The 1932 election constituted the nadir of the Republican Party in Indiana; the delegation to Congress was entirely Democratic and change was in the air from the days of Hoover. However, in 1934, there was one bright spot in the election of former Congressman Frederick Landis, brother of baseball commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis, to the 2^nd district, defeating Democratic incumbent George Durgan. However, the 62-year-old Landis dropped dead only nine days after being elected. To succeed him, the voters elected instead 34-year-old attorney Charles Abraham Halleck (1900-1986).

Halleck came out early and often against the New Deal, including voting against the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. However, he did vote for Social Security. He was soon noticed by Republican leadership, and in 1940 he delivered the nominating speech for fellow Hoosier Wendell Willkie, in which he addressed criticisms of him as having only recently become a Republican and defended his commitment to the cause. He later recalled that this was his most divisive speech among Republicans and that he had as many brickbats as bouquets thrown at him. Halleck was, however, considerably more conservative than Willkie and the two would later part ways. Before World War II, he was non-interventionist, thus voted against major legislation for war preparation. However, Halleck also embraced the post-war international consensus and voted for aid to Greece and Turkey and the Marshall Plan. On domestic policy, he remained quite conservative and repeatedly voted against price and rent controls. In 1946, the Republicans won back Congress and Halleck was elevated to the post of majority leader, where he played a significant role in passing key measures such as tax reduction and the Taft-Hartley Act. With the 1948 election, the Republicans were again in the minority. During Truman’s second term, Halleck stood as a strong opponent of his administration, with the liberal Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) only finding him voting their position on killing a 1951 bill to create a segregated veterans hospital. In 1952, Halleck was on a list of candidates Dwight Eisenhower considered an acceptable choice as vice president, and although he didn’t get this role, he still proved of great help to him.

Halleck’s Golden Years: 1953-1965

During the first two years of the Eisenhower Administration, Halleck was once again majority leader and in this post he was highly successful in getting the president’s agenda through. He was a legislative tactician par excellence, and he got favorable mentions on multiple occasions from President Eisenhower and Vice President Nixon. This did require him to compromise a bit on his anti-New Deal views; although Halleck had voted against public housing repeatedly during the Truman Administration, he supported a public housing increase in 1954 to accommodate the Eisenhower Administration’s wishes. However, his primary source of compromise was on foreign aid. He backed foreign aid increases, and this accommodation did extend to Democratic administrations.

Ouster of Martin

The 1958 midterms proved a disaster for the Republicans, and many of the younger conservatives were interested in changing out the old for the new; Minority Leader Joe Martin, at this time 74 years old, had been the leader of the House Republicans for 20 years. Although Martin had many friends among older Republicans, the insurgents chose Halleck as their next leader and the White House was officially neutral. Had the White House stepped up and favored Martin, he likely would have kept his post.

Now the new minority leader, Halleck had a daunting task before him as Republican numbers were majorly reduced and Democrats were keen on passing numerous spending bills, which contrasted with President Eisenhower wanting to move towards a balanced budget. To this end, Halleck closely worked with Rules Committee Chairman Howard W. Smith (D-Va.), a conservative, to block liberal legislation, greatly frustrating Democratic leadership. Democratic spending bills either met with significant cuts to pass or fell victim to Eisenhower’s veto pen. As Time Magazine (1959) noted, “As one of the roughest, most highly skilled infighters in U.S. politics, Republican Halleck, in less than six months as the House minority leader, has given his party its most effective legislative leadership in years, and in the process spotlighted one of the most professional of personalities among the battle-scarred old pros in Congress.

He has done it under almost impossible circumstances. He took over the leadership job after the worst Republican defeat since the sunflower campaign of Kansas’ Alf Landon went to seed in 1936. Dwight Eisenhower, barred from seeking a third term, looked like lame-duck soup to the lopsided Democratic majority in Congress. House and Senate Republicans were fighting among themselves, seemed incapable of forming a line of defense against the war-dancing Democrats”. He also hosted what was called “The Clinic” in his office, in which he and his allies would strategize and socialize over bourbon and ranch water (Time Magazine, 1954).

The Halleck and Smith combination once again demonstrated the power of the Conservative Coalition, however, the victory of John F. Kennedy in the 1960 election, although close, was interpreted as a mandate. In order for Kennedy’s agenda to have easier passage, Speaker Sam Rayburn (D-Tex.) initiated a resolution adding two Democrats and one Republican to the House Rules Committee. Rayburn’s and Halleck’s and Smith’s forces had a close battle on this measure, but Rayburn had an ace of up his sleeve in none other than Halleck’s predecessor, Martin, who paid Halleck back for his loss by helping marshal enough Republicans to expand the Rules Committee, with it passing 217-212 on January 31^st. Not long after this loss, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.) and Halleck had a weekly press conference in contrast to the that became colloquially known as the “Ev and Charlie Show” for the rather humorous contrast between the two, with hammy and gregarious Dirksen and the gruff Halleck. Although Dirksen, who always loved the limelight, took it in stride, Halleck disapproved, stating, “I’m no clown” (U.S. Senate). These press conferences, although meant to publicize the minority, which it did successfully, they also helped with unity during national crises. One historian stated, “It was primarily due to Dirksen and Halleck that Republicans solidly backed Kennedy during the missile crisis in Cuba and during the period of extreme tension when East Germans built the Berlin Wall.”

Halleck and Dirksen

Although Halleck frequently led opposition to the Kennedy Administration, he and Dirksen gave backing to President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis and they agreed to support a pending civil rights bill, which would become known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was one area in which Halleck differed from Chairman Smith of the Rules Committee. Unfortunately for Halleck, 1964 was another bad election for the Republicans and a group within the party known as “The Young Turks” thought new leadership was needed. They got enough votes to oust Halleck in favor of Michigan’s Gerald Ford.

Backbencher and Retirement

After his 1964 ouster, Halleck remained in Congress as a conservative backbencher, where he seldom cooperated with President Johnson’s agenda. He voted against Medicare, federal aid to education, and funding for the arts. However, like all other Indiana representatives, he voted for the Voting Rights Act.

Halleck did not stay in office as long as Martin after being booted, and chose to retire in 1968, with his seat being won by the far more conservative Earl Landgrebe who became most known for defending Nixon after the release of the Watergate tapes. Halleck’s DW-Nominate score is 0.272, but it probably is this low due to his support for the postwar foreign consensus. Conservatives and liberals agreed with where he stood on the political spectrum, with him siding with the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 86% of the time and ADA 15% of the time. Halleck succumbed to pneumonia on March 3, 1986 at 85.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Address of Representative Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, nominating for the Presidency, Wendell Lewis Willkie, before the Republican National Committee, June, 1940. (1940, June 26). Republican National Committee.

Retrieved

Click to access wilkie_nominating_speech_40-1.pdf

Franklin, B.A. (1986, March 4). Charles Halleck, a G.O.P. House Leader Dies. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Halleck, Charles Abraham. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/3963/charles-abraham-halleck

National Affairs: Lord of the Citadel. (1954, August 9). Time Magazine, 4.

Retrieved from

https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,936250-4,00.html

Senate Stories – The Ev and Charlie Show. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/senate-stories/the-ev-and-charlie-show.htm

The Congress: The Gut Fighter. (1959, June 7). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6827585/the-congress-the-gut-fighter

Milton Young in his early years in the Senate.

Although for much of its history, like today, North Dakota was dominated by the Republican Party, what it meant to be a Republican varied. This variation first came to pass with the establishment of the Non-Partisan League in 1915 by Arthur C. Townley, a man who had previously run for public office as a member of the Socialist Party. The Non-Partisan League constituted the progressive wing of the state’s Republican Party, while its conservative counterpart, established in 1918, was the Independent Voters’ Association. For a while, the Non-Partisan League had a major impact on the state’s GOP, indeed, progressive Republicanism had representation up until the late 1950s, concluding with the death of Senator William Langer in 1959. Milton Ruben Young (1897-1983) was among the leaders of the movement against the Non-Partisan League, which dominated the GOP during the Great Depression. Young would in retrospect describe the Non-Partisan League as “too far out. They had some socialists in there. That’s what turned me the other way” (Jacobs). Young, who was a farmer like many in his state, had held public office since 1924 and in 1932 was elected to the state House, followed by the state Senate in 1934, where he would serve as majority leader from 1943 to 1945 and co-founded the Republican Organizing Committee. He successfully managed the campaign to elect Fred Aandahl governor in 1944, taking control of the state Republican Party from the Non-Partisan League. Aandahl represented a conservative change in the Republican leadership of the state, and Young would soon himself politically benefit from this success. That year, non-interventionist Senator Gerald Nye lost reelection to Democrat John Moses. There were several things going on here. First, conservative critics of the New Deal had not forgotten Nye’s earlier votes in favor. Second, Moses was considered a conservative Democrat. And third, a third party candidate, Lynn Stambaugh, had entered the race. Third party candidates tend to harm the incumbent more often than harm the challenger. However, John Moses only lived two months in office; rumors of his ill health had plagued his campaign and they had turned out to be true. A special election was held to determine who would serve the rest of the term. Governor Aandahl tapped Young to serve, and he won the June 25, 1946 special election to serve the rest of the term, in part by forming a temporary alliance with his old rival, Langer.

Unlike Langer, Young was not a die-hard non-interventionist and supported aid to Greece and Turkey as well as the Marshall Plan. He supported tax reduction and the Taft-Hartley Act during the 80^th Congress, and he considered himself to be “slight to the right of center” (Jacobs). On major, attention-grabbing issues, Young’s record was more conservative, but on certain more under-the-surface issues, he proved one of the less conservative Republicans; if Republicans opposed a policy he considered beneficial to his state, he’d vote for the policy. Indeed, Young regarded himself as a farmer first and a Republican second. Although not flamboyant like Langer and not a skilled speaker, he was no less of a skilled politician. One cause he took up that was non-ideological was the restoration of Ford’s Theatre.

Restoring Ford’s Theatre

Soon after joining the Senate, Young visited Ford’s Theatre, the site of the Lincoln assassination, and noted its dire state of disrepair. He thus championed the cause of restoring and preserving Ford’s Theatre. In 1955, Young sponsored legislation signed into law to study its restoration, and funding for its restoration came in 1964. In 1981, Young was awarded the first Ford’s Theatre Lincoln Medal for his efforts.

The 1950s and 1960s

In 1952, Young caused a minor controversy within his party when he announced that if Senator Richard Russell (D-Ga.) won his party’s nomination that he would support him for president. Russell did not win his party’s nomination, thus Young supported Eisenhower and this little entertaining of voting for a Democrat for president never harmed Young’s career in North Dakota. Indeed, Russell was a conservative Democrat and North Dakota farmers knew that Young was a foremost advocate for them, to the degree that he was known as “Mr. Wheat” for his commitment to making sure that federal policy on wheat, the state’s leading crop, was favorable to the state’s farmers. Indeed, Young himself revealed the secret to his success, “I have always tried to stay close to the people. In North Dakota to be elected and to stay on, you have to know the farmers and stay close to them. They are loyal to a fault” (Hill). This being said, he had some differences with President Dwight Eisenhower. He opposed Ike’s agricultural policy, which was free-market oriented, and he opposed his increases in foreign aid. Young also voted against the censure of Joseph McCarthy, something the White House had been supporting behind the scenes. On anti-communism, Young supported domestic measures, including keeping the student loyalty oath and state anti-subversive laws.

Young’s exceptions in conservatism for agriculture, although not registering much in how the liberal Americans for Democratic Action viewed him, they did harm his standing with the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action, which in this author’s opinion, was correct in not exempting economic controls on agriculture from evaluating political ideology. Young differing from his party was especially clear on the subject of agriculture. In 1962, he was the only Senate Republican to support the initial version of the Food and Agriculture Act which contained supply management controls and was defeated in the House. Young also opposed Republican efforts to block sales of wheat to the USSR and Hungary facilitated by the Export-Import Bank in 1963. His dissents from conservative positions made him a target of invective from members of a new organization: the John Birch Society.

In 1961, the North Dakota House voted to ratify a Constitutional amendment known as the “Liberty Amendment” backed by the Committee for Economic Freedom, which was endorsed by the John Birch Society and if enacted would have repealed the 16th Amendment (income tax) and ended the Federal Reserve as well as numerous federal agencies, including some that helped North Dakota farmers and veterans (Baker). Young, alarmed by this amendment, wrote to several state senators advising against this amendment, and it was defeated. He did not know it then, but he had crossed the John Birch Society and its members and he started receiving a stream of hostile letters. After researching the John Birch Society, in March 1961 Young read a report on the John Birch Society on the floor of the Senate and denounced them as well as Robert Welch’s assertion that former President Eisenhower was a “dedicated conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy” (Baker). Responses were militant. One voter from Blue Grass wrote him, “I will take it up with our Liberty League board, and see if we will circulate petitions to have you recalled from office, impeached or indicted for treason” (Baker). However, Young was both renominated and reelected in 1962. The John Birch Society was also opposed to civil rights legislation, but was Young as well?

Young and Civil Rights

Milton Young’s record on civil rights was a bit mixed; while he was one of only two Senate Republicans on record against the 24^th Amendment banning the poll tax in federal elections, he voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. On the former, he supported retention of the provision against discrimination in public accommodations but voted to strike the employment discrimination section. While he voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Young also supported two key limiting amendments; the Kefauver-Church-O’Mahoney Jury Trial Amendment and the Anderson-Aiken-Case Amendment to bar federal initiation of 14^th Amendment lawsuits. He was less favorable to the Great Society.

The Great Society

Milton Young was opposed to most Great Society legislation, including the Economic Opportunity Act, Medicare, and federal aid to education. He also supported Constitutional amendments to counter Supreme Court decisions on school prayer and legislative reapportionment. However, he did support the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act in 1966 and supported lowering the minimum age to receive Social Security in 1967. However, during the Johnson Administration his primary dissents from conservatism were as they had been before, on agricultural policy.

Other Issues

On social issues, Milton Young was the usual conservative in supporting school prayer and the death penalty while opposing busing and abortion. On treaties, although he supported a reservation to the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963, he did vote for the treaty, but also opposed the 1967 Consular Treaty. Young was also supportive of conservative policies regarding oil, including development of the Alaska Pipeline in 1973 and lifting price controls on oil. On organized labor, Young was not reflexively opposed to their positions; although he voted against the proposed repeal of the “right to work” clause of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1965 and against the Common Site Picketing bill in the 1970s, he had voted against all major anti-organized labor amendments in the 1958 debates on labor reform but had supported most of the major ones in 1959, with the exception of requiring unions to hold secret ballots before agreeing to a strike.

Young and Nixon

In 1968, it was speculated that liberal broadcaster Eric Sevareid might return home to North Dakota to run against Young. When asked about this possibility, Young responded, “What does Eric Sevareid know about wheat?” (UPI). He won easily his biggest reelection that year. In 1972, Young strongly supported wheat sales to Russia to reduce wheat surplus and to increase the price of wheat. He was also strongly supportive of Nixon Administration efforts to curb crime as well as his Supreme Court nominations. He stood in support of President Nixon’s policies on the Vietnam War up until 1973, when he voted to bar further funds for military action in or over Cambodia and Laos. Young also was consistently supportive of increasing military spending. Contrary to President Nixon’s position, he supported public funding of presidential campaigns in 1974.

Final Term

In 1974, Young faced a difficult reelection; he was 77 years old and had refrained from retiring as he didn’t like his most likely successor, Congressman Mark Andrews. His reelection was also difficult due to Watergate and his competitor being the popular Democratic Governor William L. Guy, but to dispel the age issue he had an ad filmed of him karate chopping a wooden board, and he was reelected, albeit by only 186 votes.

In his final term, Young contended with the Ford and Carter presidencies, where he continued his moderate conservatism. In 1977, he accommodated the Carter Administration in his vote to confirm Paul Warnke as the chief negotiator for the SALT II talks. However, Young also voted against the Panama Canal Treaties the next year. Despite that, he supported legislation implementing the treaties the following year. Young also supported Carter’s sales of military aircraft to Middle Eastern nations in 1978.

In 1979, Young announced that he would not be running for another term. To honor him, in 1980 he was allowed by the lame duck Democratic Senate to serve for one day as President Pro Tem. Young had been around so long that he was the last person born in the 19^th century to serve in Washington D.C. Despite his dislike of Mark Andrews, he succeeded him in the Senate. Ideologically, differing perceptions of Milton Young are primarily dependent on the focus on agriculture. Young was willing to go rather liberal on the subject. While Young only sided with ADA 16% of the time from 1947 to 1980, ACA only found him in agreement with their positions 67% of the time from 1955 to 1980. Young’s DW-Nominate score of 0.172 is more in alignment with the view of ACA than ADA. Indeed, Young’s own self-assessment throughout his career, as well as him saying “I’m kind of a middle-of-the-roader myself”, lend credence to ACA and DW-Nominate’s interpretations of his record (Jacobs) Young subsequently retired to Sun City, Arizona, where he died of prostate cancer on May 31, 1983, at the age of 85. To this day, Young is the longest serving senator from North Dakota and at the time of his death was the longest serving Republican senator in history.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Baker, R. (1961, April 18). Senator Who Brought Birch Unit To Public Notice Fears Reprisal. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Former Sen. Milton R. Young of North Dakota. (1983, June 1). UPI.

Retrieved from

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/06/01/Former-Sen-Milton-R-Young-of-North-Dakota-who/6524423288000

Hill, R. (2021, July 5). Milton R. Young of North Dakota. The Knoxville Focus.

Retrieved from

Jacobs, M. (1983, June 1). Sen. Milton Young dies in Arizona at 85. Grand Forks Herald, 1.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/1134134962

Young, Milton Ruben. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/10450/milton-ruben-young

Part of my research involves an interest in how legislators are perceived, and a significant perception difference between liberals and conservatives exists with those who represented the states of the former Confederacy. An interesting article from 1943 from a Southern perspective argued that the liberal Americans for Democratic Action’s (ADA) predecessor organization, Union for Democratic Action, was anti-Southern in its tabulation of key votes. This would prove increasingly true after 1964 with ADA taking on a bit more of a new left perspective, in which certain lopsided votes were counted against legislators, most notably a 1967 proposal to withdraw troops from Vietnam, which only got 18 votes from representatives.

Robert W. Hemphill (D-S.C.), one of the legislators most disagreed on by conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives were significantly less impressed with the conservatism of Southern Democrats that liberals saw. Indeed, some differences in evaluation are of magnitudes in difference. Take Thomas S. Gettys of South Carolina for instance; he served entirely within in a period that both the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action (ACA) and ADA were grading, and Gettys only sides with ACA 63% of the time and ADA 7% of the time. This is an astounding 30 point difference: by ACA standards he fits within what I consider the moderate range of 35-65%, while by ADA he’s an ultra-conservative. DW-Nominate places him at -0.122 by contrast, closer to the conservative assessment. Same goes for Robert Hemphill of South Carolina, who was the most favorable of South Carolina’s Democrats in the early 1960s to national Democratic programs and represented a district in the poorer northern portion of the state that was more favorable towards New Deal liberalism than the ; ADA only finds him 34% liberal while ACA finds him only 33% conservative, this is a 33 point differential in how these organizations seem him. Hemphill’s DW-Nominate score is -0.129, which fits closer with the conservative conception of Hemphill. Americans for Democratic Action regarded Southern Democrats as 17 points more conservative than Americans for Constitutional Action, with the discrepancy with Southern Republicans being considerably less at 6.6 points. Interestingly, among politicians who fall completely within the range ACA was scoring, the discrepancy is even higher, with Southern Democrats being 20.6 points more conservative by ADA than ACA with Republicans only at 7.4 points discrepancy. There are a few outside cases in which legislators from the South who are considered ultra-conservative by ACA are considered just slightly less so by ADA, such as Texas’s Bruce Alger and Virginia’s William Scott, but the differential is a mere two points. ACA and ADA being far more in agreement on where Southern Republicans stand vs. where Southern Democrats stand indicates that ACA places stronger emphasis on certain old New Deal issues; they count more agricultural votes and in particular their 1959 scoring stands out for counting votes in the House that hardly any Democrats voted their position on; these include a motion to delete a direct housing loan program for veterans, overriding President Eisenhower’s veto of a public works bill, and an increased permissible interest rate for government bonds. ADA counted more positions that strengthen the Southern Democratic claim to conservatism, such as a 1959 vote on Hawaii statehood and a 1960 vote on the strengthening McCulloch-Celler Amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1960. Indeed, civil rights votes being counted more by ADA than ACA further emphasizes Southern conservatism, while ACA’s greater focus on spending and programs that brought more unity between Northern and Southern Democrats. Also, Southern Democrats really suffer under liberal scoring because of ADA’s much stronger emphasis on defense and Vietnam votes than ACA’s. The details of legislator scores of agreement with ADA and ACA are below…legislators in BOLD served entirely within the period that ACA was assessing politicians.`

References

Gettys, Thomas Smithwick. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/10728/thomas-smithwick-gettys

Hemphill, Robert Witherspoon. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/4299/robert-witherspoon-hemphill

The South Isn’t Anti-New Deal — The New Deal Is Anti-Southern. (1943, August 21). The Southern Watchman, p. 2.

Retrieved from

https://fascinatingpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/southern_watchman_1943_08_21_2.pdf

Today Florida seems like blood red Republican territory. However, it used to be even more solidly Democratic, and this was how it was when the state’s longest serving representative in history was elected to Congress. This man, who served 44 years in the House, was Charles Edward Bennett (1910-2003).

A lawyer by profession, Bennett gained prominence in his home of Jacksonville and was elected to the Florida House in 1941. However, the following year he resigned to serve in World War II, and in the process contracted polio, which paralyzed his legs for the rest of his life. He managed to walk with the assistance of canes, crutches, or leg braces. In 1948, Bennett challenged incumbent Emory Price of the 2^nd Congressional district, based in Jacksonville, for renomination and won. This was tantamount to election in Florida at the time. Bennett was a moderate during the Truman Administration, sometimes going with and sometimes going against it. His record varied over his long time in Congress, at times being quite conservative and at other times being accommodating to the national Democrats.

In 1955, Bennett sponsored the legislation that impacts what we see every day: adding “In God We Trust” on all currency, which was passed unanimously. He said of the legislation, ”In these days when imperialistic and materialistic communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, we should continuously look for ways to strengthen the foundations of our freedom. At the base of our freedom is our faith in God and the desire of Americans to live by his will and his guidance. As long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail” (The New York Times).

Bennett’s record on civil rights was, save for his vote for the 24th Amendment in 1962 (banning poll taxes in federal elections), entirely one of opposition until his vote for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. His vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution he would later say were the two votes he regretted (Cirincione). For the duration of the Johnson presidency, Bennett was with the conservative wing of his party; he voted against key Great Society programs including the Economic Opportunity Act, Medicare, a permanent food stamp program, and federal aid to education.

In 1967, Bennett sponsored legislation creating the House Ethics Committee. However, he would be denied its chairmanship multiple times, and would only serve a term as its chair in the 96^th (1979-1981) Congress. He was known as “Mr. Clean”, and his reputation for ethics went untarnished in his long career. Bennett would not take contributions or private gifts from defense contractors. Although certainly his clean reputation was appreciated by many, some fellow legislators thought he was a bit uptight. As the 1980 edition of The Almanac of American Politics described him, “He opposes unofficial office accounts, outside income for members and congressional pay raises, which led one colleague to call him ‘a bit too pious.'” (The Jacksonville Times-Union) Indeed, his reputation for ethics also came with a reputation for diligence and hard work. Late in his career, he described himself thus, ”I’m not a brilliant person. I do produce some good legislation. But I’ve never been accused of being a genius. But I feel that being there and making the vote is my duty and responsibility” (The New York Times). And indeed, Bennett was sure to be there…for his entire career, he never missed a roll call vote.

Although Bennett’s district overtime started voting for Republican candidates for president, he was sufficiently popular to continue to handily win reelection, and often did support the positions of President Richard Nixon. However, Bennett did dissent from Nixon on some issues; in 1971 he began differing with the Nixon Administration on Vietnam, supporting proposals for a timetable for withdrawal. Bennett also could vote the liberal position on environmental issues, siding with environmentalists against the construction of the Alaska pipeline in 1973. Indeed, Bennett prized conservation and his efforts resulted in the creation of several environmental reserves. On social issues, he was broadly conservative, opposing busing to achieve desegregation, supporting the death penalty, and a school prayer amendment. In 1977, Bennett suffered a tragedy when one of his sons, Charles Jr., died of a drug overdose, which got his focus on combating illegal drugs. However, he softened up a bit on his opposition to some social programs; in 1971 he supported the creation of a national childcare system, but this was ultimately vetoed by President Nixon. Bennett also supported the creation of the Legal Services Corporation in 1974. On foreign policy, Bennett was often skeptical of foreign aid and in 1979 opposed implementing the Panama Canal Treaties.

During the 1980s, he was a prominent skeptic of President Reagan’s military buildup, and opposed the Strategic Defense Initiative, the B-2 Bomber, and the MX Missile. Bennett had previously supported certain military expenditures, such as the B-1 Bomber and the Neutron Bomb. Despite this, Bennett was passed up for chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee in 1985, the post going to Les Aspin (D-Wis.),who had a strong record as a skeptic of high defense spending. Defense policy was not his only difference with Reagan; he also voted against his tax reduction proposal in 1981. However, Bennett could justify this on his personal sense of fiscal conservatism, and in 1982 he sided with the Administration in support of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. His record, particularly in the second half of the Reagan presidency got more liberal, more in accord with national Democrats but on social issues he largely remained conservative. In 1990, Bennett was one of the champions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In 1992, although he initially sought to run for another term, he opted to retire after his wife suffered a stroke. Bennett’s lifetime scores by the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action and the liberal Americans for Democratic Action are almost the inverse of each other; 62% and 39% respectively. His DW-Nominate score is a -0.088, which is high for a Democrat.In 2002, his health deteriorated due to a heart attack and stroke and he died on September 6, 2003 at the age of 92. Bennett is without doubt among the most honorable of the politicians that the public has sent to Washington.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Charles E. Bennett: A noble life. (2003, September 9). The Jacksonville Times-Union.

Retrieved from

https://web.archive.org/web/20160303173743/http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/090903/opi_13479868.shtml#.Vth2Z4XP32c

Bennett, Charles Edward. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/633/charles-edward-bennett

Cirincione, J. (2003, November 6). An American Patriot. Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.

Retrieved from

https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/research/2003/11/an-american-patriot

Files, J. (2003, September 10). Charles E. Bennett Dies at 92; Put ‘In God We Trust’ on Bills. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

There was a sort of progressivism that in many ways would be alien to modern people who identify themselves as “progressive”, and this was the early 20^th century progressivism, especially that of the South. Despite the South’s current reputation for conservatism, progressive politics far from skipped the region, and one of the region’s foremost advocates was Georgia’s Michael (Hoke) Smith (1855-1931).

An attorney by profession, Hoke Smith’s lucrative injury law practice in which he represented clients against railroad companies got him money and influence, and in 1887, he purchased The Atlanta Journal, and grew the paper into an influential publication. His successful running of the paper as well as the paper’s advocacy for Grover Cleveland and his tariff reform proposals in 1888 elevated his national profile. Smith also played a major role in lining up the Georgia delegation to the Democratic National Convention behind Cleveland in 1892, and after his victory he awarded Smith with the post of Secretary of the Interior in 1893. In this role, he was placed in charge of reforming the pension system for Union veterans, which had grown bloated. In 1896, Smith, who was supportive of gold like Cleveland, opposed William Jennings Bryan’s candidacy for the Democratic nomination, but after his win he supported his candidacy out of a sense of duty to support the Democratic candidate.

Smith continued to use The Atlanta Journal to advance his beliefs, and among other causes he pushed for railroad regulation, countering trusts, ending the convict leasing system, and white supremacy. In 1904, he condemned the Roosevelt Administration and the GOP on race, stating,

“The attitude of the Republican Party and its candidate for President threatens the peace and tranquility of a great section of the United States known as the South. This section was already confronted with a serious problem, the presence of 8,000,000 negroes, the large majority of whom need direction in their daily walks of life from their white neighbors. This daily aid is required on account of the superior qualities of the white race. Any effort to force equality will necessarily injure the negroes as well as disorganize the relations under which the agricultural and commercial growth of the South must take place.

Under the wise Administrations of Cleveland, Harrison, and McKinley each day brought new evidence that the problem of two different races living side by side was being handled wisely and justly by the stronger race freed from outside interference. As one of the proofs of this fact it may be mentioned that the white people of the South have paid by voluntary taxes on their property over $100,000,000 for the education of negro children. The harm already accomplished by Roosevelt and the Republicans is serious. The South is contributing a full part of the commercial growth of the country. A blow against our section injures all sections. We should especially ask those interested in Southern investments to reflect upon this situation before they give approval to the present course of the Republican Party and its candidate for President” (The New York Times).

In 1906, Smith ran for governor of Georgia, and secured the support of the Populist leader Tom Watson by running a white supremacy campaign and promising to disenfranchise blacks, although it is true that Clark Howell, his main opponent in the Democratic primary, was also running a white supremacy campaign. His rhetoric as well as that of others, numerous publicized allegations of black men sexually assaulting white women, and the generally heated racial atmosphere set the stage for the 1906 Atlanta Race Massacre, in which thousands of whites attacked black residents, homes, and businesses for three days, resulting in the killings of dozens of blacks and injuries of scores more. The entrance of state troops to counter the massacre as well as heavy rainfall resulted in its end.

As governor, Smith abolished the convict leasing system and took the lead in trust-busting, becoming known as the “trust-busting Georgian” (The New York Times, 1931). Although the end of the convict leasing system was a good development for blacks, it was replaced with the state-run chain-gang system of forced prison labor which also was ripe for abuse and brutality. He also formally instituted the disenfranchisement of blacks and instituted the “grandfather clause” exemption to literacy tests. However, the latter would be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. The Southern form of progressivism practiced by Smith and others at the time was put best by historian C. Vann Woodward, “progressivism for whites only” (Lerda, 72). In 1908, Smith had a setback when Watson switched his political support to Joseph M. Brown, who had been removed from the State Railroad Commission by Smith after he voted against his passenger railroad rate cut, over Smith’s refusal to commute a death sentence of one of his supporters. Brown won the primary but in 1910, Smith defeated Brown and once again was governor. However, Senator Alexander Clay’s death in 1910 resulted in the elevation of former Governor Joseph M. Terrell, however, Terrell was badly compromised in his effort to serve out the remainder of Clay’s term after having suffered a paralyzing stroke, and the state legislature chose Smith to serve. Smith decided not to immediately take the office of senator, choosing to finish his agenda before doing so, which included creating the Department of Commerce and Labor and the state Board of Education, a lobbying curb, and placing a maximum work week of 60 hours for textile workers (Maysilles).

As senator, Smith had several accomplishments, including the Smith-Lever Act in 1914 and the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917 and backed much of Wilson’s New Freedom agenda. He was also one of the most racist senators; he, Mississippi’s James K. Vardaman, and South Carolina’s Ben Tillman refused to support nominations of any blacks except for Ambassador to Liberia, which helped sink the nomination of Adam Patterson for the Register of the Treasury, a position that was reserved for blacks under previous post-War of the Rebellion administrations. However, he had an independent streak and proved a bit more conservative than you might expect given his time as governor. For instance, Smith supported Senator Lodge’s (R-Mass.) reservations to the Versailles Treaty and defended civil liberties during World War I, most notably with his vote for the France Amendment in 1918 to protect telling the truth with good motives from government censorship. In 1920, Smith faced a strong challenge in the primary from Tom Watson, who interestingly was running on a platform critical of the Wilson Administration and in opposition to the League of Nations. He also pushed anti-Catholicism, and won the primary, tantamount to election in the uniformly Democratic Georgia. Although Tom Watson was not a preferable replacement for Smith on racial issues for blacks, they nonetheless were pleased to see Smith defeated. Smith’s DW-Nominate score stands at -0.234.

Smith died on November 27, 1931 at 76, being the last survivor of President Cleveland’s cabinet. Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt of New York, closely connected to Georgia by his Warm Springs residence, later known during his presidency as the “Little White House”, stated on his death, “I am deeply distressed to hear of the passing of my old and close friend, Hoke Smith. I first knew him when I was a very small boy, when he was in President Cleveland’s Cabinet. His was a distinguished career and Georgia loses a great citizen” (The New York Times, 1931). Indeed assessments of him were good on the time of his death, but his leading role in the disenfranchisement of black voters and his capitalizing on racism to win public office mar his legacy and have only aged worse over time.

References

Hoke Smith is Dead. (1931, November 28). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Hoke Smith on Race Issue. (1904, October 4). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Lerda, V.G. (2000). Southern Progressivism in Historical Perspective: the 1890s and the 1990s. RSA Journal, 11.

Retrieved from

Maysilles, D. Hoke Smith. New Georgia Encyclopedia.

Retrieved from

Smith, Hoke. Voteview.

Retrieved from

Peter Rodino (D-N.J.), who reintroduced ERA.

I have previously written about the close tie between the issue of abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and how the failure to attach an abortion neutral provision to the ERA resulted in its defeat. I will examine here the 1983 vote in which the ERA, being reintroduced by Rep. Peter Rodino (D-N.J.) after failing to be ratified in 1982, failed to pass on November 15^th and how legislators measured up on a vote barring federal funds for abortion. The closest vote on abortion to compare with the ERA vote of 1983 is the September 22^nd vote on Rep. Silvio Conte’s (R-Mass.) amendment. I have charted the vote here, with lifetime Americans for Constitutional Action scores for these individuals. Because 1984 was the last year ACA did their scoring, this is how they would have been seen in that session. There are a few legislators who are still in office now.

Abortion Restriction and ERA Vote:

Silvio Conte (R-Mass.), who sponsored a 1983 amendment deleting funds for abortions.

A few observations regarding these votes…

A legislator who supported ERA had a 66% chance of opposing the abortion restriction and a 40% chance of supporting.

A legislator who opposed ERA had a 93% chance of supporting the abortion restriction, and a legislator who opposed the abortion restriction had a 95% chance of supporting ERA.

Only ten representatives were opposed to both Conte’s amendment and the ERA. These were Al McCandless (R-Calif.), Richard Thomas (D-Ga.), J. Roy Rowland (D-Ga.), Robert Whittaker (R-Kan.), Earl Coleman (R-Mo.), Edwin Forsythe (R-N.J.), Tim Valentine (D-N.C.), James Martin (R-N.C.), James Broyhill (R-N.C.), and Tommy Vandergriff (D-Tex.).

Al Gore supports both ERA and abortion restriction.

Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) supports abortion restriction and opposes ERA!

John McCain supports abortion restriction and opposes the ERA.

Ed Markey, today known as one of the most liberal members of the Senate, votes for restricting abortion funding as do a majority of Massachusetts representatives! All voted for the ERA, and all but amendment sponsor Silvio Conte were Democrats, and Conte was also a liberal.

Richard Durbin of Illinois, currently Senate Minority Whip, votes for both abortion restriction and the ERA.

Chuck Schumer of New York, currently Senate Minority Leader, votes against abortion restriction and for the ERA.

2016 Republican contender John Kasich of Ohio votes for abortion restriction and against the ERA, as does current Ohio Governor Mike DeWine.

Ron Wyden of Oregon, who is a senator now, votes against abortion restriction and for the ERA.

Jamie Whitten of Mississippi is the only legislator to switch from opposing the ERA in 1971 to support in 1983. Whitten’s conservatism began waning in the mid-1970s and really started going downhill after he became chairman of the Appropriations Committee in 1979. He changed significantly to accommodate the Democratic leadership; since 1975 seniority was no longer a guarantee for a chairmanship.

Also, a word on abortion. This is one issue in which the parties truly have polarized and polarized hard over time. It is downright unimaginable today that most of North Carolina’s representatives vote against abortion restriction while 70% of Massachusetts’ representatives vote for. There is also a far greater Catholic Democrat factor here than now in support for abortion restrictions. There are some legislators here who support abortion restrictions but later oppose them. One such figure who I’ve noted before is Florida’s Bill Nelson, who performed an almost entire 180 flip as senator. With this vote you not only see the diversity of opinion within the parties on this issue but also the level of ideological diversity that existed in 1983…far less than now.

References

To amend H.R. 3913, a bill appropriating $96.16 billion in funds for the Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1984. The Conte Amendment prohibits use of funds to perform abortions. (motion passed). Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0980334

To suspend the rules and pass H.J. Res. 1, a bill proposing a amendment to the Constitution of the United states relative to equal rights for men and women (motion failed; 2/3 required). Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0980469