by organized labor for his repeated votes against strengthening unions as well as his opposition to strong minimum wage legislation.

Accomplishments

In addition to flood control and irrigation for the Midwest and his part in the McClellan Committee, Senator Curtis introduced the bill which would eventually become the Independent Retirement Act, resulting in the creation of Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), but would in his later years lament that most people eligible for IRAs didn’t use them (Schnert). Anyone who has an IRA has Curtis, among others, to thank for this wonderful way of growing their wealth for a secure retirement.

Curtis in the 1970s and Beyond

Although Curtis was distinctly to President Nixon’s right and most of the time voted against him when he took a liberal position. This included a busing compromise in 1969 as well as voting against ratifying the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1969. He was also one of the foremost defenders of Nixon on Watergate. Curtis regarded Nixon as being held to a different standard, stating in 1975, “I believe Watergate was played all out of proportion. I believe a different yardstick was used in dealing with Mr. Nixon than was used on other presidents and officials” (The New York Times).

Although the most notable inner party development in 1975 was the ousters of Southern Democratic chairmen by the Watergate babies, a smaller albeit significant development occurred in the GOP. Curtis’ defeat of liberal Senator Jacob Javits (R-N.Y.) for the chairmanship of the Senate Republican Caucus was a sign of what direction the GOP was moving (The New York Times). However, he didn’t stay in the Senate much longer, choosing to retire in 1978.

For conservatives, one of the elements of Curtis’ greatness was his longevity in fighting liberalism. His memoir was appropriately titled, “40 Years Against the Tide”. It was rather to Curtis’ dismay that Nebraska’s two senators from 1979 to 1997, with a sole two year exception, were Democrats, including his successor J. James Exon. However, like his career, he lived long. Upon the election of Republican Chuck Hagel to the Senate in 1996, the 91-year-old Curtis said, “Now I can die a happy man” (Schnert). He died on January 24, 2000, at the age of 94.

The quality of Curtis as a man in politics can be described by his political opponent, Frank Morrison, “Carl and I have always been good friends. I considered him a man of integrity, and I believe that he saw me in the same light. I liked him. We had a great deal in common. We both felt that in our own way we were helping Nebraska and the United States. We disagreed on the way things ought to be done” (Schnert).

References

Barnes, B. (2000, January 26). Carl T. Curtis Dies at 94. The Washington Post.

Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2000/01/26/carl-t-curtis-dies-at-94/3e2dda32-46fe-468e-b3d4-929376ce99d2/

Sehnert, W. (2004, February 9). Carl Curtis, father of the IRA. McCook Gazette.

Retrieved from

https://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1061637.html

Senator Carl T. Curtis, 94, Staunch Nixon Ally. (2000, January 26). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

A legend exists in Florida politics that in one campaign, a speech called the “redneck speech” was delivered to a group of poorly educated North Florida voters: “Do you know that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy” (Then New York Times). This little story is what politician George Smathers (1913-2007) was most known for, despite him having never delivered it. Even the Time Magazine reporter who brought this speech to public attention referred to it as a “yarn” and Smathers offered a $10,000 reward if it could be proven that he delivered this speech, a reward that was never collected (Raines; Brotemarkle). It would be like if George Washington was most known as “the guy who chopped down the cherry tree”. But what was the real story behind Smathers and what did he actually do?

The Start of Politics

Smathers’ first experience with politics, ironically, was in helping Claude Pepper get reelected in 1938 by organizing Gainesville and all of Alachua County. After graduating from law school at the University of Florida, he quickly became district attorney in Miami and was a vigorous prosecutor. Smathers managed to nail the local chief of the Office of Price Administration, a state’s attorney, and a county solicitor, a role he later saw himself as a bit overly ambitious (Szanton). By World War II, Smathers was married and had a son, and although he served for some time in the Marines, he cut his service short, an act that had potential to cause political problems. He contacted Tom Clark and one of Florida’s senators to get off of duty early. Smathers would point out to anyone who addressed this was that under draft rules he could have gone for a deferment given his status as a husband and father rather than serve at all (Szanton).

Smathers to Congress

In 1946, Smathers ran in the Democratic primary against Congressman Pat Cannon. He was confident about his prospects of defeating the young upstart, saying to him, “I’ve defeated 14 guys already, and you’ll be the 15th” (Szanton). However, this confidence was misplaced as Smathers beat him and was elected to Congress, serving as a freshman along with future presidents John F. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Richard Nixon (R-Calif.). Fortune would smile on him within two years of being in office, as Senator Claude Pepper, known as strongly left-wing, tried to recruit General Dwight Eisenhower as a primary candidate against President Truman. Smathers recollected that after being reelected, Truman summoned him to the White House and told him to “beat that son-of-a-bitch Claude Pepper” (Barnes). Also compelling to Democratic voters to go against him was his record. He believed that Stalin would be a good post-war ally for too long and pushed for further relations with the Soviets. Pepper even interviewed Stalin for one hour on September 14, 1945, and then went on Soviet radio to praise him, stating, “I have had the honor to meet and talk to Generalissimo Stalin, one of the great men of history and of the world…Russia’s greatest era lies not in her glorious past but in her future…The people of America and good men and women everywhere owe a great debt to Generalissimo Stalin, to the Red Army and to the people of the Soviet Union for their magnificent part in turning back and destroying the evil Nazis” (Clark, 4-5).

This visit and praise were heavily criticized at home, yet he continued his advocacy and to speak for the Soviets, including before the National Citizens’ Political Action Committee (NC-PAC), which backed the Henry Wallace line of unity between the USA and USSR (Clark, 6). Pepper’s highly naive stand on the USSR would haunt him in an increasingly anti-communist environment. Worse yet for him, the conservative newspaper New York Mirror nicknamed him “Red Pepper” in 1946, and it stuck and made him particularly vulnerable in 1950 (Clark, 16).

Smathers and the 1950 Election

1950 was a particularly bad year for liberals, with some strong ones like Glen Taylor (D-Idaho) and Elbert Thomas (D-Utah) losing reelection to conservative Republicans. There were also a number of heated anti-communist campaigns and Smathers campaigned hard against his staunchly left-wing record and his friendly attitude to the USSR. Pepper lost renomination on May 2nd, with Smathers winning by 9.56%. This was the start of Smathers’ career in the Senate, but hardly the end of Pepper’s career; after an unsuccessful comeback bid to the Senate in 1958, in 1962 he would be elected to the House representing Miami and would serve until his death on May 30, 1989.

Smathers and Politics

Smathers was without doubt to Claude Pepper’s right, but how did he fare? While he was often regarded as a moderate, he also got seen as a conservative, and there’s some justification to each perspective on him. His average score from the liberal lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), not counting unopinionated absences, is a 41%, although the reason it’s even this high is because he often voted in line with the Truman Administration but per ADA his record was more hostile to liberalism after. Although Smathers represented a state with many retirees, he voted against Medicare proposals in 1960, 1962, and 1964 before voting against killing Medicare Parts A & B in 1965. He did, however, vote for quite a number of Democratic programs, including JFK’s accelerated public works program in 1962 and the Economic Opportunity Act in 1964. Smathers also specialized in Latin American issues given an increasing population of Cubans, managing to secure aid and permanent visas for people fleeing communist Cuba, contributing ideas to Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress program, and President Kennedy praised him as “one of the first Americans to recognize the importance of Latin America” (Crispell, 102-112, 174-176). Smathers was overall one of the more amenable Southern Democrats to liberal legislation pushed by national Democrats. Americans for Constitutional Action was not so impressed with his record, and his scores by year ranged from 18% in 1962 to 73% in 1968.

Smathers and Kennedy

I noted earlier that Smathers and JFK were elected to the House in the same year, and they became close friends for the rest of Kennedy’s life, with Smathers being the only non-family member at wedding party for his marriage to Jackie. In 1959, however, when despite heading up the committee in the South to elect Kennedy, he launched his own bid for president which he did with the approval of Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson (D-Tex.) in the name of uniting Florida Democrats. Smathers recalled that this was a bump in the road of their friendship: “To make a long story short, he (Kennedy) kept after me to withdraw. “I want you to withdraw. I want you to withdraw…Damn it to hell, what kind of friend are you?” and so and so. I said, “Look, I’m not going to stand here and take all this abuse, so I’m going to go out. I’m leaving”” (Simkin). Smathers would support Kennedy in the general election. He reflected after Kennedy’s assassination, “A lot of joy and pleasure went out of my life when Kennedy was assassinated…I miss the guy something fierce” (UF Law).

Kennedy’s secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, reported after his assassination that before his trip to Dallas, he had told her he wanted to drop Johnson from the 1964 ticket. She stated that he would have replaced LBJ with Smathers or North Carolina Governor Terry Sanford. In the 1964 election, Smathers seconded Senator Hubert Humphrey’s (D-Minn.) nomination for vice president at the Democratic National Convention (Time). He counted LBJ as a personal friend as well.

Smathers and Civil Rights

George Smathers was one of the more moderate Southern politicians on civil rights. Despite signing the Southern Manifesto in 1956, he voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the 24th Amendment, and the conference report of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 after voting against the original bill. He took part in the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and proposed several weakening amendments, including exempting beauty parlors from the law’s provisions. Smathers was also a critic of Martin Luther King Jr., and after being called a racist for it, he responded, “I don’t like bigotry and intolerance…But they do exist and I don’t think you’re going to get them out by passing laws” and would later state, “There wasn’t any doubt that before 1964 if Spessard Holland (Florida’s other senator) or I had voted for civil rights – you couldn’t do it and survive” (Simkin). These words are consistent with Smathers’ at the time words in private and votes in public. Despite voting for every weakening amendment and against final passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Smathers strategized with Johnson on passage and said to him regarding ending debate, “I hope that he [Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield] has done his counting and that he has the votes” (LBJ Presidential Library). However, Smathers also paired against the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court (Voteview). This was a stance exclusively taken among those who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The End of His Senate Career

In 1968, Smathers along with Senator John J. Williams (R-Del.) sponsored a successful amendment placing a 10% surcharge on individual and corporate income taxes while placing a $180.1 billion ceiling on fiscal 1969 spending (CQ Almanac). This move, supported by President Johnson, ensured that the government’s approach to reducing debt would not only rely on increasing taxes. While Smathers had backed Kennedy in 1960 and Johnson in 1964, he backed Richard Nixon in 1968. This endorsement would normally come with political consequences, but he knew he wasn’t running for another term, and it served as a sign of a Florida that was politically changing from its previously default Democratic allegiance. Smathers was also a friend of Nixon’s and introduced him to Bebe Rebozo in 1950, who would be his best friend for life. He also sold his home in Key Biscayne to Nixon. To further highlight the change Florida was undergoing, he would be succeeded by Representative Edward Gurney, the first Republican senator since Reconstruction.

References

Anderson, C. (2017, October 27). 10 surprising facts about John F. Kennedy. Cleveland 19 News.

Retrieved from

https://www.cleveland19.com/story/36698592/10-surprising-facts-about-john-f-kennedy/

Barnes, B. (1989, May 31). Claude Pepper, Crusader for Elderly, Dies. The Washington Post.

Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/05/31/claude-pepper-crusader-for-elderly-dies/ecbbf216-ac24-445e-a483-fb2030c1d711/

Brotemarkle, B. (2015, November 3). Iconic, Legendary Speech Probably Never Happened. Florida Today.

Retrieved from

https://myfloridahistory.org/frontiers/article/93

Clark, J.C. (1995). Claude Pepper and the Seeds of His 1950 Defeat, 1944-1948. Florida Historical Quarterly, 74(1).

Retrieved from

https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4085&context=fhq

Confirmation of nomination of Thurgood Marshall, the first negro appointed to the Supreme Court. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RS0900176

Crispell, B.L. (1999). Testing the limits: George Armistead Smathers and Cold War America. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

George A. Smathers, 93. (2007, January 21). The Washington Post.

Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2007/01/21/george-a-smathers-93/48db5c26-f50a-4e3a-bdb5-59ac599d1ac6/

George A. Smathers: A Man for the Times. (2014, June 27). UF Law.

Retrieved from

George A. Smathers

HR 10606. Kerr motion to table Anderson amend. providing health insurance for most persons 65 and over, to be financed by an increase in the Social Security tax. Govtrack.

Retrieved from

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/87-1962/s297

HR. 11865. Social Security Amendments of 1964. Gore amend. authorizing a new program of medical care for persons 65 & over financed through an increase in the Social Security tax & wage base & from general revenues. Govtrack.

Retrieved from

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s509

HR. 12580. Anderson amend. providing medical benefits for all Social Security retirees 68 and over, to be financed by an increase in the Social Security payroll tax. Govtrack.

Retrieved from

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s407

LBJ Presidential Library, Vol. 7, June 1, 1964 – June 22, 1964, p. 13.

Politics: All Over? Or Just Starting? (1964, September 4). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,830550-1,00.html

Raines, H. (1983, February 24). Legendary Campaign: Pepper vs. Smathers in ’50. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

S. 2642. Passage. [Economic Opportunity Act of 1964]. Govtrack.

Retrieved from

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s452

Senate Votes on the Williams-Smathers Amendment And on Moves To Ease Its Spending and Job Limits. CQ Almanac.

Retrieved from

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal68-1282265

Simkin, J. (1997). George Smathers. Spartacus Educational.

Retrieved from

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKsmathers.htm

Szanton, A. (2023, June 6). George Smathers of Florida: The Making of a U.S. Senator. Medium.

Retrieved from

View at Medium.com

To Amend H.R. 6675, the 1965 Social Security Amendments, by striking from the bill its Medicare provisions, Parts A and B. Govtrack.

Retrieved from

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/s145