Okay, you hear Scranton, Pennsylvania and what do you think?  In contemporary America, most think of a branch office of the Dunder Mifflin Paper Company and its quirky branch supervisor Michael Scott (played by Steve Carell).  But one of the descendants of the founders of the city, steel moguls Selden and George Scranton, was William Scranton III, the progressive (or at least moderate) Republican governor of the state from 1963-1967.

No sooner had he been inaugurated as governor than a “draft Scranton for president” movement began.  This might not have happened in ordinary times, but in early 1963, it was becoming clear that Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona would be a serious Republican candidate for president in 1964.  An affable fellow whom John F. Kennedy liked and hoped would win the nomination so that they could have a traveling debate show, Goldwater was a serious threat to the moderate-to-progressive wing of the Republican Party.  This included Senator Jacob Javits about whom I have previously written.  Richard Nixon was about as conservative as moderate members of the GOP could tolerate; Goldwater was considered beyond the pale.

In 1963, Nixon was “between comebacks” and not available to challenge Goldwater.  Moderate Republicans, mostly from the Northeast, looked for “one of their own” to challenge Goldwater.  William Scranton had all the credentials — coming from a prominent family, a graduate of Yale and Yale Law School, a Presbyterian, and attorney by profession.  He had served a term in the House of Representatives and had some foreign policy experience, having served as a special assistant to U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles.  While his resume was not full of accomplishments, the key to his viability was that he was “clean, good-looking, and calm in demeanor.”

But Goldwater had learned a lot from his friend across the aisle, Kennedy, and he put together a juggernaut campaign in 1964, staffed by young, energetic, passionate, and resourceful individuals.  Kennedy was going to be tough to defeat, and after Kennedy’s tragic assassination, Lyndon Johnson had the strength of the nation’s sympathy, so mainstream Republicans largely left the path to their nomination open for Goldwater.  Scranton never declared himself as a candidate to oppose Goldwater; he just didn’t resist the “Draft Scranton” campaign initiated by his fellow northeastern Republicans.

Scranton served the entirety of his term as governor from 1963 – 1967.  He focused on the state’s educational needs, pushing through legislation creating the state’s community college system and a Higher Education Assistance Agency.  Nothing earth-shattering, at least for the times, but unlike many of today’s Republican governors, he did not try to dismantle what was there.  Under Pennsylvania law he was limited to one term, and when Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968, on the wave of one of his numerous comebacks, Scranton accepted a position as a special envoy to the Middle East.  He favored an “even-handed” policy in the Middle East, meaning that he endured some enmity from the American Jewish community.

When Gerald Ford assumed the presidency following another Nixon demise (his resignation), the new president asked Scranton to become United States ambassador to the United Nations.  Scranton accepted the short-term appointment and focused on human rights; again a strategy rather foreign to recent Republican ambassadors to the U.N.

Also to Scranton’s credit is that he assumed a very difficult task following the Kent State shootings in 1970.  He was chairperson of the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest.  The “Scranton Report” called the Kent State shootings “unjustified” and acknowledged that the ebb and flow of campus unrest was directly related to U.S. escalation in Vietnam and Cambodia.

As we write this, Scranton is 92 years old.  His name has long since drifted from the headlines.  His record includes accomplishments in the fields of education, human rights, and international cooperation.  In light of the positions and demeanor of today’s Republican Party, his greatest accomplishments may lie in what he did not do.  He did not seek to fragment; he did not demonize; he did not participate in the dismantling of government that Barry Goldwater and later Ronald Reagan advocated during the time that Scranton was active.

If he were in the U.S. Senate now, would Scranton collaborate with Democrats?  This falls into the world of conjecture, but it’s likely that he would keep his distance from the likes of Mitch McConnell or John Boehner.  That would be a first step for today’s Republicans; to have the temerity to “just say no” to the bullying of its leaders in Congress and most virulent supporters in the populace.  Of course this all begs the question of whether he could be elected today.  It will be a fine day for the country when a William Scranton can be present and accepted in the tent known as the Republican Party.

The post Another (possibly) progressive Republican appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Not too many years ago, General Motors tried to sell their Oldsmobile brand (nee 1897) to a younger generation.  The slogan was “this is not your father’s Oldsmobile.”  In other words, Oldsmobile was not designed for elderly suburbanites who drove to the country club and discarded their cars after a couple of years.  Eventually, most wound up in the hands of  poor people who sometimes souped them up.  The “new Oldsmobile” was supposed to be a “hip car” for a “hip generation” and stay fashionable forever.  It croaked on April 29, 2004.

One of the good things about the “good old days” of dad’s Oldsmobile was that that their Republican party earned credit for participating in the advancement of civil rights,  as well as basic civility in our political process.  Young people who wonder what the Republican Party was like before it became the “party of no” may recall learning about Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower.

Actually, the Republican and Democratic parties collaborated quite a bit well into the 20^th century.  They had to, because both parties were populated by both liberals and conservatives.  Republicans and Democrats crossed party lines to advance their causes.

Arthur Vandenberg was a Republican senator from Michigan who opposed most of FDR’s New Deal.  On foreign policy he was largely an isolationist up until World War II.  Then he saw the need for international collaboration.  On January 10, 1945, he delivered a celebrated “speech heard round the world” in the Senate chamber, publicly announcing his conversion from isolationism to internationalism.  In 1964, Illinois Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen joined with President Lyndon Johnson to pass a landmark civil rights bill.  Johnson had the burden of twenty-two Democrats (so-called Dixiecrats) representing the eleven states of the old Confederacy.  He was not going to get any of their votes.  When the actual vote took place on June 19, 1964, 66% of Democrats voted for it.  But that amounted to only 44 votes.  The Republicans put national interest ahead of partisan politics and actually beat the Democrats at their own game, with a whopping 82% of their 33 members voting for the bill.

Ironically, the bill passed only a month before the GOP nominated highly conservative Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona for president.  While Johnson soundly defeated him in November of 1964, Johnson predicted that this election would be the beginning of the end of Democratic dominance of the southern states.  He was right: Now eighteen of the twenty-two seats from the old Confederacy are occupied by Republicans.  This is not “your father’s (or grandfather’s)  GOP.  In 1964 Republicans joined Democrats in saying ‘yes.’  This was just about the time that the James Bond movie, “Dr. No” came out, and that seems to have become the mantra of the Republicans in recent years.

When we hear Republicans now claiming that the Democrats are not interested in bi-partisan cooperation, they are simply forgetting the history of the last half century.  The parties used to be amalgams of individuals seeking office, and the leaders of each party had to be especially skillful in fashioning majorities.  The battles were not so much based on party identification as they were issue oriented.  Unfortunately, many in today’s Republican Party have discarded real interest in issues in favor of promoting partisan polarity and demonizing the Democrats.  This is easy to do when your agenda essentially consists of obstructing.

While some Americans prefer a government agenda of doing nothing, most want services provided to them that promote their personal welfare as well as that of their family members, friends, and society as a whole.  This requires robust government action that not only follows people’s needs, but anticipates them in advance.  Your father’s Republican party clearly had members who could do that; the present party is like the dads who become “grumpy old men.”

We welcome a Republican Party that wants to participate in the solutions to today’s and tomorrow’s problems.  But first it has to go through a self-examination and cleansing process.  Democrats: Please be respectful to Republicans who are looking for opportunities to help.  As for the others who have little interest in governance, then govern without them.  This will be good for the Democratic Party, ultimately for the Republican Party, and most importantly for the American people and other citizens of the world.

The post Not your father’s GOP appeared first on Occasional Planet.