Winston Prouty: The Most Forgettable Senator of the Sixties?

Not everyone gets his or her historical due. Sometimes this failure to get one’s due is because the person was a polarizing figure in their time and the people who wrote the bulk of history on them were opponents. Sometimes it is because another figure in that time and place overshadowed them. The latter case was certainly true, and on more than one count, of Vermont’s Winston Lewis Prouty (1906-1971). Prouty was a Republican in a state that had always elected Republicans to the Senate since the foundation of the party at the time of his life and career, and did not appear to stand out as a liberal maverick nor as a staunch conservative. Indeed, he seemed entirely a man of his time and place; moderate in a state becoming increasingly liberal but still at the time wed by tradition to the GOP. I hope with this post to translate the forgettable into the memorable.

Prouty came from a political family that had a lumber and construction material business, and his uncle, George Prouty, had been one of Vermont’s governors. In 1923, at the age of 16 when working at his family’s lumber firm, he lost his right thumb in an accident with a buzzsaw (Express and Standard). This was said to have contributed to his overall cautious and reserved demeanor. In Vermont politics at the time of his rise, this demeanor was not a disability. After all, the famously reticent Calvin Coolidge had been a Vermonter. In 1932, Prouty began his gradual rise through Vermont politics as he was elected to the Newport City Council and served until 1937, and then was Mayor from 1938 to 1941. In 1940, Prouty was elected to the Vermont House, and served until 1949, serving as speaker in the last two years. In 1948, he ran for lieutenant governor but lost the nomination to the conservative Harold J. Arthur, instead getting to chair the state’s Water Conservation Board.

In 1950, Congressman Charles Plumley decided to retire after a House career consisting mostly of opposition to the New Deal and support for internationalist foreign policy. Prouty won the nomination to succeed him and was a shoo-in given that electing Republicans was not in doubt at the time in the Green Mountain State, and he won with 73.5% of the vote. As a representative, his overall moderate approach was a winner with Vermonters, and he always won reelection to the House with over 60% of the vote. He prevailed even though he cast a politically difficult vote for the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1954. Many New Englanders opposed the St. Lawrence Seaway for diverting shipping traffic. In 1958, Senator Ralph Flanders, by this time 78 years old, decided to retire. The most natural successor was Prouty. However, 1958 was a difficult year for the GOP, particularly so in New England where the recession was hitting hard. For the first time since the foundation of the Republican Party, a Democrat won Prouty’s House seat. Prouty himself prevailed, but by just shy of 5 points. This was certainly alarming for Republicans one of the two states that had never voted for Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Senator Prouty

The New York Times (1971) profiled Prouty as senator, “Serious, quiet, intense, hard to classify as liberal or conservative, Senator Prouty presented an enigma even to some of his friends. He rarely made campaign trips home to Vermont, and he seemed to have no visible political organization, but “he always wins and no one knows how,” as one Vermont politician put it”. Unfortunately for him, he was consistently overshadowed by his colleague, George Aiken, who was senior both in time in the Senate and age. Aiken was also much more popular with Vermonters.

Prouty unsurprisingly had a mixed response to the Kennedy Administration. While he was in support of a significant minimum wage increase and federal aid to education, he was opposed to Area Redevelopment legislation and the Housing Act of 1961 which expanded public housing. Prouty seemed to have some fundamental level of fiscal conservatism but was strongly supportive of furthering federal aid to education, something his successor, Robert Stafford, would champion. However, in one area, Prouty would lead opposition, and this was on the Youth Employment Act in 1963.

On April 10, 1963, Prouty led the charge to strike the Youth Conservation Corps, the central controversial feature, from the Youth Employment bill, which was defeated 41-47. Prouty would vote against the Youth Employment bill, which although it passed the Senate, it died in the House Rules Committee. Prouty’s continued moderation had certainly won over some people since the 1958 election, as he won another tough reelection in 1964 with a higher margin. Vermonters clearly differentiated the Republicanism of Prouty from the Republicanism of presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, who had won only 33.7% of the vote in the Green Mountain State. Prouty thrice voted to kill Medicare before supporting it in 1965.

While Prouty had led the charge in a conservative way against the Youth Employment Act in 1963, he led the charge in a liberal way on an expanded emergency job program, which failed on October 4, 1967 at 42-47. That year, he had also voted to lower the minimum age to receive Social Security benefits, albeit on a reduced basis, from 62 to 60. On civil rights, Prouty was strongly supportive. He voted for all the major laws of the 1960s and during the Nixon Administration he embraced the Philadelphia Plan and a busing compromise endorsed by President Nixon. Although a moderate, Prouty once in a while could surprise liberal colleagues, such as his support for guaranteed minimum income in 1968. However, it was another surprise that got his name in the papers for a time, and that was on the issue of the Anti-Ballistic Missile System. In 1968, Prouty had announced his opposition to this idea, but President Nixon succeeded in swaying his critical vote to the ABM system. The ABM system was passed by one vote. He split the difference in his votes for President Nixon’s unsuccessful Supreme Court nominations; he voted for the confirmation of Clement Haynsworth but against G. Harrold Carswell. He said his reason for voting against the latter was that a motion to recommit failed and Carswell didn’t have time to explain himself, “I thought we would be doing the Administration a favor by recommitting, giving Carswell a chance to dispel some of the doubts about him…It was a difficult decision—one of the most difficult I have ever had to make” (Time Magazine, April 19, 1970). Although George Aiken was typically thought of as the more liberal senator than Prouty, on this occasion, like his support for lowering the age for Social Security benefits, he voted to Aiken’s left. However, any disappointment Nixon had over his vote on Carswell was outweighed by his support for his polices on Vietnam. Prouty voted against both the Cooper-Church Amendment to stop funding for U.S. forces in Cambodia and Laos and against the McGovern-Hatfield “End the War” Amendment, and Nixon enthusiastically endorsed him for reelection.

The achievement that Prouty should be most known for, and one I’m surprised isn’t emphasized more on what I’ve read about him, is his crafting of the National Passenger Rail Service Act of 1970, which founded Amtrak. This law was passed to retain passenger rail service as private rail companies, most notably Penn Central, were going bankrupt due to the proliferation of automobiles after World War II as well as a toxic combination of subsidization and inflexible regulations from the Interstate Commerce Commission and state governments (Shedd). Thus, a figure obscure and seemingly without note continues to have impact on the lives of millions of Americans. That year, he had a spirited challenge from former Governor Phillip H. Hoff, a staunch anti-Vietnam War liberal, and polling a little over a week out from Election Day indicated that Prouty would lose (Time Magazine, October 25, 1970). However, the polling of this election seemed to be a bit off, as he not only won but won by 19 points, his biggest victory yet. The New York Times attributed Prouty’s victory to numerous late defections from conservative Democrats in Burlington and Winooski (Reinhold). Sadly, Prouty didn’t get to enjoy his victory long; he was subsequently diagnosed with stomach cancer and died on September 10, 1971. His DW-Nominate score is a pretty sedate 0.17 and he agreed with the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 54% of the time and the liberal Americans for Democratic Action 44% of the time. It is unfortunate that Prouty is considered forgettable but he had a hard act to be alongside (Vermont’s longtime popular politician George Aiken) and following (Ralph Flanders had led the Republican side of the charge against Joseph McCarthy). I thought of writing about Prouty as a bit of a challenge to try and make an obscure and seemingly mundane figure interesting, and he is precisely the opposite of everything we have come to expect from modern politics. Did I succeed in my effort to make him interesting? Let me know!

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Hard-Bitten Republican. (1971, September 11). Hard-Bitten Republican. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Nation: Four Crucial Nays: Why They Did It. (1970, April 19). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6877106/nation-four-crucial-nays-why-they-did-it/

Nation: The Republican Assault on the Senate. (1970, October 25). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6838217/nation-the-republican-assault-on-the-senate/

Prouty, Winston Lewis. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/7637/winston-lewis-prouty

Reinhold, R. (1970, November 4). Prouty Defeats Hoff in Vermont. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Senator Prouty of Vermont Dies, Cast Major Vote for the ABM. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Shedd, J. (1981, May). Amtrak: Congress’s Toy Trains. Reason Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://reason.com/1981/05/01/amtrak/

Winston Prouty Slips and Loses His Thumb on Butting Saw. (1923, August 10). Express and Standard (Newport, Vt.).

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/article/express-and-standard-prouty-thumb/71187290/

Josiah Bailey: Agent of Change in the Tarheel State

By 1930, Senator Furnifold M. Simmons had long been a powerful presence in North Carolina. He had been a senator since 1901 and had led the “white supremacy” campaign of 1898 that resulted in the Democrats coming back to power in the long run which also came with it the insurrection that overthrew the multiracial government of Wilmington, which had been the largest city in the state at the time. Although ideologically he could be thought of as a Wilsonian progressive, Simmons resolutely supported Prohibition. Thus, a problem arose for him when the Democratic Party nominated New York Governor Al Smith. Smith was against Prohibition and he had also risen in politics through New York City’s notorious Tammany Hall machine. Both were reason enough for Simmons to endorse Herbert Hoover over Smith. Simmons’ endorsement carried a lot of weight in the state and Hoover won both election and North Carolina. The last time a Republican had won North Carolina was in 1872. However, by 1930 the Great Depression had started and Hoover was very unpopular. This and that Simmons had not cultivated younger politicians made him vulnerable, and stepping in to challenge him was Josiah William Bailey (1873-1946).

Bailey had strong religious convictions as a Baptist, and after his father’s death in 1895 served as the editor of the North Carolina Baptist Convention’s newspaper the Biblical Recorder, and from 1903 to 1907, he headed the state’s Anti-Saloon League, but resigned when the organization started pushing for prohibition rather than temperance, not believing that the former would work (Moore). In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson tapped Bailey to be collector of revenue for the eastern district of North Carolina, and it was there that he gained practical experience on government efficiency, and managed to reduce the cost of collections by 65% (Moore). He served in this role until 1921 In 1914, Bailey pushed with Clarence Poe of the Progressive Farmer a platform for the Democratic Party Convention which included among its planks state primaries, increased assistance to public health and education, stronger regulation of freight and insurance rates, and strengthening child labor laws (Moore). This platform was not adopted, but it established Bailey’s reputation at the time as a progressive. By the early 1920s, Bailey became independent of the Simmons political machine and in 1924 he ran a reformist campaign in the Democratic primary for governor. Although he lost, he was now a known and credible political quantity in the state.

Bailey, who as editor of the Biblical Recorder had backed Simmons’ white supremacy campaign of 1898, hammered him for party disloyalty and this approach worked, with Bailey winning the nomination. Simmons gracefully accepted defeat and had no regrets about his decision to oppose Smith. Although Bailey had campaigned against Simmons on party disloyalty, he would ironically prove far more at odds with his party’s philosophy than Simmons had ever been. Indeed, Bailey had very distinct ideas about right and wrong. As the left-wing publication The Nation noted about him, he was a “diligent scholar whose devotion to abstract principles of right and wrong, and specifically to righteousness in civil and political affairs, borders on fanaticism…He is a brilliant but painstaking student whose mind quickly cuts through to the heart of a thing, with a logic that is irrefutable, and a command of language probably unequalled by any other living North Carolinian” (Tucker). While he campaigned for FDR in 1932, during the first 100 days of the New Deal, Bailey voted against the Agricultural Adjustment Act, being the only North Carolinian to do so. His stance was in contrast to his history of having been a progressive reformer in the 1910s and 1920s. Bailey did support some measures such as the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority, FDR’s gold measures, and Social Security. In FDR’s first term, Bailey served as a sometimes supporter and sometimes opponent of the New Deal. In 1935, Bailey was one of five Democratic senators to oppose the Wagner Act, commonly regarded as the Magna Carta of labor rights. He would consistently oppose legislation to increase the power of organized labor and support legislation to reduce it. Although Bailey was not blind to social problems and wasn’t necessarily opposing every measure to address them, he had his limitations which he saw as consistent with Jeffersonianism, stating, “Being a Baptist, I am liberal, and believe in liberty. Being a Democrat, I am a liberal and believe in liberty. Once we abandon the voluntary principles, we run squarely into Communism. . . . There can be no half-way control” (Tucker). Bailey was not willing, however, to go strong in opposition until after the 1936 election, but the next year he really went after the philosophy of the New Deal. In 1937, Bailey joined Burton K. Wheeler (D-Mont.) and Vice President John Nance Garner in leading the opposition to FDR’s “court packing plan” and delivered a powerful speech against on the Senate floor. In 1937, he and a group of conservative Democrats and Republicans crafted the “Conservative Manifesto”, with he and Arthur Vandenberg (R-Mich.) being the primary authors. This was a ten point document that outlined conservative alternatives to New Deal programs. This document, however, was prematurely leaked to The New York Times and when inquiries were made about who authored it, Bailey stepped up and admitted it while other Democrats were silent. Vandenberg and Warren Austin (R-Vt.) also stepped up and admitted themselves as participating in the drafting. The reason others were shying away from their involvement was because the ten point plan bore resemblance to what the American Liberty League had been calling for, and President Roosevelt had successfully painted the organization to the public as simply a vehicle for economic privilege. Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Charles McNary (R-Ore.), who had leaked the Manifesto, did so as he was concerned that this would overshadow a planned Republican platform and stated, “Anyone who signs that thing is going to have a Liberty League tag put on him” (Moore, 31-32). Bailey’s record on domestic issues after Roosevelt’s reelection was considerably more conservative on domestic issues, and he sought a program that involved lower spending, more emphasis on state’s rights, and more emphasis on free enterprise to help recovery. He stated, stated, “We do not have a Government at Washington. It is a gift enterprise and the gifts are at the expense of those who work and earn and save. Our President is not actuated by principle, but by fears. He will try to head off anything in order that he may stay at the head. I expect him to run for a third term, and if I am living, I expect to fight a good and last fight” (Moore, 26). Bailey’s leading role in the Conservative Manifesto presaged an overall shift in the state’s politics to the right, and one could consider him as an agent of change in the state who served the role that Republican George Aiken served for his state. Both men believed that in their views they were upholding their party’s traditional values but were often differing with their own parties. Bailey led the shift of North Carolina away from the national party, while Aiken led the shift of Vermont’s Republican party away from the Coolidge-style conservatism that characterized it during the 1930s. The collaboration of Bailey and Republican Vandenberg as central authors also could be marked as the start of the bipartisan Conservative Coalition which started to have pull after the 1938 midterms.

While Bailey was at odds with President Roosevelt on domestic policy, he was strongly supportive on foreign policy, backing all his major initiatives. Indeed, he contrasted considerably with his colleague, Robert Rice Reynolds, who had been much more supportive of New Deal programs but had voted against all of the president’s prewar initiatives save for the peacetime draft. Bailey was again back to the status of moderate opposition to President Roosevelt’s agenda. He was also an internationalist, and opposed the unsuccessful Revercomb (R-W.V.) amendment to require participation in international organizations be by treaty only. Although he had supported much of the president’s war policies, he was against a postwar direction of more government spending and emphasis on the public sector. However, Bailey’s role in the postwar world would be limited; in 1945, his health began to decline and on December 15, 1946, he died in office of a cerebral hemorrhage. Bailey’s DW-Nominate score is a -0.118, which although seems rather low given his domestic conservatism, party-line and procedural votes also get counted. By Democratic standards, he does fit on the party’s conservative wing. Indeed, as noted before, Bailey was the start of North Carolina’s shift to the right and away from the national Democratic Party politics. Although he is largely a forgotten figure, he got some recognition as one of the people profiled in Garland S. Tucker III’s 2015 book, Conservative Heroes: Fourteen Leaders Who Shaped America, From Jefferson to Reagan.

References

Bailey, Josiah William. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/349/josiah-william-bailey

Moore, J.R. (1979). Bailey, Josiah William. NCpedia.

Retrieved from

https://www.ncpedia.org/biography/bailey-josiah-william

Moore, J.R. (1965). Senator Josiah W. Bailey and the “Conservative Manifesto” of 1937. The Journal of Southern History, 31(1), 21-39.

Retrieved from

Tucker, G.S. Obscure no more: N.C. Senator Josiah Bailey. Walter Magazine.

Retrieved from

Woods, T.E. (2015, August 28). A Missing History of Conservatism. The American Conservative.

Retrieved from

Chan Gurney: South Dakota’s National Defense Champion

Bipartisanship is a less common commodity than it used to be, but there was a time in which postwar foreign policy was a bipartisan creation, and one of its champions was South Dakota Republican John Chandler “Chan” Gurney (1896-1985). Although Republicans historically had an advantage in South Dakota, the Great Depression depressed their prospects everywhere, even if said Republicans were progressive. In 1930, progressive Republican Senator William McMaster lost reelection to Democrat William J. Bulow. However, given the state’s usual Republican orientation, perhaps Bulow’s election was a fluke. This was a proposition that Chan Gurney tested in 1936. Gurney was a solid pick as he had a voice that was known across South Dakota as a radio announcer for radio station KNAX in Yankton. However, that year would be FDR’s greatest election, with him winning all states except Maine and Vermont. Only one Democratic seat flipped to the GOP that year, and South Dakota’s wasn’t it. Although Gurney lost, he had only lost by two points, running ahead of Republican presidential nominee Alf Landon by ten points. An opportunity would arise less than two months after the election, as on December 20, 1936, Republican Senator Peter Norbeck died of cancer, thus was gone the power of incumbency for that seat. Although Democratic Governor Tom Berry tapped Herbert Hitchcock to serve the remainder of the term. Berry intended to run himself, and defeated Hitchcock for running for the full term. Since Gurney had a good performance considering the environment of 1936, he was able to win the GOP nomination again, and this time he won by five points. As Drew Pearson and Robert Allen (1938) reported in the Washington Merry-Go Round, “In 1936, radio announcer Chandler Gurney had the displeasure of reporting to his listeners that he had been defeated in the race for the United States senate. Last month, announcer Gurney had the pleasure of reporting that he had won his race for the senate” (32).

As a new senator, Gurney proved antagonistic to the New Deal, supported curbing the growing power of organized labor, and stressed fiscal restraint on domestic spending. However, he also supported priorities for South Dakotans, such as rural electrification projects for the state and developing the Missouri River. However, he surprised political observers by supporting an interventionist position. Of South Dakota’s federally elected officials, he was the only one to vote for all of FDR’s major interventionist measures. Gurney, who had served in World War I, believed in national service and there would be no hypocrisy in the coming war as his sons also served. Ironically, his colleague Bulow, who had shifted to the right after FDR’s first term, would be the most opposed of all of South Dakota’s federally elected officials to interventionist foreign policy. In multiple ways, Gurney was contrary to his Republican predecessor, Norbeck, who was largely supportive of the New Deal and had opposed U.S. entry into the World Court. However, he was also staunchly anti-communist, and although he voted for Lend-Lease he had voted for an amendment to prevent Lend-Lease aid going to the USSR. In October 1941, Gurney joined Senators Styles Bridges (R-N.H.) and Warren Austin (R-Vt.) in calling for outright repealing the Neutrality Act, going further than many of their colleagues wanted (Time Magazine, 1942). He was also a strong supporter of the development of aviation and opposed a 1940 effort to cut spending for the Civil Aeronautics Board. In 1942, Gurney sponsored the law reducing the draft age to 18 and increasing the upper limit to 37 and argued that “the American people want to win the war in the shortest possible fashion and will do what it takes to accomplish that” and that drafting of 18 and 19-year-olds was required to do so (Time Magazine, 1942). During World War II, Gurney supported efforts at a new postwar international order, and opposed Senator Revercomb’s (R-W.V.) unsuccessful amendment requiring membership in international organizations to be done by treaty only. In 1944, he won reelection by 28 points, winning all but two counties.

Although Gurney was a senator who was willing to side with the Roosevelt Administration on foreign policy and on certain war measures for the home front, he was adamantly against long-term government involvement in the economy, voting to restrict the emphasis on the public sector in securing full employment in the Full Employment Act of 1946. In 1946, the Republicans won majorities in both houses of Congress, which meant that Gurney was now the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. As chairman, he introduced and led the push for the National Security Act of 1947 and the Selective Service Act of 1948, the latter reinstating the draft. For his work on defense issues, he was a trusted figure with the military brass. Gurney’s anti-communism was expressed both in his support for President Truman’s foreign policies of aid to Greece and Turkey and the Marshall Plan but also in his support for a loan for Francoist Spain, a policy Truman opposed.

Gurney and Civil Rights

Gurney had a record on civil rights that was mixed, more on the side of supporting in his first term and more to opposition in his next term. In 1940, he voted for the Wagner (D-N.Y.) Amendment to the Selective Service Act of 1940, which prohibited racial discrimination in enlistments and in 1943 he voted for an anti-discrimination rider to an education bill. However, in 1944 he voted to delete funding for the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) and voted against ending debate on establishing a permanent FEPC in 1946 and 1950. However, Gurney did vote for a short-term appropriation for the FEPC in 1945. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the 80th Congress, he opposed Senator Langer’s (R-N.D.) efforts to add civil rights riders to the Selective Service Act of 1948, not wishing to complicate passage of the legislation with such riders. Gurney also was one of four Republican senators to support Senator Richard Russell’s (D-Ga.) unsuccessful 1950 amendment to allow soldiers to choose whether they want to serve in racially integrated units or not.

The 1950 Election

Gurney had reason to believe that he was safe in his seat. After all, he had been a highly productive legislator, especially as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. His record on domestic issues surely had been conservative enough for the Republican base, and his seniority and expertise were of value. Thus, when Representative Francis Case (R-S.D.), who had been a pre-war non-interventionist and voted against the Marshall Plan ran against him, neither Gurney nor many observers took the run seriously. However, Case barnstormed the state making his case if you will for his nomination and that economy in government was important, including on matters of foreign aid spending. Gurney had dismissed campaigning back in his home state and declined to debate Case, stating that he was “busy” (Time Magazine, 1950). He changed his mind on campaigning in South Dakota two weeks before the primary when it was abundantly clear that Case was gaining traction. His campaign stressed the benefits to South Dakota of his seniority, opposition to deficit financing, opposition to big domestic government, and his stances on foreign policy (Argus-Leader). However, it was too late and he lost renomination by 15,000 votes. Senator George Aiken (R-Vt.) commented, “It made some of those who are up for re-election realize they had better go back home to do some politicking” (Time Magazine, 1950). Gurney’s DW-Nominate score is a 0.217, certainly being depressed by his foreign policy votes, and he agreed with the liberal Americans for Democratic Action 16% of the time from 1947 to 1950.

Gurney was out of elective politics, but President Truman had a job for him: to serve as a member of the Civil Aeronautics Board. He was appointed chairman in 1954, serving in this role until 1957, when he became vice chair until retirement in 1964. Gurney was subsequently on the board of directors for North Central Airlines. He died on March 9, 1985 at the age of 88, far outliving his South Dakota Republican colleagues. Gurney is remembered in South Dakota as Yankton’s municipal airport is named after him for his contributions to aviation policy.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Chan Gurney Candidate for Senator – Political Advertisement. (1950, May 26). Argus-Leader, 6.

Retrieved from

www.newspapers.com/image/230191757/

Chan Gurney left his mark on state. (1985, March 12). Rapid City Journal, 4.

Retrieved from

www.newspapers.com/image/350714418/

Gurney, John Chandler (Chan). Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/3882/john-chandler-chan-gurney

Mr. Gurney’s Convictions. (1942, September 13). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6604759/mr-gurneys-convictions/

Pearson, D. & Allen, R. (1938, December 11). Washington Merry-Go-Round. Joplin Globe, 32.

Retrieved from

www.newspapers.com/image/1003813456/

South Dakota: Too Busy to Win. (1950, June 18). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6796257/south-dakota-too-busy-to-win/

Guy Gillette: Iowa’s Independent

Today Iowa seems to only be getting further cemented as a Republican state, and indeed historically Iowa was a very Republican state, even if its Republicans didn’t always neatly fit the conservative mold. From the 1856 elections up to the Great Depression, Iowa had only had one Democratic senator in Daniel Steck and the circumstances of his election made it a fluke, and its only Democratic governor since the Republican Party’s foundation was Horace Boies, who served from 1890 to 1894. However, the Great Depression taxed the popularity of Republicans so much that it even hit major offices in Iowa. Democrat Richard Murphy won a Senate seat in 1932, Clyde Herring was elected governor, and Guy Gillette (1879-1973) won a Congressional seat in a typically Republican Iowa district. However, even in this early stage of his career, he proved independent from FDR and the New Deal; he voted against the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933. However, Gillette backed other New Deal laws including the Tennessee Valley Authority, FDR’s gold policies, the Securities and Exchange Act, and Social Security. His margin of reelection only increased in 1934. His career was undoubtedly helped by his senatorial looks and geniality, with author Allen Drury writing in A Senate Journal that he was, “a nice fellow … impressively handsome with a friendly twinkle in his eye” (U.S. Senate). Although Gillette had won renomination for reelection to the House in 1936, fate had a different idea. On July 16, 1936, Senator Richard Murphy was killed in a car accident, and Gillette ran for his seat. This was yet another excellent year for the Democrats, he was elected to serve the remainder of the late Senator Murphy’s term.

Murphy had been a staunch New Dealer, but Gillette soon proved he would continue his independence by his opposition to FDR’s court packing plan as well as that year’s proposed Fair Labor Standards Act. A different version of the latter would be passed the following year. However, he did support his controversial proposed 1938 reorganization plan, which critics had dubbed the “dictator bill” for its centralizing of power. Not enthused about Gillette’s record, FDR backed Democratic Congressman Otha Wearin against him. Although strongly with the president now, Wearin had ironically also voted against the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933. However, Iowa Democrats were sufficiently appreciative of Gillette’s independence as well as in opposition to FDR’s putting his thumb on the scale of state primaries. It was a different time back then. Although Roosevelt did not like Gillette being the nominee again, he undoubtedly preferred him to Republican candidate Lester J. Dickinson, who had been in the Senate from 1931 to 1937 and was a staunch foe of President Roosevelt. It was a tough campaign, with Gillette winning reelection by less than 3,000 votes. Had Wearin won the nomination, it seems likely that Dickinson would have returned, thus having an outright opponent rather than someone whose vote was not always certain. This win, by the way, was historic, as this was the first time a Democrat had won reelection to the Senate from Iowa since 1852.

In his second term, Gillette more often supported Roosevelt on domestic issues than not, but he also stood as one of the Senate’s opponents of FDR’s foreign policy. Although he had voted for the repeal of the arms embargo in 1939, he opposed the peacetime draft, Lend-Lease, and the permitting of merchant ships to enter belligerent ports. Writing confidentially for the British Foreign Office, Isaiah Berlin assessed Gillette thusly,

“[He] resembles Van Nuys in that he is a typical Mid-Western Senator with a moderately steady Isolationist voting record, although he is not an articulate opponent of the Administration’s policy. Unlike Van Nuys, he is a supporter of reciprocal trade pacts but shares his suspicion of the President. A simple, confused, but very honest Presbyterian of considerable character, he views the corn interest, which he represents, with an almost religious devotion. He leads the Senate Lobby interested in producing synthetic rubber out of corn, and coming from the Republican corn belt, is virtually a Republican in sentiment and conduct. He is not at all anti-British, but as isolationist as his general environment. His speeches in Congress take the form of thinking aloud. On foreign policy he is not a bigoted anti-Rooseveltite but is exceedingly uncertain” (Hachey, 146).

During World War II, Gillette strongly pushed for active efforts to save European Jews from the Holocaust. As a devout Christian, he sympathized with the historical plight of the Jews and sought to help them. He also shifted his foreign policy views from moderate non-interventionism to support for internationalism, most notably in evidence in his vote against Senator Revercomb’s (R-W.V.) unsuccessful 1943 amendment to require participation in international organizations be established by treaty only.

Although 1944 was a considerably better year for Democrats than expected, this didn’t apply enough in Gillette’s case to save him from the candidacy of Governor Bourke B. Hickenlooper in 1944, who won with 51% of the vote. By this time, differences between Gillette and the president appeared to be patched up, and he was appointed chairman of the Surplus Property Board. However, he did not care much for his role, and he often found himself outvoted by the board’s two other members. After his resignation in May 1945, Gillette was offered a judgeship by President Truman, but he turned it down as he believed himself unqualified as he had been too long out of the practice of law, a demonstration of his personal honesty (Hill). Gillette, a committed supporter of Zionism, was president of the American League for a Free Palestine, which was disbanded after the establishment of Israel in 1948. That year, Gillette sought a political comeback. President Truman and Gillette heavily appealed to farmers in this campaign, Truman campaigned for Gillette, and told Iowans that if they didn’t elect him to the Senate again there was something wrong with them (Hill). On Election Day, Gillette pulled a stunning victory by 162,448 votes against incumbent George A. Wilson, who had previously been popular.

Gillette’s Next Round

This time around, Gillette was a bit more supportive of the Democratic Administration and unlike his previous term in the Senate, he was solidly internationalist. He supported the Point Four program in 1950, and opposed most proposals to cut foreign aid. On domestic issues, Gillette had a hodgepodge of positions; he supported a “local option” amendment for rent control in 1949, but supported extending rent control in 1950, supported a conservative substitute for minimum wage legislation in 1949, opposed a 1950 proposal making housing credit more available to co-ops and non-profit housing projects, opposed the Knowland Amendment restricting the authority of the Social Security Administrator to enforce federal standards for unemployment compensation, and opposed the Tidelands Act in 1953. Gillette supported civil rights, opposing Senator Russell’s (D-Ga.) effort to undermine army desegregation and backed ending debate on a Fair Employment Practices bill. In 1952, Gillette voted against overriding President Truman’s veto of the McCarran-Walter Immigration Act. Curiously, during the Eisenhower Administration, Gillette’s foreign policy record seemed to take a turn to the right, with him backing a significant foreign aid cut in 1953 and supporting the Bricker Amendment the following year. In 1954, Gillette went for another term, but was defeated by Congressman Thomas E. Martin, who netted 52% of the vote in an otherwise good election year for Democrats, once again placing Gillette on the low end of a good Democratic year and was a reaffirmation of Iowa’s traditional Republicanism. This was a major upset as polling had put Gillette in the lead and on Election Night he believed he would be winning another term. He had sided with the liberal Americans for Democratic Action 66% of the time during his final term and his DW-Nominate score is a -0.076, the latter indicating that he was a moderate. Gillette got a cameo appearance in the 1962 film Advise and Consent, fittingly as a senator along with octogenarian former Senator Henry Ashurst (D-Ariz.) and sitting Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-Wash.). While retired, Gillette suffered a stroke which paralyzed his right side, but he succeeded in learning how to write with his left hand. On March 3, 1973, he died in a nursing home at the age of 94.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Gillette, Guy. Encyclopedia of America’s Response to the Holocaust.

Retrieved from

Gillette, Guy

Gillette, Guy Mark. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/3603/guy-mark-gillette

Guy Gillette: A Featured Biography. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/senators/FeaturedBios/Featured_Bio_GilletteGuy.htm

Hachey, T.E. (1974). American Profiles on Capitol Hill: A Confidential Study for the British Foreign Office in 1943. The Wisconsin Magazine of History, 57(2), 141-153.

Retrieved from

Hill, R. (2013, February 17). Guy M. Gillette of Iowa. The Knoxville Focus.

Retrieved from

Wearin, Otha Donner. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/9890/otha-donner-wearin

Whitman, A. (1973, March 4). Ex-Senator Guy Gillette Dead; Iowan, 94, in Congress 18 Years. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

William Steiger: Rising Republican Star of the 1970s

The 1966 election was a comeback for the GOP, which had taken a licking in the 1964 election, and one of their achievements was winning back Wisconsin’s 6th district with Oshkosh’s William Albert Steiger (1938-1978). From the start, Steiger was a go-getter who pursued his dreams. He dreamed of a career in public office, and at the mere age of 22 as a young graduate of his local state representative resigned, and he ran for the seat and won. Steiger’s young age fooled some people into thinking that he was a page. Once, a legislator ordered him to run an errand, and he humorously did so, later observing that he became chairman of the same committee the legislator served on (Miller).

As a member of Congress, Steiger proved to be considerably more moderate, especially on social issues, than his staunchly conservative Republican predecessor William K. Van Pelt, who had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On civil rights, he was even more liberal than his Democratic predecessor, Abner Race, who had voted against the proposed Civil Rights Act of 1966 for its inclusion of a fair housing provision; Steiger supported fair housing. He believed that there was some need for anti-poverty measures and thus opposed some efforts to curb the Office of Economic Opportunity and food stamps, opposed most anti-busing amendments, voted against a school prayer amendment to the Constitution, was an internationalist, and strongly supported the creation of the Legal Services Corporation. However, Steiger was also conservative on issues of taxes and economic regulation, consistently supported the Nixon Administration on the Vietnam War, and proved strongly opposed to campaign finance legislation, being one of 48 representatives to vote against the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments in 1974. In 1970, Steiger was the House sponsor of the law creating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and would oppose subsequent efforts to curb its enforcement on small businesses. He also sponsored legislation providing for environmental protection of the Great Lakes.

In 1978, Steiger called for reducing the capital gains tax from 49% to its pre-1969 level of 25%, arguing that this reduction would stimulate the economy by encouraging investment in the stock market and boosting capital investment, resulting in more jobs (Time Magazine). Through his debating skills and staunch advocacy as well as existing economic concerns, he persuaded the Democratic Congress to pass a capital gains tax cut from 49% to 28%, despite the Carter Administration’s opposition. Carter himself stated in opposition, “I will not tolerate a plan that provides huge windfalls for millionaires and two bits for the average American” (Time Magazine). That year, Steiger won reelection. On December 1st, he announced his plan to introduce legislation for tax-free capital gains accounts, but only three days later died in his sleep of a heart attack at the age of 40. Although Steiger was a diabetic, he was not previously known to have had heart problems and had been good on managing it. The ideological assessments of him differ somewhat. He sided with the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 62% of the time, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action 31% of the time, and his DW-Nominate score is a 0.336. The latter is interesting because he gets a higher score than people who had stronger conservative reputations and stronger assessments from ACA and weaker assessments from ADA. His fate and the lost potential of it is both sad and reminiscent of Alabama’s Senator James B. Allen, who had died of a heart attack earlier that year. Both men had potential to play significant roles in the Reagan era; Steiger would likely have figured prominently in House debates and crafting of tax reduction legislation. On tax cutting, he was just ahead of his political times. Also, like James B. Allen mentoring Jesse Helms, he mentored a notable man in Dick Cheney, who worked for him as a staffer. Steiger referred him to his colleague, Donald Rumsfeld, who would tap him to work for him in the Office of Economic Opportunity under President Nixon and his roles in government would rise up until he was elected vice president.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Business: Tussle Over a Two-Bit Tax Cut. Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6879922/business-tussle-over-a-two-bit-tax-cut/

Halloran, R. (1978, December 5). Rep. William A. Steiger, Hailed As New G.O.P. Hope, Dies at 40. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Miller, J. (1967, May 1). Youthful Trio Acting Like Congress Vets. The Bay City
Times
, 3.

Retrieved from

http://www.newspapers.com/image/1185181142/

Sloane, L. (1978, December 2). Tax-Free Capital Gains Proposed. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Steiger, William Albert. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/11051/william-albert-steiger

To Pass H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act of 1966. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0890293

To Pass H.Res. 1100… Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0900295

Zell Miller: The Senate’s Last Conservative Democrat

In recent times, less and less is required for the press to count a Democrat as a “moderate” or even “conservative”. The closest one has come in recent years was West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, but someone who really did fit this bill was Zell Bryan Miller (1932-2018). Miller was always two things: a Democrat and a man of Young Harris, Georgia. He never knew his father, as his father died only 17 days after his birth from cerebral meningitis. He and his sister were raised by their mother in modest circumstances and the fact that she had built the family home with rocks she got from a stream instilled into young Zell the value of rugged independence (Grant). As a young man, Miller attended and graduated from Young Harris College but lacked the discipline to proceed at Emory University. However, he gained the discipline required from his subsequent service in the U.S. Marines (Grant). In 1954, Miller married Shirley Carver and they had two sons, with him continuing his education in 1956 at the University of Georgia, earning Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in history, learning from prominent historian E. Merton Coulter, a proponent of the Dunning School of historical interpretation of Reconstruction. In 1958, while teaching history and political science at Young Harris College, Miller won his first election to serve as Young Harris’s mayor at the young age of 26. Serving from 1959 to 1960, he was then elected to the Georgia State Senate, serving until 1964. He attempted to win the Democratic nomination for Congress in both 1964 and 1966, and like most Georgia politicians of the time, he ran on a segregationist platform. Although not successful in his bids for Congress, Miller served as executive secretary for Governor Lester Maddox from 1968 to 1971. In this role, he was credited with influencing Maddox to make more appointments of blacks to government positions and to improve higher education (Grant). From 1971 to 1973, Miller served as chairman of the state’s Democratic Party, which set him up for a run in 1974 for lieutenant governor. Miller proved popular in this role, and his time resulted in him considering a run for the Senate.

The 1980 Senate Primary

Although the name Talmadge carried a lot of political heft in Georgia, during his fourth term, Senator Herman Talmadge’s reputation began to suffer. An alcoholic, his drinking got out of hand after the drowning death of his son in 1975, and his publicized divorce was ugly and bitter. In addition, Talmadge was hit with a dishonor that only nine senators have ever suffered, and only one has ever served another term after: he was censured by the Senate (although the term “denounced” was used in his case). Furthermore, his past as a segregationist was not aging well as black participation was increasing in the state’s Democratic Party, thus Zell Miller challenged him for renomination and received endorsements from numerous black political figures, including State Senator Julian Bond and Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson (Harris). Talmadge, however, commanded a lot of loyalty in the Democratic Party, his seniority helped, and there were black supporters of him for delivering on certain priorities. Miller fell short in his bid to deny Talmadge renomination by 18 points, but in the general election, he would narrowly lose reelection to Mack Mattingly, chairman of the Georgia Republican Party. Some Democrats believed that Miller’s candidacy made the difference in the general election. in the meantime, he would continue to serve as lieutenant governor. In 1990, Miller decided to move up to governor, successfully gaining the nomination in 1990 and winning against Republican Johnny Isakson by over 8 points.

As governor, he pledged to serve only one term and sought to make the most of the time. Miller focused strongly on education, and proposed an amendment to the state’s constitution to permit a state lottery with the funds going to fund the state’s education system, which the voters passed. He also established the HOPE Scholarship Program, in which every Georgia student who averages a B or better is eligible for a fully paid scholarship to any Georgia state college or university. Miller was keen on both preventative and punitive measures on criminal justice, and got the toughest sentencing guidelines in the country passed, a two strikes law (Grant).

In 1992, Miller gave his strong backing to the candidacy of Bill Clinton and helped him get the Democratic nomination. He delivered a strong keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, in which he said, “I made it because Franklin Delano Roosevelt energized this nation. I made it because Harry Truman fought for working families like mine. I made it because John Kennedy’s rising tide lifted even our tiny boat. I made it because Lyndon Johnson showed America that people who were born poor didn’t have to die poor” (Stout).

Although Miller was successful in helping Clinton to the White House and carrying Georgia for him, he had his own political future to consider. He had been quite a success as governor, and this motivated him to change his mind and run for a second term. This was far from without controversy, and Georgia voters were souring on the Clinton Administration, which resulted in Miller only winning reelection by two points in 1994. Although on the presidential level, second terms are often considerably worse than first, Miller’s second term as governor was even better than the first. He worked hard to make the state attractive for growth and investment. Miller even established a special program to use private funding to distribute classical music CDs to every family with babies born in Georgia, and by the end of his second term, his approval rating was an astronomical 85% (Grant). Although after his term, Miller sought to continue his education career and taught at Emory, University of Georgia, and of course Young Harris College, the call of political office would come to his doorstep.

Senator Miller

On July 18, 2000, Republican Senator Paul Coverdell died of a cerebral hemorrhage, and Democratic Governor Roy Barnes tapped Miller to serve in the interim. He sought a full term, and for the 2000 special election, he faced Mack Mattingly. However, Miller had recently been an extremely popular governor while Mattingly had been out of elective office since his reelection loss in 1986. The result was a blowout for Miller, winning by 20 points while Republican George W. Bush carried the state by over 11 points. One could interpret this victory as a vindication of Miller’s 1980 candidacy for the Senate. As a senator, Miller’s record started moderate, and he was one of a few Senate Democrats to vote for the Bush tax cuts in 2001. He stated, “I agree with President Bush that the taxpayers are better judges of how to spend their own money than we are” (Stout). His disagreement with Democratic leadership grew when they came out strongly against an amendment he sponsored with Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) to loosen union and personnel rules for the Department of Homeland Security and held up the legislation shortly before the 2002 midterms over the issue, he became a critic of the party’s leadership. Miller saw this as placing the priorities of an interest group (federal employees) over the priority of national security. He blamed the results of the 2002 midterm on the Democratic Senate leadership, stating, “When you bring it down to whether you are for homeland security or for protecting federal employees’ jobs, that is pretty hard to defend” and blamed repeated votes on the issue for the defeats of Max Cleland (D-Ga.) and Jean Carnahan (D-Mo.) (Preston). Miller had campaigned for the former’s reelection. After the 2002 midterms, his record shifted strongly to the right. In 2004, Miller announced that he would not be running for a full term. This freed him to do what he wanted, including introducing a Constitutional amendment repealing the 17th Amendment (direct election of senators) as he believed this lessened the power of states in favor of the federal government. Miller’s separation from the national Democratic Party was complete with his endorsement of George W. Bush. This time, he was a keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention. Miller delivered yet another strong speech,

“Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier.

And, our soldiers don’t just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag” (Presidential Rhetoric).

He was also staunchly critical of Senator John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) voting record on defense issues, as he had a history of voting for defense cuts. During his speech, he told the audience, “This is the man who wants to be the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?” (Stout). After the speech, reporters started asking him questions. When correspondent Chris Matthews asked him over a microphone to elaborate on the “spitballs” remark, Miller snapped, “Do you know what a metaphor is? Get out of my face!” and subsequently stated, “I wish we lived in the day when we could challenge someone to a duel,” but expressed regret for the remark (Stout).

Despite his endorsement of Bush, as noted earlier, Miller never switched parties, always seeing the Democratic Party as his home. He made the direct comparison when asked about why he didn’t switch, stating, “I compare it to being in an old house. It’s a house that I’ve lived in for years that’s getting kind of drafty and hard to heat. The plumbing won’t work, and some strangers have moved into the basement, and I don’t know who they are, and there’s no doubt I would be more comfortable in another house. But, you see, I was here first. I’ve lived in this house for years and years. It’s home, and I’m not going to leave” (Stout). With his departure from the Senate on January 3, 2005, was the departure of the last true conservative Democrat of the Senate in this author’s opinion. Miller sided with the liberal Americans for Democratic Action only 23% of the time, while he sided with the American Conservative Union 71% of the time. His DW-Nominate score is a 0.146, which is extremely high for a Democrat. Miller’s storied political life and the various stances he took over his career led some to call him “Zigzag Zell”, and this reflected the mixed feelings people in the Georgia Democratic Party had about him at the end. His successor, interestingly enough, was Johnny Isakson, the man he bested in 1990. President Bush subsequently appointed him to the American Battle Monuments Commission, and in 2008 the University of Georgia honored him by dedicating the Zell B. Miller Learning Center (Grant).

Although in retirement from elective office, Miller did still let his opinions be known, and often supported Republican candidates for public office, such as Saxby Chambliss for reelection to the Senate in 2008 and Governor Nathan Deal. However, he did support Democrats now and again, such as Michelle Nunn in her 2014 Senate run. In 2017, Miller retired from public life due to a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease and died the next year on March 23rd at 86 in Young Harris. Whatever happened in his life, wherever he politically stood, and whoever he supported, Zell Miller was born a Young Harris Democrat and died a Young Harris Democrat.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Former U.S. Sen. Zell Miller dies at 86; Was 2-term Georgia governor. (2018, March 23). The Florida-Times Union.

Retrieved from

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/2018/03/23/former-us-sen-zell-miller-dies-at-86-was-2-term-georgia-governor/12867515007/

Grant, C. (2018, June 4). Zell Miller. New Georgia Encyclopedia.

Retrieved from

https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/zell-miller-1932-2018/

Harris, A. (1980, August 23). Drawlin’ and Brawlin’. The Washington Post.

Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/08/23/drawlin-and-brawlin/636ce4af-b747-40f5-909e-618566f13946/

Miller, Zell Bryan. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/49904/zell-bryan-miller

Preston, M. (2003, February 14). Miller Blames Leaders for ‘02. Roll Call.

Retrieved from

https://rollcall.com/2003/02/14/miller-blames-leaders-for-02/

Speeches from the 2004 Republican National Convention: Zell Miller. (2004, September 1). Presidential Rhetoric.

Retrieved from

http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/campaign/rncspeeches/miller.html

Stout, D. (2018, March 23). Zell Miller, Feisty Democrat Who Sided With G.O.P., Is Dead at 86. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

William F. Knowland: The Golden State’s Senate Republican Leader

At one time, California Republicans were of great significance; Hiram Johnson was a celebrated leader of the progressive faction of the Republican Party and nationally known for his role in defeating the Versailles Treaty, Richard Nixon was from California, and Ronald Reagan’s political career began in California. As late as 2023, a California Republican had a leadership role, Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Another figure of significance, although not as well known as Nixon or Reagan, was William Fife Knowland (1908-1974), who was one of the foremost figures of Washington at the height of his power.

Knowland’s birth as well as how his father, J.R. Knowland, regarded him set him up for a career in politics. The elder Knowland had been a member of Congress in the conservative faction of the party from the Roosevelt to Wilson Administrations representing Oakland (different time, different Oakland). J.R. also was a mentor to Earl Warren, who would diverge considerably from conservative politics with time. From his youth, the younger Knowland was an active player in California politics, serving in the State Assembly from 1933 to 1935 and the State Senate from 1935 to 1939. In 1942, at the age of 34, he joined the army; he and his father’s newspaper, the Oakland Tribune, for which he worked as assistant publisher, had supported the peacetime draft law and he figured that if he supported such a policy that he should live it for the duration of the war.

After Senator Hiram Johnson died in 1945, Warren approached J.R. Knowland about a temporary Senate appointment, but he declined and recommended his son. Interestingly, Knowland learned of his appointment by the reading the Stars and Stripes newspaper; his wife Helen had attempted to call him to tell him about his appointment, but her call was turned down by military censors as “not essential government business” (Hill). The army honorably discharged him and sent him to Washington to serve.

Although Knowland would develop a public reputation as a conservative, in his first years in the Senate he was politically moderate. Indeed, when appointed, he publicly identified himself as a “liberal Republican pointed toward national social programs and business stability and international cooperation based on a non-partisan approach to foreign policy” (Montgomery and Johnson, 53). He demonstrated his willingness by backing President Truman’s Full Employment bill in 1945, which would be signed into law but in a compromised form the following year. He was, however, fiscally conservative, and was concerned about the accumulation of debt (Montgomery and Johnson, 67). Knowland’s warnings on debt have since been largely unheeded by both parties. In 1950, Knowland, a strong supporter of authority of states, sponsored an amendment to that year’s Social Security bill restricting the authority of the Social Security Administrator to require states to adopt federal standards for unemployment compensation, requiring a 90 day notice for noncompliance findings and required judicial review before funds could be withheld from states. The amendment was adopted as part of that year’s legislation. Bill Knowland was also not what we would think of as a politician temperamentally, he was humorless, not charismatic, and had a tendency not to remember people he had previously met. However, he was also highly principled, and indeed the integrity of his public life is unblemished. However, Knowland’s private life was a different story. Although he and his wife Helen loved each other, both had extra-marital affairs. They had married very young and hadn’t had a chance to “sow their wild oats”. Helen conducted an affair with journalist and later senator Blair Moody, while Knowland had an affair with Moody’s wife, Ruth.

In 1952, Knowland faithfully backed fellow Californian and family friend Earl Warren for the Republican nomination for president. Richard Nixon was also supposed to be a backer of Warren, but he double-crossed Warren by working behind the scenes to get the California delegation to flip to Eisenhower on key procedural votes during the Republican National Convention, thus securing his nomination (Farrell). Knowland himself had received an offer for an arrangement from Taft which he declined, most likely meaning a vice president nomination in exchange getting California’s delegates to his side. Had Knowland acted before Nixon, he would have secured the nomination for Taft. And since Taft died on July 31, 1953, we would have had President Knowland. This demonstrates that principles in politics can come at a cost. Earl Warren, however, would get a pretty substantial consolation prize with the advocacy of Knowland: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. During the Eisenhower presidency, he increasingly identified with the conservative wing, particularly once he succeeded Taft as Senate Republican leader, and voted against Senator Joseph McCarthy’s censure in 1954. Although not a slavish devotee of his, indeed Knowland had voted against his pushes to reject Charles Bohlen’s nomination as Ambassador to Russia as well as reducing aid to nations trading with Red China in 1953 and objected to his breaches of Senatorial decorum, he nonetheless thought that McCarthy’s prime sin was exaggeration as opposed to the validity of his crusade. He reflected on McCarthy in 1970, “…one of Joe McCarthy’s liabilities was a tendency to overstate his case. I think he hurt himself a good deal by this overstating his case, and he offended a lot of Republican senators by some of the statements he made” and further stated, “I haven’t agreed with Senator Fulbright on the way he performed either during the Eisenhower Administration or during the Johnson Administration, or even currently. But he was a senator of the United States, and I really resented when McCarthy got up on the floor and referred to him as Senator Halfbright. I mean, it was this kind of a thing, you know, that just isn’t done” (Frantz, 21).

As a leader, Knowland was not as skilled as Democratic leader Lyndon B. Johnson, who often got the better of him. As veteran journalist William S. White noted, “Knowland was very inflexible and not one-tenth as bright as Johnson in maneuvers and so on. So Johnson took care that he always maintained a very close personal relationship with Knowland, so that he could approach him at any time. He really just sort of overwhelmed Knowland with his brilliance as a leader” but also added that, “It only meant that he was a more intuitive man, operating with more freedom of motion in a more relaxed party. To put it another way, the stiffness of Knowland, an honorable and very down-right man quite incapable of subtlety, had a kind of inevitability in the very nature of his party. The flexible, inventive, more volatile characteristics of Johnson were in a sense really the human characteristics of his party” (Montgomery and Johnson, 140-141). President Eisenhower also noted Knowland’s deficit in leadership. He wrote in his diary on January 18, 1954, “Knowland means to be helpful and loyal, but he is cumbersome. He does not have the sharp mind and the great experience that Taft did. Consequently, he does not command the respect in the Senate that Senator Taft enjoyed” (Montgomery and Johnson, 150-151). While Knowland was without question a man of integrity in his public actions, his leadership deficiencies precluded moving higher. Interestingly, something that also connects to today is Knowland’s recounting of himself and other members of the Republican Senate leadership trying to convince President Eisenhower to replace some of Truman’s people in government departments, which he would not budge on as he did not want to be seen as attacking the civil service (Frantz, 24-25). Republican presidents since have been more friendly to the views of Knowland and other Republican bigwigs in the need to build up the party. Although Eisenhower had his differences with Knowland and others in the Republican leadership, Knowland rejected the interpretation that Eisenhower was ideologically closer to Democratic leader Lyndon B. Johnson than the GOP (Frantz, 29). In 1957, he sponsored an unsuccessful amendment retaining the restriction on bartering of commodities for communist nations, in keeping with his anti-communist stance. In 1958, Knowland successfully introduced an amendment blocking liberalization of the Battle Act as an amendment to foreign aid legislation to permit aid to communist nations aside from the USSR, China, and North Korea. Consistent with his views on unions, he also sponsored two unsuccessful secret ballot amendments to that year’s proposed labor reform bill.

Knowland and Civil Rights

After the decision of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), legislative action was bound to follow. In 1956, the House passed an Eisenhower Administration-backed civil rights bill, which focused on voting rights. Knowland and Majority Leader Johnson wanted to hold off on civil rights until after the election, and all but five senators agreed. In 1957, Knowland backed the Eisenhower Administration bill fully, and managed to bypass the Senate Judiciary Committee to bring it to the floor. The committee was chaired by James Eastland (D-Miss.), one of the most prominent and outspoken segregationists who made the committee a graveyard for civil rights bills. However, Knowland did not prevail in his effort to prevent weakening amendments, most notably striking the section of the bill granting the Attorney General authority to initiate 14th Amendment lawsuits and the adoption of a jury trial provision for contempt of court voting rights cases. Majority Leader Johnson had prevailed in the adoption of the latter two, which resulted in passage of the bill, as the Southern bloc had agreed not to have a coordinated filibuster if these weakening amendments were added. Johnson got a good deal of credit for securing the passage of the first civil rights bill, which also cemented him as a national rather than regional figure and made him a presidential contender.

Knowland atop an elephant during the 1958 Senate campaign.

Defeat and After

I have already covered the story of Knowland and the 1958 election, so long story short, he lost the gubernatorial election badly to Pat Brown in a deeply troubled campaign, and this ended his political career. Knowland sided with the liberal Americans for Democratic Action 31% of the time, and the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 77% of the time, both measures indicating a moderate conservatism. His DW-Nominate score is a 0.227. Knowland’s political career was over at the age of 50, and he resumed publishing, succeeding his father as publisher for the Oakland Tribune.

Although Helen Knowland’s extra-marital activities had ended with Blair Moody’s death in 1954, Bill’s affair with Ruth lasted until her death in 1961, and he continued to have affairs after. Finally, in 1972, the couple divorced so Bill could marry a much younger woman. However, she was a tempestuous woman, a full-blown alcoholic, and addicted to spending. This, combined with Knowland’s gambling addiction drained the family fortune. By 1974, Knowland was over $900,000 (over $5 million in today’s money) in debt to banks and mobsters. He considered selling the Oakland Tribune, but he ended up landing on a different course of action. On the morning of February 23, 1974, Knowland drove up to his compound in Guerneville, got his gun, went to his pier on the Russian River, and fired a shot into his right temple, dying instantly at the age of 65.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Farrell, J.A. (2017, March 21). Richard Nixon’s Ugly, 30-Year Feud with Earl Warren. Smithsonian Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-story-richard-nixons-ugly-30-year-feud-earl-warren-180962614/

Frantz, J.B. (1970, March 23). Oral history transcript, William F. Knowland, interview 1 (I). LBJ Presidential Library.

Retrieved from

https://discoverlbj.org/item/oh-knowlandw-19700323-1-00-05

Knowland, William Fife. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/5343/william-fife-knowland

Montgomery, G.B. & Johnson, J.W. (1998). One step from the White House: the rise and fall of Senator William F. Knowland. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Retrieved from

https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4k4005jq;chunk.id=0;doc.view=print

A Look at Hitler Was a Liberal by Joseph P. Kamp

There is a persistent ideological debate on where to place the Nazis. The American left loves to tar and feather the American right with comparisons to Nazis, and the common designation for Nazis is “far right” and the same people who apply that label I notice apply this label to a growing number of Republican officeholders. The right hits back by claiming that Nazism is a form of socialism, a rival socialism to Marx. The application of the term “Liberal” to Hitler is for most people a bizarre and unthinkable application. After all, Hitler and the Nazis were extremely socially conservative. However, it definitely can be argued that the Nazis’ efforts to undermine Christianity with a state-sponsored “Positive Christianity” go against the social conservatism of the United States, which is overwhelmingly based in Christianity. Joseph P. Kamp argued for Hitler being a liberal, as least a New Deal one, in 1949. But before I dive further into this, a bit of background on the author.

Background on the Author

Joseph P. Kamp, 1944.

Joseph Peter Kamp (1900-1993) was perhaps the most prolific right-wing pamphleteer of the 20th century. He started his activities in 1919 when the Constitutional Educational League was formed. Kamp become the organization’s lead spokesman in 1925, and basically became the League. In 1934, he would collaborate with Harold Lord Varney, Lawrence Dennis, and former Populist Congressman Milford W. Howard of Alabama in launching The Awakener, a newspaper that was strongly opposed to the New Deal and to the growing power of organized labor. Kamp authored numerous provocative pamphlets the Constitutional Educational League and later through Headlines, including Vote CIO and get a Soviet America (1944), We Must Abolish the United States: The Hidden Facts Behind the Crusade for World Government (1950), and Behind the Plot to Sovietize the South (1956). A notable pamphlet attacking Kamp was Joe Kamp: Hero of the Pro-Fascists by the organization Friends of Democracy. He was also regularly accused of anti-Semitism and fascism, including an indictment of the Constitutional Educational League in 1942 for allegedly seeking to undermine the U.S. Army and Navy. He was also indicted twice for contempt of Congress; first over his refusal to answer questions and the second time for refusal to disclose his backers and was convicted for the first time but acquitted the second time. While I think the charge of fascism is highly disputable for him, the anti-Semitism is pretty beyond dispute given what I have read of Kamp, and his association with notorious anti-Semite Willis Carto from the 1960s all the way up to the 1980s as part of Liberty Lobby includes letters the two wrote to each other. There is one in particular demonstrating that he was actively seeking to deny the Holocaust. The damning passage reads, “…I think I wrote to you once that I intended to deal with the allegation that six million Jews are supposed to have been put to death by the Nazis because the ADL now has the Catholic Church spreading this lie. When I get through demolishing the fable I am going to quote a Jewish author who writes that while FIVE million Jews are said to have been liquidated between 1933 and 1945, there were SEVEN million Christians who suffered the same fate” (Kamp, 1968). Kamp here is, ironically for someone on the right, not understanding “per capita” as there were far less Jews than Christians in Europe even if the figures he cites were accurate, as well as papering over that Jews were targeted directly for their religion as opposed to Christians who unless they were vocal faith-based dissenters were targeted because they were part of other groups the Nazis were interested in terminating. Simply put, he wished to downplay the impact of what he calls “Hitler’s anti-Jewish terror” (Kamp, 1968).  Anyway, on to Kamp’s pamphlet, Hitler Was a Liberal!

Kamp’s (1949) premise is, “Hitler’s ideology and program are shockingly parallel to the philosophy and measures currently expounded and promoted by a powerful clique of Americans who have the effrontery to call themselves “liberals”. This same “liberal” clique hails the results at the polls in the 1948 election as a “liberal” victory and a “mandate” from the American people for a “liberal” legislative program, a program which is strikingly similar to proposals set forth in Hitler’s Mein Kampf”. The paradox is due to the Red political smog which has been systematically exuded over our people to becloud their understanding of this time-honored and deeply-cherished American characteristic” (3-4).

Kamp proceeds to argue that the term “liberal” as commonly applied at the time of writing is a bad misnomer. He defines a traditional liberal as, “…one with generous mental horizons. He is open-minded, looks at both sides of a question. He has foresight as well as hindsight. He knows the past, and resolutely faces the future. He is not rutted in iron-clad tradition, nor given to impractical wishful thinking. He judges an issue in the light of fact and existing circumstance, and is not unduly swayed either be precept or roseate promise. He has common sense, good will and a profound belief in individual rights and liberties” (Kamp, 5).

Kamp considers those who call themselves liberal in 1949 thusly, “For the most part, his “liberalism” is characterized by VIOLENT OPPOSITION TO THE ESTABLISHED ORDER; which, according to him, has plenty of faults and few virtues; he is “all out” for revolutionary change – without a serious thought as to the consequences; he admits that there are two sides to every question – but the other side is always “reactionary;” he claims an open mind on everything – provided that it conforms to his own view” (6).

Kamp (1949) holds that “The real power behind the scenes Is not the Politburo; it is THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM. We are inclined to think of the cold war in terms of the Kremlin, and to forget that Russian Communism is but one form of Socialism in action. The history of Soviet Socialism goes back no farther than November, 1917. Marxist Socialism with its plan of world revolution goes back a hundred years. All Socialism springs from the same root and produces the same narcotic to liberty. There is no Socialism of any hue which is not based upon the sacrifice of human rights and liberties for State slavery, and all Socialism is a political pyramid dominated by a dictator and his chosen bureaucrats. Every attempt at applied Socialism in the world has resulted in a dictatorship” (9-10).

His case for Hitler the Liberal?

“If opposition to the conservative social order, the building of a welfare state, wholesale raids on private property and fundamental human rights (all of which the new “liberalism” is promoting in the United States) are the earmarks of a “Liberal”, then Adolf Hitler should be enshrined as one of the mighty heroes of the “liberal movement,” for who more than the paperhanger of Bavaria gave wholeheartedly of his time and genius to the “liberal” cause of destroying governments, property and human rights, and building Socialist – welfare – slave states” (Kamp, 13). He makes his case by comparing points in the Nazi Party’s 25 point program to what New Deal liberals were standing for in 1949.

Kamp’s Comparisons:

“Hitler proposed “nationalization of education to give equality of advantages to all.” Our “liberals” demand Federal Aid to Education – the prelude to “nationalization.”

“Hitler demanded “equal rights for all German citizens.” Our “liberals” demand an F.E.P.C. law.”

“Hitler promised “old age pensions.” Our “liberals” propose increased old age pensions and expanded Social Security.” (14)

“Hitler sponsored “nationalization of public health service.” Our “liberals” are backing Socialized Medicine.”

“Hitler demanded the “nationalization of trusts.” Our “liberals” want 19 more TVAs and the right to “nationalize” our steel industry as a starter.”

“Hitler was for “a strong central state power.” Our “liberals” want all Government power to be concentrated in a bureaucratized executive department, and to make Congress a “rubber stamp.”

“Hitler did something else that is “happening here.” He concentrated the taxing power in Berlin, and doled back locally collected tax money to local politicians who did his bidding. Thus he broke down local self-government which was in Germany, as it has been in the United States, the bulwark of freedom”. (Kamp, 15)

There are some significant issues here. While all of the NSDAP points he reports are accurate, the context leaves a bit to be desired to put it lightly. First, lets cover the most obvious one, “equal rights for all German citizens” equating to proposed anti-discrimination laws. This point completely neglects that anti-discrimination laws in the United States would cover Jews as religion-based discrimination was to be prohibited, while in Germany Jews were stripped of their citizenship, consistent with another one of these 25 points, thus “equal rights” does not apply to them. This cannot have escaped Kamp given that he clearly read the 25 points.

Second, the point of “nationalization of trusts” has an anti-Semitic basis, in that the owners of major department stores in Germany at the time of the platform were Jewish. Thus, it wasn’t just out of a sense of left-wing populism that Nazis went against “trusts”.

Third, Hitler’s proposed “nationalization of public health service” was not the equivalent of single-payer healthcare. Single-payer healthcare was a post-World War II phenomenon, not something that arose in Nazi Germany. Kamp seeks to tie New Deal liberalism together with the totalitarianism of Hitler and call both forms of socialism.

Some points that I find have greater accuracy are:

The comparison of “old age pensions”. Something to note is that Germany had already set up a social insurance system for invalidity and old age under Otto von Bismarck, and although the Nazi regime did plan on an expanded old age pension scheme to be paid for by “plutocrats”, the plan was shelved in 1940 until the war was to be won (The New York Times). This is a bit more accurate on Kamp’s part because the Nazis did intend on this to happen, although their focus was far more on war preparation.

The comparison of states and federal control. Nazi Germany outright replaced the authority of German states with party district leaders, who reported directly to Hitler. This destroyed sovereignty of individual German states. Kamp’s comparison between liberal efforts to expand and concentrate federal authority in the United States and Germany’s knocking out of sovereignty of individual states, although hyperbolic, is admittedly in the same direction of power orientation that modern liberals since at least the New Deal have sought. Democrats seek to consolidate power in the federal, and the Nazis sought to consolidate power on Germany’s national level.

Despite some actual points, the validity of comparisons have significant limitations. For one thing, the staunch social liberalism would find little to no place in the Nazi agenda save for pushes against traditional religions. Although there is a point to be had about parties making lofty promises for providing a lot and then providing dictatorship. Although Kamp points to federalization as a potential threat to freedom and I think there are substantial arguments behind this, he engages in hyperbole and regarding Hitler and “equal rights”, gross distortion.

References

Kamp, J.P. (1968, December 31). Letter to Willis Carto.

Retrieved from

Kamp, J.P. (1949). Hitler was a Liberal. New York, NY: Constitutional Educational League.

Retrieved from

Nazis Seen Shelving Old-Age Pension Plan. (1940, April 4). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Stapp, A. (2019, March 11). Tim Wu’s Bad History: Big Business and the Rise of Fascism. Niskanen Center.

Retrieved from

Retrieved from

https://www.niskanencenter.org/big-business-rise-fascism-bad-history-tim-wu/

The California Swap: A Great Political Misstep

Back in the 1950s, California had two Republican senators. What a concept, right? Their two senators were Minority Leader William F. Knowland and Thomas Kuchel. Knowland was counted among the conservatives and was a Cold War hawk, making opposition to Communist China and support of Nationalist China a signature issue. He had been a key player in pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 to passage, although he was unable to prevent the adoption of weakening provisions. California’s governor at the time was Goodwin “Goodie” Knight. From the late 19th century to this time, Republicans had been the dominant party in California. The last time the state had two Democratic senators was during the War of the Rebellion, and from 1896 onward, only once had a Democrat been elected governor, Cuthbert Olson, in 1938. He only served one term and is not considered one of the state’s notable governors, and had been succeeded by Republican Earl Warren, one of the state’s most notable governors and by this time chief justice. California Republicans were at the time a big tent party, having had prominent conservatives as well as progressives. Knowland as Republican leader since 1953 was one of the most prominent men in Washington.

William F. Knowland

By 1957, Knowland had his eyes set outside of the Senate. The 1958 elections were coming up, and on October 3rd, he announced he was running for governor. A popular narrative surrounding this decision is that Knowland had his eyes on the presidency and thought that being governor would be a good stepping stone to a 1960 run. He addressed this at the time, stating, “if nominated and elected, I will devote myself faithfully to the administration of the duties of the office for the term or terms to which I might be elected” but declined to issue a Sherman statement definitively ruling out a presidential run (Montgomery & Johnson, 240). Knowland’s declining to do so continued the speculation and accusations. In a 1970 interview, he denied the presidency was his motive, rather that he wanted to end his career on a high note and he wanted to return to California to be closer to his family (Frantz, 46). Knowland, however, would have to challenge popular Governor Knight for renomination, a task he felt up to. Knight initially resolved to face off Senator Knowland, however, he had secured the support of his colleague Kuchel as well as the entire Republican Congressional delegation and worse yet polling was showing he would be losing to Knowland 3 to 1 (Montgomery & Johnson, 240-241).  Knight kept out of the public eye in early November, but once he reemerged, he announced his bid for the Senate. Critics accused Knowland of masterminding the swapping of offices. However, he held that circumstances had “…opened up a false charge that this was a deal, whereby in effect I had entered into [an agreement] with Knight to get him out of the governorship and in turn get him into the senatorial race, which plagued me during the campaign” (Frantz, 45). If this is so, who or what was behind Governor Knight choosing to switch elections? The major sources were Vice President Nixon and the Chandler family, which owned the Los Angeles Times and were backing Knowland. In 1964, Knight himself identified Richard Nixon as the source of pressure for his switch, stating, “The long series of disasters which Republicans have suffered in California since 1958 can be traced to the ‘big switch’ in which I was denied financial aid unless I agreed to run for senator instead of governor” (Montgomery & Johnson, 242-243).  This switch negatively impacted the Republican ticket but in particular Knowland’s campaign. Essentially, Knowland was taking the fall for Nixon’s scheming. What’s more, Democrats had two solid candidates for both offices: Edmund “Pat” Brown and Clair Engle. Brown had been elected state attorney general in 1950 and Engle had represented the Sacramento Valley in Congress since 1943. Brown, a popular figure, ran on a platform of “responsible liberalism” and Engle could point to a significant achievement in his record in securing funds for the Central Valley irrigation project. There was also a significant statewide issue that benefited the Democrats and haunted the Republicans.

The Impact of Prop 18

An important issue in a number of states were “right to work” proposals. In California, this was Prop 18, and if enacted it would have allowed employees at a company that had a union to not join it as a condition of employment. This proposition motivated unions to go into overdrive in campaigning and getting their members out to vote. Knowland, who had repeatedly supported measures curbing the power of organized labor in the Senate, supported Prop 18 while Governor Knight opposed. Knight’s opposition as well as his record as governor did secure him some organized labor support. Knowland’s opponent, Democrat Edmund “Pat” Brown, ran heavily against Prop 18. Knight’s opponent, Democratic Congressman Clair Engle, also managed to win organized labor support.

Other Issues

Another issue for Knowland’s campaign was that he did not appear all that much in California in the early stages of the primary campaign, opting instead to campaign from Washington and worse yet, while he initially supported complete federal funding of the Trinity River portion of the Central Valley Project, he changed course and announced support or a deal involving Pacific Gas and Electric Company, in which they would construct power stations and sell the power for profit, with Pat Brown promptly taking the opposite position (Montgomery & Johnson, 243-244). Numerous missteps occurred in the Knowland campaign and there was clear disunity between Knowland and Knight. One such misstep was his wife Helen sending out copies of a pamphlet to Republican officials titled “Meet the Man Who Plans to Rule America”, a hit piece on United Auto Workers leader Walter Reuther by the extremely right-wing pamphleteer Joseph P. Kamp who had been accused of being anti-Semitic and a fascist (Montgomery & Johnson, 248-249). However, a devastating blow to the campaign came about when the disunity of the Republican ticket became official. On October 4th, Knight announced that he would not be supporting Knowland’s campaign for governor over his positions on labor issues (Montgomery & Johnson, 249). By the final weeks of the campaign, obituaries were being preemptively written for the Knowland campaign. Historically in California, the press supported Republican politicians, but the senator and Helen continued to make missteps on the campaign, and this resulted in a withdrawal of an endorsement by the San Francisco Chronicle and the endorsement of Pat Brown by the normally Republican San Francisco Examiner (Montgomery & Johnson, 252).

Results

The 1958 election resulted in Democrat Pat Brown winning 60-40 and Democrat Clair Engle winning 57-43 for the Senate. This was the real start of the rise of the Democratic Party in California. In Knowland’s home turf of Oakland, Republican Congressman John J. Allen lost reelection to Democrat Jeffery Cohelan, and Oakland would only move more and more to the left, never again being represented by a Republican. Knowland was reserved on whether he had made a mistake running for governor, stating, “Now, I don’t say that I would have been elected that year because we lost a lot of Republicans. You remember Sputnik had been put up. We had a recession on. We lost senators in the states where they didn’t even have the right-to-work issue on the ballot” (Frantz, 45). Worse yet for Republicans, Democrats managed to win control of both the State Senate and Assembly, the first time they had held both in many years. Democrats have consistently held majorities in both chambers since, the only exceptions being 1969 to 1971, when Republicans held a majority in both, and 1994 to 1996, when Republicans held a majority in the State Assembly. It is honestly hard for me to overstate how good of an election 1958 was for Democrats and liberalism and how bad it was for Republicans and conservatism. Pat Brown summed up the situation for the GOP, “The election has eliminated two people who very frankly, no matter what they say, don’t like Mr. Nixon. And I’m referring to Mr. Knowland and Mr. Knight. He’s the only one left, so you might say that helped – that left Nixon in charge of the Republican Party in California. There’s no one to challenge his leadership out here now” (Montgomery & Johnson, 258). Newly elected Clair Engle thought similarly. He stated, “Knight and Knowland were fighting like men until [Nixon] interceded and ran them in tandem” although he did not rule out a political comeback for Knowland (Montgomery & Johnson, 258)

Aftermath

Although Knowland maintained background influence in the California Republican Party and publicly through his ownership of the Oakland Tribune and supported Goldwater, Reagan, and Nixon, his political career was over. His end was tragic, he committed suicide in 1974 as he was facing financial ruin. His successor, Clair Engle, would tragically die of a brain tumor in office in 1964. Knight would try for office one more time, but lost the 1962 gubernatorial primary to Richard Nixon. Pat Brown would win another term in 1962, defeating Nixon and resulting in Nixon’s famous remark to the press, “You don’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference”. Although Brown would be defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1966, his son, Jerry, would serve in multiple positions in California, most notably governor from 1975 to 1983 and again from 2011 to 2019.

References

Frantz, J.B. (1970, March 23). Oral history transcript, William F. Knowland, interview 1 (I). LBJ Presidential Library.

Retrieved from

https://discoverlbj.org/item/oh-knowlandw-19700323-1-00-05

Knight and Engle Win Labor Backing. (1958, April 15). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Knowland Bid for Governor Fails; Engle Beats Knight in Senate Race. The Harvard Crimson.

Retrieved from

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1958/11/5/knowland-bid-for-governor-fails-engle/

Montgomery, G.B. & Johnson, J.W. (1998). One step from the White House: the rise and fall of Senator William F. Knowland. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Retrieved from

https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4k4005jq;chunk.id=0;doc.view=print

Nov. 7, 1962 – Richard Nixon’s “Last Press Conference”. Real Time 1960s.

Retrieved from

Pawel, M. (2018, November 6). The 1958 Governor’s Race That Launched a Dynasty. Zocalo Public Square.

Retrieved from

William Jennings Bryan Dorn: When Politicians Change

A general assumption exists that with politicians they ideologically come and go from Washington as the same people on ideological matters. Although more true today than it used to be, it is never a full guarantee. One example from the Deep South was Democrat William Jennings Bryan Dorn (1916-2005). Dorn was named after the politician William Jennings Bryan as his father wished for him to have a life in politics. He came on to the scene early, being elected to the State House in 1938 and the State Senate in 1940. His political career was interrupted by him serving in the US Army during World War II. On Dorn’s return, he sought to win election to Congress. He challenged incumbent Butler B. Hare of the 3rd district, who had served in Congress 16 years, and defeated him. Dorn proved to be to Hare’s right in his first term, and often disagreed with his party on certain key issues. Notably, he voted for Republican tax reduction bills, voted for Taft-Hartley, and even was one of the few Southern Democrats to vote against the Marshall Plan. Although only a man of 32 by the 1948 election, Dorn was highly ambitious and decided to challenge incumbent Senator Burnet R. Maybank. However, Maybank was sufficiently popular to survive Dorn’s challenge from his right. Although out of office, he wasn’t for long, and sought his old seat in 1950, now held by Hare’s son, James. This election proved to be a boon to the political right, and Dorn won renomination, tantamount to election in the at-the-time one party state of South Carolina.

Although of the right, Dorn stood out among the South Carolina House delegation in his support for public housing. However, he was opposed to price and rent controls and consistently backed foreign aid cuts. During the Eisenhower Administration, Dorn continued his opposition to foreign aid, supported releasing the regulation of natural gas prices from the Federal Power Commission, and started voting against public housing measures. He did, however, express a preference for public control over power generation and transmission, one of the ways in which many Southern Democrats remained New Dealers.

From 1961 to 1964, Dorn proved South Carolina’s foremost foe of New Frontier and Great Society measures in the House, even though his district had voted for Kennedy in 1960. This included opposing highly popular measures such as the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 for vocational training of the unemployed and the Educational Television Facilities Act of 1962 for the construction of public television stations for educational broadcasting. He voted against the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the Food Stamp Act of 1964, as well as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Medicare in 1965. Notably, this is contrary to South Carolina Encyclopedia’s biography on him, which depicts him as a supporter of LBJ’s anti-poverty program, which simply wasn’t so during Johnson’s time as president (Moore). Like other South Carolinian officeholders, Dorn was a segregationist and opposed every civil rights measure during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson Administrations. Given this record quite hostile to social welfare measures and high spending, how Dorn would legislatively behave during the Nixon Administration would prove surprising if not shocking.

The Nixon Administration: Some Surprises

Agreement rates, ADA and ACA.

A preview of Congressman Dorn’s changes came in 1968, when he supported an open-ended appropriation for food stamps. Although this change is not nearly as represented in Americans for Democratic Action’s (ADA) ratings as opposed to Americans for Constitutional Action’s (ACA) ratings, these came in the form of how he addressed social programs and even civil rights. In 1969, Dorn opposed a conservative substitute to extending the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which he had opposed only four years before. In 1970, Dorn was the only South Carolina representative to vote for a bill for federal aid for desegregation. This absolutely floored his colleagues, especially when one considers that in other ways Dorn’s record remained in his old ways. For instance, he opposed extending the Voting Rights Act in 1970 and continued to oppose funding for the Civil Rights Commission. Dorn was also the only South Carolina representative to vote against the Equal Rights Amendment in 1971. However, he also voted against another amendment that proved even more surprising; he was also the only South Carolina representative to vote against a school prayer amendment that same year. Dorn also voted against several legislative efforts to curb busing as a means for desegregation, including Rep. Broomfield’s (R-Mich.) and Rep. Ashbrook’s (R-Ohio) 1971 proposals. Although in 1969 Dorn had supported transferring anti-poverty functions to the states, he supported extending such programs despite President Nixon’s opposition to the bill for the level of spending and for containing a provision for government daycare. He also opposed a Republican substitute to anti-poverty legislation which had a simple extension with no funding increases or government daycare program or legal services corporation the following year. The reason, however, that ADA found him still pretty conservative while ACA found him considerably less so was due to his staunchly pro-military voting record. Dorn constantly opposed defense cuts and was always supportive of President Nixon on the Vietnam War. He also voted against the War Powers Act of 1973, which was passed over President Nixon’s veto. ADA placed considerably more weight on military issues than ACA, which although far from neglectful of military spending and Vietnam, placed more weight on issues of spending and government expansion. Dorn was furthermore an advocate for veterans, and thus was well suited for his time as chairman of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee from 1973 to 1974. In 1974, Dorn opted against another term in Congress to run for governor. This certainly seemed like a good idea, after all Republicans were being dragged down by Watergate. However, South Carolina defied this trend with the election of Republican Governor James Edwards. Dorn had sided with ADA 15% of the time during his time in Congress, ACA 72% of the time, and his DW-Nominate score is -0.017. None of these criterion really reflect the notion that Dorn was a “progressive populist” as South Carolina Encyclopedia’s profile depicts him in his later career (Moore). Sure, he became a bit more liberal, but his ACA agreement never fell below 48% and he never agreed with ADA more than 58% of the time in a given year. Although DW-Nominate’s score does not look conservative at all, bear in mind that party-line procedural votes get counted and that his score is higher than any Democrat serving nationally. Dorn tried again for governor in 1978, but lost the Democratic primary. From 1980 to 1984, he did one last service for his party by serving as the chairman of the state’s Democratic Party. Perhaps aside from the shifts in his record, the most interesting thing about Dorn is that his portrayal seems a bit different from reality.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Dorn, William Jennings Bryan. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/2672/william-jennings-bryan-dorn

Moore, W.V. (2016, May 17). Dorn, William Jennings Bryan. South Carolina Encyclopedia.

Retrieved from

https://www.scencyclopedia.org/sce/entries/dorn-william-jennings-bryan/