Does Cheney go far enough?

     In the past weeks, several class members have made blog posts about Liz Cheney's rift and eventual ousting from Republican House leadership over her refusal to accept Trump's baseless election fraud claims. Presumably, many students also wrote "Profiles in Courage" for Cheney in the most recent assignment as the stance she has taken is undeniably one that puts morals over politics. 

    A recent opinion piece in The Washington Post questions whether or not Cheney's rift with the GOP/Trump goes far enough to have a significant impact on the party and its power. Jennifer Rubin, the author of the piece, gives a cautionary note to those applauding Cheney: "before people get carried away with the notion that she will defend democracy at all costs, note that some of her answers suggest she does not yet appreciate what is necessary to defeat Trumpism." Rubin cites Cheney's refusal to leave the GOP as the largest hinderance to her supposed goal. She writes that in order to defend democracy, Cheney must help "prevent a GOP majority so long as it is under the sway of liars and authoritarians." Further, Rubin claims as long as Cheney is apart of the Republican party, she boosts the power of those following Trump's lies. 

    Rubin also critiques Cheney's response to Republican measures to restrict voting rights. The Republican ballot measures echo the sentiments of Trump's baseless election lies, yet Cheney will not condemn them as she claims they have been "misrepresented in the media." Again, the author asks whether Cheney is doing what is most logical to achieve her supposed goal of restoring democracy. "She will need to consider the consequences of electing a GOP majority and perpetuating a voter suppression crusade that undermines democracy."

    Here is a link to the full article. I would love to hear others' thoughts on her stance. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/14/liz-cheney-doesnt-go-far-enough/

Liz Cheney Ousted From Republican Leadership

Earlier this week, Sophie wrote about the build up to the vote to oust Liz Cheney from her spot as GOP Conference Chair. As expected, Cheney was voted out of her position as the No. 3 Republican leader in the House today, May 12th. In the same conference letter that House Minority leader called for another vote on Representative Cheney's leadership position, he called for focus on the 2022 midterms and claimed "we are a big tent party." The irony of this is that the big tent doesn't allow for criticism of the lies told by former president Donald Trump. Time will tell if the Republican party not only refusing to distance from Trump, but also ousting those who do want to distance from Trump, will end up to alienating moderate and independent voters who are not part of the core Trump base. 

Cheney has a 82% conservative voting score from the Heritage Action for America, a conservative advocacy group. Representative Elise Stefanik, her expected replacement, has a session score of 56% and lifetime score of 48% from the same group. It is worth noting that Stefanik is facing criticism for not being conservative enough, and her confirmation to the position that Cheney lost has yet to be confirmed. The ousting of a member who is more conservative than her potential replacement demonstrates the hold that Trump has on the Republican party, for loyalty to Trump is now a more important factor for Republican leadership than conservative policy stances. It is also notable that the vote to remove Cheney from leadership was not recorded, likely because McCarthy wanted to protect the Republicans from being critiqued on their vote one way or the other. McCarthy voiced that he is focused on unity of the party against Biden and Democrats going into 2022, so he also likely didn't want focus on the internal division. As Cheney mentioned, this is a defining moment for the Republican party. The 2022 midterms will reveal if this strategy pays off, though as we have discussed, conservative areas are gaining House seats and the opposing party has a major advantage in midterms. So if Republicans don't win, it will be a serious rebuke by voters.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/05/12/us/liz-cheney-biden/liz-cheney-ousted-voted-out 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/10/politics/mccarthy-house-conference-letter/index.html

https://heritageaction.com/scorecard/members/C001109/116

https://heritageaction.com/scorecard/members/S001196/116

Schumer and McConnell showdown previews floor fight on Democrats’ election bill - (Melinda Ximen Blogpost)

 The following is a post from Melinda:

The majority leader and minority leader of the Senate Rules Committee sparred over Democrats’ expansive election and ethics bill. Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell each accused the other’s party of trying to weaponize voting laws to expand its political power. 

This showdown between leaders serves as a preview for the upcoming floor right as the Democrats push forward on the election bill, S. 1. The legislation is a top priority for the party, especially its progressive base. Democrats say they must act as soon as possible to rein in laws pushed by GOP-controlled state legislature that are designed to restrict access to voting.

Tuesday’s markup is expected to last for hours as Republicans are offering 100 amendments. Manchin is the only Senate Democrat to not publicly sign on as a co-sponsor of the bill.

The elections proposal passed the House  on a near-party line vote in March and died in the Senate without a vote. President Biden has repeatedly spoken in favor of the bill, calling for Congress to send it to his desk during his first joint address.

Asian American lawmakers say State’s ‘assignment restrictions’ discriminate - (Melinda Ximen Blogpost)

 The following is a blog post by Melinda:

In an article from The Hill, Representative Andy Kim (D-NJ) describes leaving his job at the State Department after experiencing discrimination based on his Korean heritage. Although he never pursued work in the region, he was informed by letter during the Obama administration that he was barred from working on any issues related to Korea. 

The State’s “assignment restriction” is a heavily criticized policy, cited as a significant barrier to efforts aimed at improving diversity at the State Department. As a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Kim engages with State Department leadership on the restriction issue and to improve the retention and promotion of underrepresented minorities. 

“I just don’t want us to think about that [culture, native fluency, ties to other countries] as a liability or as a potential threat.” - Representative Andy Kim

Governor Gavin Newsom’s New Program

California Governor Gavin Newsom has met the state’s requirement to force a recall election. This recall is a response to Newsom’s efforts to navigate the pandemic and is generally supported by White supremacists, anti-Semites, and those opposed to immigration. Several Republicans have already entered the race to challenge Newsom, including Caitlyn Jenner. The state will vote on two questions: whether they want to recall Newsom and if so, who they would like instead. Newsom is not allowed to be included on the latter list. Currently, his approval rating is safely above 50%, though 4 out of 10 voters said they would recall Newsom. 

Today, Newsom proposed a new program within his $100 billion “California Comeback Plan”. This original plan included provisions from direct relief to reinvestment in public infrastructure and is intended to help Californians bounce back fully from the pandemic. This new program aims to pull from the $75.7 billion in surplus and use $12 billion on a year-over-year rebate. The passage of this plan would send $600 stimulus checks to those earning less than $75,000 and will benefit two out of every three residents. This plan would generate good publicity for Newsom in the face of this recall election, which is needed as more opponents join the race. 

https://www.ppic.org/press-release/four-in-ten-support-newsom-recall-job-approval-holds-steady/ 

House Republicans v. Liz Cheney

Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney is currently under intense fire as the House Republican Conference hopes to replace her as conference chair this Wednesday. She was elected around three years ago, with the support of Republican leadership. Her story from star to pariah is one that deserves attention, especially as our nation grapples with the “post-Trump” era politics. 

Cheney has worked in politics for decades, whether that is serving in GOP positions or hosting on Fox News. She worked at the Department of State and soon assumed the third highest position in the House Republican leadership in 2018. Cheney voted with President Trump 92.9% of the time and has demonstrated serious commitment to the Republican Party. However, she became one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after the January 6th Capitol attacks. She has publicly said that “none of this would have happened without the president”. 

The House Republican Conference held a secret ballot to determine whether they could remove Cheney as chair; however, the vote failed. Soon thereafter, the Wyoming Republican Party censured Cheney and called for her immediate resignation. They said they would no longer provide future political funding and to return GOP donations from previous elections. In response, Cheney stood by her vote and said her “vote to impeach was compelled by the oath I swore to the Constitution. Wyoming citizens know that this oath does not bend or yield to politics or partisanship”. On May 4th, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said Republicans are worried about Cheney’s ability to “carry out the message”. 

The Republican House members are now awaiting a vote to replace Cheney with Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York. She has demonstrated a more moderate voting record but has been outwardly and fully supportive of Trump. McCarthy stated that the reason behind this vote is because the Republican Party needs to focus on regaining the majority in 2022, instead of a single member. This vote highlights the issue of the Republican Party grappling with and without Trump in power and is definitely an event to watch. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/liz-cheney/ 

The Covid Vaccine, why the vaccination is so politically divided, and how to persuade skeptical Republicans

In a recent CNN poll about 44% of Republicans reported that they were not planning on getting a coronavirus, compared to a much smaller portion of Democrats. This trend is in keeping with what many other polls have found, with a Pew Research poll in late March finding that 83% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans plan on getting a Coronavirus Vaccination. What is particularly concerning is the 27 point gap in support for the coronavirus vaccinations between the two parties. Prior to the coronavirus, the anti-vaccination movement was not nearly as political as it was prior to the coronavirus. 

The anti-vaccination movement was not predominantly partisan, and instead had a large crossover with the alternative medicine movement. The alternative medicine is skeptical of pharmaceuticals, doctors, and the mainstream healthcare system. Part of the reason for this is that the healthcare system is harsh, impersonal, and expensive. The relationship between the doctor and the patient has been devalued as treatment got more specialized and the healthcare system became more efficient and industrialized. On the other hand, alternative medicine emphasizes the relationship between the practitioner and the patient, has well lit waiting rooms, relaxing and low stress environments, and makes the patient feel cared for as a person. Alternative medicine also offers promises of spiritual growth and a single treatment that will solve all of your problems. I have some experience in this area myself, as my mom believes in alternative medicine herself, and has sent me to different alternative treatments in many cases. Thankfully she is a good mother and did not see it as a replacement for my regular doctor, and used it as a means of treating the whole person that she feels gets neglected by the medical system. What appeals to many like my mother is that alternative medicine makes her feel cared for, valued, safe and secure. The treatments that they prescribe are digestible and understandable to her. She generally feels that things that are natural are good and it is always better to use something natural when it is an option. My mom also was not and has never been anti-vaccine, but she legitimately was concerned regarding there effects when I was young. 

During the coronavirus, a large political divide arose regarding wether the coronavirus was real, wether or not it had high death rates, wether or not masks were effective, and wether or not the vaccines can be trusted. The politicization of the coronavirus, no matter the cause, has become a major factor in why many Republicans who receive a flu shot and generally trust their doctors have expressed that they will not be getting vaccinated. The mismanagement and the politicization of of medical experts such as Dr. Fauci, the controversy over mask wearing, the spread of misinformation regarding the virus, and the controversy regarding lockdown measures have all contributed to creating an environment in which many previously pro-vaccine Republicans are skeptical of coronavirus vaccinations. 

Frank Luntz, a long time Republican strategist who is probably the most important name in understanding effective effective Republican messaging conducted a series of focus groups in order to try and determine how to persuade Republicans to receive the coronavirus vaccine. He invited a variety of different speakers such as House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Chris Christi, and a doctors who are politically conservative. Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's calls that the vaccine was part of one's civic duty and represented a great political victory for Republicans that they should applaud were not effective. Instead, Chris Christi's personal stories about the coronavirus in his family struck deeply with many of the focus group members. Most important was the medical professionals who were explicitly non-partisan, mentioning that 95% of physicians plan to get the coronavirus vaccine. Members were asked who they most trusted regarding the coronavirus vaccine, with the list including the WHO, the CDC, Anthony Fauci, Donald Trump, and their own doctor. The panelists overwhelmingly said they would listen to their own doctor. While medicine will always be political, and it is impossible to separate the coronavirus response from politics, the focus groups clearly demonstrate that the messaging on vaccinations has to change for the good of the country. Instead of emphasizing what the CDC says, or what Anthony Fauci says, or what nationally recognized health experts, or even prominent Republicans say regarding the coronavirus vaccination, messaging needs to center around the medical professionals in people's personal lives who they trust. If the goal is for people to vaccinate as many people as possible, listen to, understand, and empathize with those who are skeptical, and try not to encourage vaccinations by debating politics. Instead, encourage people to have a conversation with their own doctor who they trust and respect.\

Link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDW8c0cVd20&t=3s

Link to the focus group: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFVlLQduBF8&t=7s

What is happening in Florida?

 https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/552089-florida-gov-ron-desantis-signs-election-restriction-bill

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/552157-floridas-new-voting-law-immediately-hit-with-lawsuits

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) signed into a law a new voting bill. The bill requires voters who want an absentee ballot to submit a driver's license number, a state identification number or the last four digits of their Social Security number.  DeSantis and the Republicans that support this bill say this is to bolster confidence in the voting system once again, discussing again the 2020 elections and what they believe was potentially an illegitimate election. Many oppose this voting bill, and lawsuits have already been filed to reverse this decision. Many state this new law will cause discrimination and bar people from voting when they are eligible to vote. This new law for many is seen as a step back in what is a long road to voting rights and making sure everyone has access to vote freely. 

A Farewell to Zooms

Taft

• Prewar isolationism
• And why JFK downplayed that side of the story
• Nuremberg (start video at 11:00)
• Taft against NATO
• The story that led to the LBJ-RFK feud

On October 29, 1940, Congressman Lyndon Johnson happened to be in President Franklin Roosevelt’s office when FDR’s isolationist ambassador to London, Joseph Kennedy—at whom Roosevelt was furious for his freelancing and his insufficient outrage against Adolf Hitler—returned to the United States. LBJ omits the detail that as FDR invited Kennedy by telephone for dinner, he drew his finger across his throat, razor fashion. Johnson twits Roosevelt for his indifference to civil rights, contrasting that unfavorably with LBJ’s own record.

I was with President Roosevelt the day he fired Joe Kennedy. He picked up the phone and said, “Hello, Joe, are you in New York? Why don’t you come down and have a little family dinner with us tonight?” Then he hung up and said, “That son of a bitch is a traitor. He wants to sell us out.” Well, Kennedy did say Hitler was right.

Anyway, Roosevelt didn’t have any Southern molasses compassion. He didn’t get wrapped up in going to anyone’s funeral. Roosevelt never submitted one civil rights bill in twelve years. He sent Mrs. Roosevelt to their meetings in their parks, and she’d do it up good. But President Roosevelt never faced up to the problem.

Inherent limitations of Congress:

• Except in simulation, legislation is slow. (And swift action is not necessarily smart action.)
• In a body resting on geographic representation, parochialism is inevitable. (And it is often legitimate.)
• A multi-member, bicameral institution will have a hard time planning.  (And planning is overrated.)

From Profiles:

 Although the public good was the indirect beneficiary of his sacrifice, it was not that vague and general concept, but one or a combination of these pressures of self-love that pushed him along the course of action that resulted in the slings and arrows previously described. It is when the politician loves neither the public good nor himself, or when his love for himself is limited and is satisfied by the trappings of office, that the public interest is badly served.

... 

This is not to say that courageous politicians and the principles for which they speak out are always right. John Quincy Adams, it is said, should have realized that the Embargo would ruin New England but hardly irritate the British. Daniel Webster, according to his critics, fruitlessly appeased the slavery forces, Thomas Hart Benton was an unyielding and pompous egocentric, Sam Houston was cunning, changeable and unreliable. Edmund Ross, in the eyes of some, voted to uphold a man who had defied the Constitution and defied the Congress. Lucius Lamar failed to understand why the evils of planned inflation are sometimes preferable to the tragedies of uncontrolled depression. Norris and Taft, it is argued, were motivated more by blind isolationism than Constitutional principles.

 Review of the Dualities:

Two chambers: Bicameralism is real:  consider reopening

Two Congresses: Historical public opinion data and the two Congresses

Two parties:  polarization

Two political branches: even under POTUS 45

Mixed opinions on civility and compromise

Liz Cheney's Pro-Trump Challenger

 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/04/jim-banks-liz-cheney-gop-485269

An update from one of our class topics on Monday -- This article talks about Jim Banks, the Indiana Republican eyeing Cheney's 3rd ranking party seat. However, the typical practice of "keeping close to one's vest" when climbing the ranks in Congress does not describe Banks' strategy.  He has outwardly condemned Cheney's "attacks" and is being praised by McCarthy at the same time. If the Republican party is indeed the party of Trump, Banks may be in the running for a promotion sooner than later. On the other hand, can Cheney's role in the House be separated from her opinion of Trump?

And an interesting point raised -- 

"But replacing the highest-ranking woman in GOP leadership with Banks, or any other white male, could be a major optics problem for a party that has made recruiting more women and minorities a key part of its strategy for winning back the House next year."

Combatting Sexual Assault in the Ranks: Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act

Note to Readers: The views expressed within this blog post are NOT to be interpreted as the views of the United States Army or the Department of Defense. These views are my own personal interpretations of recent events and shall not be associated to my uniformed duties and service. This post shall only be expressed and shared within the confines of this course. 

____________________

Written By: Jordan J. Venglass ('21)

Over the past year, the United States public has gained insight into the growing struggles that the Department of Defense has had when it comes to combatting sexual assault within the various military branches. After the tragic events that unfolded on Ft. Hood with the murder of SPC Guillen, the outcry for external involvement from the federal government became clear. 

Senior officials responded with mandating an extensive independent review of the command climate and culture at Ft. Hood, which highlighted several concerning statistics and eye witness accounts from soldiers based on the instillation. (1) It became clear that the Army's leadership from noncommissioned officers to senior field grade officers had contributed to a toxic command culture that undermined the Army's commitment to safety, respect, inclusiveness, diversity, and freedom from sexual harassment. (1)

(For this interested on the background context, please review the PDF which can be downloaded at the following link: US Army Fort Hood Review Website. I have read the entirety of the PDF and been engaged in several officer led discussions on the matter and I must say it is eye opening. **Trigger Warning: Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Etc.)

After months of debate regarding next steps from the review, legislators have taken action into their own hands and are now introducing the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. (2) This new bipartisan legislation is led by, "Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), chair of the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, alongside U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), President of Protect Our Defenders Colonel Don Christensen, USAF (ret.), survivor Amy Marsh, and IAVA Executive Vice President Tom Porter." (2) This would introduce the concept of independent prosecution of service members who are under investigation for related crimes and provide increased funding for professional training that would assist senior military leaders in combatting this reoccurring issue. (2) This is notable due to the fact that it is attempting to replace an out dated model that relies of the chain of command to prosecute and investigate these matters. (2) 

For those not within or familiar with the military's inner workings, there is an undeniable complication when it comes to reporting occurrences due to the hierarchy that is innate within the profession of arms. The concept of one's rank has limited the voices of many survivors of sexual assault and abuse due to a fear of retaliation from those outranking the victim. However, this legislation provides hope to countless brave service members who have sacrificed much and quietly endured traumatic experiences while working in service to our great nation. As a soon to commission officer, I plan to do my part in rewriting a dark history regarding this topic within the ranks of my unit. 

“Sexual assault in our military is an epidemic and it’s clear that the current system is not working for survivors. Despite repeated efforts to protect our women and men in uniform rates of harassment and assault continue to rise while prosecutions decline. Congress has a solemn responsibility to protect our service members, and right now we have more work to do,” said Senator Gillibrand. (2)

_________________

Works Cited:

(1): US Army Fort Hood Review Website

(2): Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act

Rep. Charlie Crist (FL-13) Enters FL Governor's Race

 Rep. Charlie Crist (D-FL-13) has entered the race for FL Governor. Now a Democrat, Crist ran for Governor in 2014 as a Democrat, ran for US Senate in 2010 as an Independent, and served as a Republican governor from 2007-2011. 

We talked about him in class before, noting how an embrace from President Obama tanked his popularity among Republicans toward the end of his governorship - now that embrace and those words of approval from Obama feature prominently in his debut campaign ad (included in link above).

Crist is the first high-profile Democratic entrant, but the field is about to get bigger. Democratic Commissioner of Agriculture Nikki Fried, the only Democrat to win statewide since 2012, has not officially declared, but is producing slick advertisements touting her accomplishments as ag commissioner, support of medical/recreational marijuana, and criticism of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) (how many ag commissioners release campaign-style videos just for fun?). She also regularly retweets posts saying she would be a great governor, etc., making her intentions clear. Rep. Val Demings (D-FL-10) is also publicly mulling a run for either Senate or Governor.

So why would Crist enter the race with a high-profile Dem already all but officially declared? Republicans have firm control of FL redistricting and Crist represents a seat with an EVEN Cook PVI that will almost certainly grow more Republican in 2022. A similar trend is seen with Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL-7) who has all but officially declared her intention to run against Sen. Marco Rubio in 2022 - her district is D+3, but likely to become more Republican in 2022.

Regardless who the Democratic nominee for governor is, it will be hard to unseat DeSantis who enjoys a healthy approval rating (55% in this poll from early April - when I went to the Florida Politics website page to get this approval poll link I got an ad attached below). DeSantis is already raising massive sums of money (over $6 million since the beginning of March) as he becomes a popular conservative figure that many believe is going to run for president in 2024. This has drawn comparisons to George W. Bush, who raised money from a national network of donors for his 1998 TX Governor's race and then benefitted from those connections in 2000.

Post-posting note - Zac Anderson, a Southwest Florida political reporter from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, tweeted that Crist's kickoff event was in a Black neighborhood and featured a gospel choir. Considering Crist's early support of Joe Biden and similar moderate profile, I wonder if he is explicitly trying to remake Biden's 2020 primary coalition built on strong support among Black voters, which powered him to a 39 point victory in the state (even before his SC and Super Tuesday victories, Biden polled strongly in Florida).

Treaties

 From Eman:

Last week, we were discussing foreign policy and national security issues in Congress. One critical role of Congress is ratifying international treaties. As we’ve seen with the Paris Agreement and several other international policies during the past several administrations, this process of obtaining Senate ratification has become much more difficult due to political polarization. As a result, presidents have relied more on executive orders, and have occasionally been unable to join globally supported international agreements due to Congressional opposition. This was a challenge that President Obama faced several times throughout his administration.

One example is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, a treaty that has been active since 1994. UNCLOS is now a recognized framework for international law on states’ rights over oceans, as well as certain marine environment protections. Since then, several presidents, including President Obama, have attempted to get this treaty ratified. (https://www.voanews.com/usa/why-hasnt-us-signed-law-sea-treaty) Another example, as briefly mentioned in class, was the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In both of these examples, the United States played a key role in the writing of the international agreements. The U.S. participated in the conference which led to UNCLOS, and significantly contributed to the modification process. Meanwhile, the CRPD was largely based on the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Despite the US’ significant contributions to shaping these international policies, a common argument for Republican opposition to these treaties is that ratifying these agreements would limit sovereignty by overpowering American legal systems with international law. The Heritage Foundation recently published a list of treaties that they think the Senate should oppose under the Biden administration. (https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/IB6045.pdf)

Although Biden supported UNCLOS both as a senator and as the vice-president and was a part of Obama’s fight to ratify the CRPD, it is unclear whether he will try to revisit these old treaties and attempt to pass them in a narrowly Democrat senate. Based on history, it is unlikely that he would be successful if he does choose to pursue ratification. Therefore, the primary reason to propose this would simply be to get a voting record for future policy debates. However, looking forward, it will be interesting to see how political polarization continues to impact the treaty ratification process, and whether this influences the United States’ role in global affairs.

Congress and Political Courage

John F. Kennedy and Profiles in Courage

• Ted Sorensen wrote much of it, probably most of it.
• Questions about airbrushing racism.
• JFK was thinking about running for president, and in the mid-1950s, a Democrat needed the South. Map of 1956 election:

About “problems of political courage in the face of constituent pressures, and the light shed on those problems by the lives of past statesmen.’’ Three types of pressure:

• pressure to be liked
• pressure to be re-elected, and
• pressure of the constituency and interest groups.

The problem is that all three considerations have a legitimate place.

In addition to the courage of your convictions, you should also have the courage of your doubts.

Sometimes, compromise takes courage.

Adams

• Embargo: In 1807,  Jefferson asked Congress to embargo Britain as retaliation for British aggression against US merchant ships. The embargo hurt the Massachusetts economy.
• Odd parallel to JFK's own life.
• The House picks Adams in 1824
• The myth of the whisper spot
• The Gag Rule

Territorial Expansion and Slavery

Calhoun denounces the "all men are created equal" line in the Declaration

Daniel Webster was a Massachusetts senator (Whig) and one of the most distinguished members in Senate history. His trial by fire began in 1850 when he agreed to help Henry Clay of Kentucky push through a compromise bill that would keep the Union together. Webster’s famous “Seventh of March” speech in favor of Clay’s compromise bill asserted that slaveholders were entitled to property rights, that fugitive slave laws should be strengthened, and that the issue of slavery should be put aside in order to keep the Union together at all costs. The speech enraged his constituents and ended his career as a Senator, since Webster knew that his speech would make him unelectable in Massachusetts thereafter. On July 22, 1850, Webster resigned from the Senate to become secretary of state.

Thomas Hart Benton, senator from Missouri, was included in the book primarily for his actions in 1847-1849 against John C. Calhoun's resolutions to keep Congress from interfering with the introduction of slavery in new territories. Although Missouri was a slave-owning state, and Benton himself owned slaves, he was deeply opposed to the introduction of slavery into new territories. Benton was concerned that the issue was being exploited by Southern and Northern partisans and would be a barrier to western expansion. Calhoun was successful in getting legislators from slave-owning states, including the rest of the Missouri delegation, to back his resolutions. Benton's refusal to vote for Calhoun's resolutions cost him the popularity he previously had in his state, and he was stripped of all of his committee memberships except Foreign Relations. In 1850, Benton was still opposed to the series of measures known as the Great Compromise and did not hesitate to make his feelings known in the strongest possible terms. However, Benton was constantly called out of order by Vice President Millard Fillmore, the presiding officer. On April 17, 1850, when Fillmore called Benton out of order again, debate became so heated that Benton was almost shot by Henry Foote of Mississippi. 

Benton was voted out of office in 1851, returned to Congress in 1853 as a representative, but lost his seat in 1855 and spent the remaining years of his life fruitlessly seeking a return to public office. Although his uncompromising stand on prohibiting slavery in new territories ended his political career, the wisdom of Benton's opinion was borne out a few years later and was one of the factors that kept Missouri from seceding from the Union.

Sam Houston earned his place in Profiles in Courage by his refusal to support the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This bill repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and would have allowed the residents of territories from Iowa to the Rocky Mountains to decide the slavery issue themselves. A Southerner by birth and one of the first two senators from Texas, Houston felt that the act would further divide the Union. Throughout the 1840s, Houston had upset many Southern Democrats by tangling with the powerful John C. Calhoun, saying that Calhoun was trying to destroy the Union by introducing his "hands off" slavery legislation. The "last straw" was Houston's vote against the Kansas-Nebraska Act. He was the only Southern Democrat to vote no. Houston's constituents were furious and rumors of his political demise were rampant. Not one to engage in a defensive fight, Houston announced his plan to run for governor of Texas as an independent while he was still in the Senate. Despite his oratorical gifts and sheer physical presence, the citizens of Texas did not forget his "anti-Southern" vote against the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Houston was defeated for the governorship and was dismissed from the Senate by the Texas legislature in 1857. However, two years later he was asked to come out of retirement to again run for governor of Texas, and his election was a major setback to Southern pro-slavery extremists. In February 1861, despite Houston's valiant attempts to stop it, the Texas legislature voted to secede from the Union. His refusal to take the oath of allegiance to the Confederacy led to his ouster as governor in March 1861.

Edmund Ross, a Kansas Republican, cast the deciding vote that ended the impeachment proceedings against President Andrew Johnson. The proceedings began because doctrinaire "Radical Republicans," then in control of the Senate, passed a Tenure of Office Act to prevent a president from firing cabinet members without Senate consent. This was done to try to stop Johnson from firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Johnson believed Stanton was a tool of the Radicals who wanted to establish a military dictatorship in the South. Johnson felt the wiser course would be to reconstruct the Confederate states back into the Union as quickly as possible without unnecessary military intervention, as Lincoln had intended. When Johnson fired Stanton, the impeachment began. The House voted for impeachment and the trial then moved to the Senate. As the trial went on it became clear that the Republicans had no intention of giving Johnson a fair trial; rather, their emphasis was on convincing enough senators to find Johnson guilty. Ross was overheard saying that while he had no sympathy for Johnson, he would do his best to see that he was fairly tried. Because Ross had previously been such a partisan Republican, he became the principal target of abuse from the press, the public, and his fellow Republican legislators. Nonetheless, Ross voted against convicting Johnson, reasoning that if a president could be forced out of office by insufficient evidence that was based on partisan disagreement, the presidency would then be under the control of whatever congressional faction held sway. Ross's action unleashed relentless criticism. Neither he nor any other Republican who voted to acquit Andrew Johnson was reelected to the Senate, and Ross and his family suffered ostracism and poverty upon their return to Kansas in 1871. Eventually, Ross was vindicated by the Supreme Court, which declared the Tenure of Office Act to be unconstitutional, and praised by the press and the public for having saved the country from dictatorship.

SOME HISTORIANS BELIEVE THAT ROSS WAS ON THE TAKE.

Lucius Lamar, Democrat from Mississippi, gave a eulogy on the House floor as a freshman representative in 1874 upon the death of Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. Sumner was hated by most Southerners because of his opposition to slavery and his vehemence in denouncing slaveholders. In 1856 Sumner was brutally caned on the Senate floor by Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina. 

Later in his career Sumner's views towards the South became more moderate. Lamar's eulogy, which praised Sumner's desire for unity between North and South, was a sensation and many in the South felt it a betrayal. In 1876, Lamar was elected to the Senate and once again acted in opposition to his constituents and his party when he agreed to the findings of an election commission that gave the presidency to Republican Rutherford Hayes. The commission's findings were controversial, but Lamar felt that acquiescing to them would stave off another sectional controversy that might have meant more bloodshed. He further alienated the people of Mississippi when he voted against free silver measures that would have enriched the state in the short run. However, Lamar kept his Senate seat until 1885, when he resigned to become secretary of the interior and finally, a justice of the Supreme Court.

George Norris, a Republican from Nebraska, first came to national attention in 1910 as a young representative. He introduced a reform resolution that would strip Speaker Joe Cannon of much of his power by taking away his authority to appoint committee members and their chairmen and by removing the Speaker from the Rules Committee. To everyone's surprise, Norris was able to get enough votes to pass his resolution for a rule change, and the power of "Czar" Cannon began to wane. This move made him extremely unpopular with Cannon, as well as with some other members of the Nebraska delegation, and showed early on that Norris was not afraid to stand up to powerful individuals. In January 1917, President Woodrow Wilson asked Congress to authorize him to arm American merchant ships, many of which had been searched and sunk despite the fact that the United States was still officially neutral in the war at that time. Although Wilson's request was immediately popular with the American public, Norris and Wisconsin senator Robert La Follette fought against the measure. Norris was an isolationist and a pacifist who felt that Wilson's bill was a ruse by big business to get the United States into the war in Europe, and believed Wilson was trying to stampede the public into pressuring the Senate to pass his bill and enter the war. La Follette and Norris filibustered the bill and kept it from passing, but their victory was short-lived: Wilson stated that executive power already included the right to arm ships without congressional approval. Norris was the only member of the Nebraska delegation to vote against passage of the bill and he was excoriated on every side. He wrote the governor of Nebraska and offered to resign from the Senate, saying that if the people of Nebraska no longer felt that he was representing them adequately, he should step down. Norris traveled throughout Nebraska to explain his views to his constituents, and in the end, the governor declared that he would not ask for a special election. Norris touched off a firestorm of criticism in 1928 when he, a "dry" Republican, backed Al Smith, a Catholic Democrat who was anti-Prohibition, for president rather than Herbert Hoover, the Republican candidate. Smith's liberal views touched a chord in Norris, who felt that the only place for progressive Republicans like him was in the Smith camp, rather than with Hoover, whom Norris felt was owned by monopolistic power companies. Norris went on to serve in the Senate until his defeat for re-election in 1942.

• Something that JFK leaves out of the story of Norris and the Armed Ship Bill

Robert A Taft, the son of William Howard Taft, was known as "Mr. Republican": a conservative's conservative, with presidential aspirations. Taft made a speech at Kenyon College in October 1946 called "Equal Justice Under Law" in which he strongly opposed the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials that were just ending. The defendants were the architects of the Nazi regime who had been found guilty of waging a war of aggression and had been sentenced to death. To Taft, the defendants were being tried under ex post facto laws (laws that apply retroactively, especially those which criminalize an action that was legal when it was committed). These laws are expressly forbidden in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, section 9 and section 10). Taft viewed the Constitution as the foundation of the American system of justice and felt that discarding its principles in order to punish a defeated enemy out of vengeance was a grave wrong. Speaking out against the Nuremberg Trials seemed quixotic at best and unpatriotic at worst. He was pilloried in the press, by his constituents, by legal experts, and by his fellow senators on both sides of the aisle. The fallout from the speech may have also played a small part in his unsuccessful presidential bid in 1948. However, Taft so strongly believed in the wisdom of the Constitution that speaking out was more important than his personal ambitions or popularity. Many years later, William O. Douglas of the Supreme Court agreed with Taft's view that the Nuremberg Trials were an unconstitutional use of ex post facto laws.