Early today I received the sad news that former Idaho Senator James McClure had died over the weekend at his home in Boise. Jim McClure played an important role in my early professional life, helping to launch me on a path that led to 16 years of combined work on Capitol Hill and in the Reagan Administration. It is quite possible that most regulars on this site are not familiar with McClure since he retired from public life in 1990, but his election to the US Senate in 1972, along with the legendary Jesse Helms of North Carolina that same year, marked an early key milestone in the history of the conservative revolution of the 1970′s that culminated with the Reagan election in 1980. McClure was a staunch conservative of the Western flavor in the tradition of Barry Goldwater. In the early 1960′s he served as Majority Leader of the Idaho State Senate and was a leader of the Goldwater for President movement in 1963; he was elected to the US House from Idaho’s First Congressional District in 1966 before his successful Senate campaign in 1972.
Somewhat like the second half of the decade just past, the early 1970s were particularly frustrating for political conservatives in that we had a Republican administration in power that expanded the size, power, and reach of the federal government at an alarming rate and that was presiding over an erosion in the strategic posture of the US vice the Soviet Union. The Nixon administration had imposed wage and price controls and had presided over the creation of a plethora of “New Left” regulatory agencies such as EPA and OSHA and was signaling its willingness to sign into law legislation proposed by left wing Democrats to create a federal “Child Development” agency [talk about government social engineering!] and impose federal government control over all state and local land-use planning. Conservatives represented a minority within the Republican Party caucuses of the Senate and the House, and those willing to actively and openly resist the Nixon Administration’s bad policies were an even smaller minority. But, in 1973 Senator McClure, along with Senators Helms and a couple other freshmen senators created the first formal organization of conservative senators in order to more effectively leverage their efforts to oppose liberal initiatives and to advance positive conservative reform initiatives. Called the Senate Steering Committee and chaired by Senator McClure, the new organization hired shared staff, including veterans from the Goldwater presidential campaign, students of economist Milton Friedman, and other assorted experts on policy and Senate parliamentary procedure. More senior conservative stalwarts such as Goldwater, James Buckley (C-NY), and John Tower (R-TX) quickly joined the effort. The Senate Steering Committee thrives today infused with new blood from last year’s election. At the same time a parallel conservative operation was initiated in the House in early 1973 called the Republican Study Committee that included many of the freshman and more junior conservative House members such as Philip Crane (Ill.), John Rousselot (CA), John Ashbrook (OH), Bob Bauman (MD), Marjorie Holt (MD), Steve Symms (ID), Barry Goldwater, Jr. (CA), Bill Archer (TX), among others. The House Republican Study Committee also exist to this day, now under the leadership of Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio.
The conservative organizations in both the Senate and the House, considering their highly minority status, were remarkably effective in derailing a number of the liberal policy initiatives described above. Particular synergy and leverage was achieved during 1975-76 as a result of the prospective and actual presidential primary campaign of Ronald Reagan. For example, the SALT II Treaty negotiated by Henry Kissinger on behalf of the Nixon and Ford Administrations in 1975 was never submitted for ratification; the federal Child Development legislation, the Land-Use Planning legislation, and proposed federal Consumer Protection Agency were effectively blocked as a result. One of the most profound achievements came in 1975 when the prohibition against American citizens owning gold was repealed. Prior to that year, it was illegal for Americans to own gold except in the form of jewelry and teeth fillings. Ownership of gold coins and gold bullion by Americans, whether held domestically or abroad, was prohibited by law in 1934 when President Franklin Roosevelt took the US off the gold standard. Thus, Americans had no easy way to protect themselves from inflation and a devaluation of the dollar. But, that changed in 1975 as a result of some highly skilled behind the scenes actions by McClure, et.al., in the Senate and by Crane, et. al., in the House, and with a little help from then Treasury Secretary William Simon and the shadow of the prospective Reagan primary challenge. The gold prohibition was repealed and just in the nick of time as Americans could legally own gold to protect themselves from the high inflation of the Carter years.
In each election from 1972 through 1978, new articulate conservative Republicans were elected to the Senate. Most importantly, of course, were Helms and McClure in ’72; Laxalt (NV) and Garm (Utah) in ’74; Hatch (Utah) and Wallop (WY) in ’76; and Humphrey (NH) and Jepsen (IA) in ’78. Each became highly effective legislators and articulate spokesman for conservative principles and each was very active with McClure’s Steering Committee. After each election, the conservative Steering Committee became more and more influential. Then, of course, there was the landmark election of 1980.
The AP wire story today announcing McClure’s death said, “McClure earned a reputation as a nuts-and-bolts legislative craftsman during his 24 years in Congress, and was genial but reserved among most colleagues.” Based on my own knowledge of him that is an accurate description. The world of conservative politics, has often times been divided between those who make noise and those who make a difference. Senator Jim, as I called him, made a difference.
February 28th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
One of the most interesting facts that you cite, Chris, is the number of prominent conservative senators who once hailed from west of the Missouri. A good plurality if not majority of the conservative officeholders who you reference in this article are from western states. Today, of course, the west is a fairly barren region for Republicans in general, and for conservatives in particular. All of that begs the question: did the west leave conservatism or did conservatives abandon the west?
March 1st, 2011 at 12:38 am
We can afford to lose the west minus AZ and a few mountain states (and the northeast) as long as we never ever ever ever EVER lose the south and most of the midwest. It is what it is, no thanks to my home state, California and it’s influence on it’s neighbors.
We must protect these RED states at all costs at this point, imo..
http://mjosephsheppardrecoveringliberal.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/snipmap.jpg
Chris,
Sorry for the loss of your good friend, Jim McClure who I’m sure is resting in peace now. Sounded like he was a man on a tough mission.
March 1st, 2011 at 1:24 am
Regarding adding to our RED states, while the West is in pretty solid liberal hands, we might be able to mount an attack on a state that resembles both a midwestern and a southern state in many ways..
- from Public Policy Polling 1/6/11
March 1st, 2011 at 9:20 am
Chris,
Nice post, and a good history lesson.
March 1st, 2011 at 9:25 am
Dave,
I suspect in raw numbers, the number of conservatives out west has probably held steady or modestly increased out west over the past 30 years. The trouble, of course, is that they are now overwhelmed by a coalition of recent immigrants, African Americans, government employees, and white liberals. The makeup of the coalition varies from state to state of course (more minorities in Cali, more white liberals in Oregon), but it’s potent. Many of the refugees from California who are settling in the Moutain States appear to be carrying the virus with them.
March 1st, 2011 at 9:27 am
We need a blog post about the neocon wing of the party. Bill Kristol has always been a Palin booster. But the Weekly Standard showed their hand this week when they floated Paul Ryan or Chris Christie as favored candidates. Palin has clearly been weakened by Tucson, and the rats are now jumping ship. Unless they know something we don’t, neither Ryan or Christie are running, so this article smacks of desperation. Why won’t neocons endorse Mitt? Romney understands jihad and war on global terrorism better than most. Answer: Neocons can’t control Mitt because he doesn’t need their money. Where do they go next? Hunstman?
March 1st, 2011 at 10:31 am
#6 – Where do they go next? Hunstman?
Hunstman isn’t in need of money, from what I’ve heard he may be richer than Romney.
March 1st, 2011 at 12:57 pm
asparagus,
The Romneys are closer in wealth to the Huckabees than they are the Huntsmans.