Eight years after former President Harry Truman died in 1972, Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton was involved in a tough re-election campaign. His opponent was former St. Louis County Supervisor, Gene McNary. Eagleton was very popular in spite of the fact that 1980 was trending towards a heavily Republican year. Ronald Reagan swept Jimmy Carter out of office, and Republicans picked up a net of twelve seats in the Senate to take control of the upper chamber. The number of Democrats in the Senate fell from 58 to 46.

Republicans targeted Democrats with their so-called “moral majority” and a PAC known as the National Conservative Political Action Committee. It was a forerunner to the ones constructed more recently by Karl Rove.

Eagleton was initially considered unbeatable because (a) he had served his Missouri constituents exceptionally well, and (b) he was no longer the pro-gun control, large spending progressive that he had been when first elected in 1968 (or at least he didn’t espouse those positions). But when Republicans sensed that they were going steamroll the Democrats, they added Eagleton to their list of highly vulnerable Democrats.

McNary was in many ways a strong candidate for the Republicans, well-spoken, handsome, and familiar with the working of government. However, he had somewhat of a tin ear when it came to tuning in to the wishes of the people. He made the mistake of asserting that if Harry Truman were still living [in 1980], he would become Republican. Eagleton quickly saw the absurdity of this contention and immediately wrote Truman’s daughter Margaret Truman Daniel with a request that she send a public letter to McNary straightening him out. She noted the absurdity of McNary’s assertion for its “lack of knowledge both of Harry Truman and of recent American history. As most Americans know, Harry Truman was not just a Democrat. He was a dyed-in-the-wool ‘give-em-hell’ Democrat.” The kicker was when she related the following about her father:

He [Harry Truman] once summed up his view of the Republican Party thus: “… I have studied the Republican Party for years at close hand …. And I have discovered where the Republicans stand on most of the major issues. Since they won’t tell you themselves, I am going to tell you.” The letter included the following Truman assertions: Republicans “approve of the American farmer – but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand foursquare for the American home – but not for housing. They are strong for labor – but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights. They favor a minimum wage – the smaller the minimum the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all – but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospital are fine – for people who can afford them.”

More than sixty years after Truman’s assertion of the nature of the Republican Party, most Democrats hesitate to set the record about the mistaken notions of many Republicans. That was also the case in 1980 as Eagleton struggled to win his third term. But Eagleton received the gift of Republican gab, something which is happening to Barack Obama in advance of the 2012 election, thanks to the likes of Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and even the likely GOP nominee, Mitt Romney.

Truman spoke of Republican views on agriculture, housing, labor including the minimum wage, education, and health care. In all cases, he asserted that Republicans wanted to do nothing more than protect the interests of the “haves.” Eagleton drove this point home to voters and was able to buck the Republican tide in 1980 and win his election in Missouri.

If anything is certain it is that Republicans will continue to speak with arrogance about entitlements that they regard as due to the “haves” in our society. Democrats can retreat as if they received a left hook from Smokin’ Joe Frazier, or they can go toe-to-toe with the Republicans and explain how the interests of most Americans are jeopardized and eventually damaged by Republican policies. Truman won unexpectedly in 1948 by standing up to Republicans; Eagleton did the same thing thirty-two years later.

Barack Obama’s task is more difficult that Truman or Eagleton’s because in word and deed he has capitulated to many Republican policies. However, in recent months he has begun to stand his ground. We’ll learn much more about the president’s fortitude over the next year as we see, in the words of Truman, if he can “stand the heat of the kitchen.” When the going gets tough for the president, it would serve him well to look back on the wisdom and fortitude of Harry Truman and Tom Eagleton.

Some information for this book was gathered from Call Me Tom by James N. Giglio [University of Missouri Press, 2011]

Tom Eagleton was a remarkable individual from whom we can learn a great deal about what has happened in the United States since 1968 when he was first elected. We will provide more information on him in upcoming Occasional Planet posts.

The post How to stand up to Republicans: lessons from Truman and Eagleton appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In 1948, President Harry S Truman summed up his view of the Republican Party this way:

… I have studied the Republican Party for years at close hand …. And I have discovered where the Republicans stand on most of the major issues. Since they won’t tell you themselves, I am going to tell you.

Republicans approve of the American farmer – but they are willing to help him go broke.

They stand foursquare for the American home – but not for housing.

They are strong for labor – but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights.

They favor a minimum wage – the smaller the minimum the better.

They endorse educational opportunity for all – but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools.

They think modern medical care and hospital are fine – for people who can afford them.”

The post Harry Truman figured out Republicans a long time ago appeared first on Occasional Planet.

At a press conference shortly after signing the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, President Barack Obama was asked about his feelings on gay marriage.  The two major items on the agenda of the LGBT community as Barack Obama took office were repeal of DADT and gay marriage.

In a few short words in response to the question, he spoke volumes.  He said, “My feelings on this issue are constantly evolving.”  This phrase is rarely used and yet it is the key element in how we as a people change societal norms.

Think of the civil rights movement.  Interestingly enough, one of the early steps to advance equal rights for African-Americans was President Harry Truman’s decision in 1948 to desegregate the armed forces.  This is somewhat parallel to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

When Truman integrated the armed forces, most of white America was in no hurry to accelerate the pace of integration.  In 1948 the Ku Klux Klan was still very active and lynchings continued in the south until the 1960s.  The period following World War II brought a second wave of migration of African-Americans from the South to northern and eastern industrial cities.

Most white Americans were not ready to have African-Americans go to school with their children, work beside them in a factory or office, go to the same restaurants as them, stay in the same hotels as them.  The idea of inter-racial marriage was a taboo to some; sinful to others.

What happened so that white Americans came to accept African-Americans to the extent that they do now?  We are not without racial discrimination, but we have made remarkable progress since Harry Truman integrated the armed forces.

We evolved; that’s what happened.  The white citizens among us came to accept rights for African-Americans that would have been unthinkable one or two generations ago.  How did the evolution occur?

A good place to start would be with a simple quote from Dr. Martin Luther King when he was speaking at St. Louis University in the mid-1960s.  He said, “Laws may not change the hearts of people but laws will change their habits.”

This is why Dr. King and so many other civil rights advocates wanted legislation to protect the rights of African-Americans.  The law sets boundaries for behavior and when necessary it forced us to change our habits.  As individuals and society in general change habits, we evolve.  We see things from a different perspective.  What was previously unthinkable in time becomes common-place.

Anyone over forty years of age will remember when they started to see interracial couples.  Some were thrilled others were outraged.  But what everyone had in common is that they noticed.  The more we noticed the more it became part of our regular visual scenery.  It went from the realm of the unusual to the usual.  Most individuals of all races now accept interracial relationships and marriage without question.

Civil rights evolved in stages from the military to voting rights, to housing, to public accommodations and now to interracial marriage.  Who knows what would have happened if Dr. King, John Lewis, and other civil rights leaders had pushed in the 1960s to ensure the legality of interracial marriage.  It’s almost certain that it would have been rejected.  It’s quite likely that progress in the civil rights movement would have ceased and perhaps reversed.  America needed time to evolve and the “laddered” approach to extending rights gave people time to adjust.

Anyone of Barack Obama’s age or older did not grow up with the book Heather Has Two Mommies.  Initial reactions to that book probably ranged from curiosity, to mild annoyance, to absolute objection.  More and more heterosexual Americans are now accepting same-sex marriage.  But for most people, acceptance was not immediate; it required time to evolve.  When President Obama said that his views on the issue are constantly evolving, he was acknowledging that he was going through a process that most heterosexual Americans have done or are in the process of doing.

It’s possible that he is now personally quite comfortable with same-sex marriage, but he needs to evolve more before advocating full legal protection for it.  He wants to give the American people more time to live with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and other advances in LGBT rights.  Hopefully a time will come when public opinion on same-sex marriage will have evolved as it did with the repeal of DADT and he will be on terra firma to advocate legal protection.  That will have been evolution.

President Obama’s use of the word “evolving” can teach us a great deal about issues both public and private.  “Evolving” means moving from one place to another.  Prima facie, that means that there is more than one place where someone can be positioned on an issue.  It takes us beyond the mentality of “I’m right and you’re wrong.”  It allows us to accept the complexities of life.

America is a work in progress; we continue to evolve whether our leaders desire it or not.  It would be very helpful if the Democratic Party would embrace evolving opinions rather than try to imitate Republicans in locking themselves into rigid positions of judgment.  Same-sex marriage is an issue where the Democratic Party can strive to keep pace with public opinion and at the right time jump into the lead to codify another civil liberty.  In just eight words, President Obama taught us an important lesson.  It would serve all of us well to try to emulate his approach.

The post Same-sex marriage: the case for “evolving feelings” appeared first on Occasional Planet.