Are We Going Left?

January 9, 1961

The new Administration is already laying plans for a program of Federal medical care for the aged, tied to the social-security program, for Federal aid to education, a Federal housing program, a rise in Federal minimum-wage standards, and “redevelopment” of “economically depressed areas.” All these proposals mean more Federal intervention, more concentration of power, more spending, more taxing, more paternalism, more statism.

Yet all this was determined by the thinnest of margins—a plurality of 112,801 in a total vote of 68,832,670. Kennedy’s percentage of the major party vote was 50.1 to Nixon’s 49.9. Of the total vote for President, Kennedy received a minority: 49.7 percent to Nixon’s 49.6.

But in the American system, the winner by no matter how hairline-thin a margin, takes all. If we had a Cabinet system, as in Britain, everything would depend on the margin in the legislature. The government might have to resign if the vote on a single important bill went against it. This would make it cautious. But the Kennedy Administration will be able to introduce or push any legislation with comparative impunity. On this basis the prospect is that conservative Republicans and Democrats, though they may succeed in modifying some extreme measures, will merely fight a slow defensive retreat.

CONSERVATIVE SHOWING

There are, however, two other elements in the outlook. One is the climate of opinion. The other is a hard economic reality.

Let us begin with the first. In spite of the Kennedy victory, the overall election evidence indicates that public opinion is actually more conservative now than it was two years ago. That half the electorate voted against Kennedy, in spite of Nixon’s failure to speak out on major issues or to present his case effectively, shows how widespread the conservative feeling is.

Such a conclusion cannot, of course, established beyond dispute. Sixty-nine million voters cast their votes for 69 million different mixtures of reasons. But an analysis supplied to me by Adm. Ben Moreell, chairman of the board of trustees of Americans for Constitutional Action, raises an impressive presumption.

The ACA has compiled an index by which it rates congressmen and senators according to their degrees of conservatism or radicalism. Their ratings are based on seven criteria: For sound money and against inflation; for economy and against waste; for the private market and against government interference; for local self-government and against centralization; for private ownership and against government ownership; for individual liberty and against coercion; and for national security. On this basis they found that with a few notable exceptions Republicans are far more conservative than Democrats. For example, in the House, those with ratings between 80 and 100 percent will include 91 Republicans and no Democrats; those with ratings between 0 and 9 percent will include 57 Democrats and no Republicans.

ACA ANALYSIS

The election results showed that 24 New Deal Democrats with very low ACA ratings were defeated in the House by Republicans whose records indicate that they are far more conservative. Two conservative Republicans were defeated, a net gain of 22 for conservatism.

The unions threatened to purge everyone who voted for the Landrum-Griffin Act. Actual result: Of 229 members of the House who voted for passage, only four were defeated; of 201 who voted against passage, 22 were defeated.

Five New Deal Democratic governors—Loveless of Iowa, Freeman of Minnesota, Docking of Kansas, Furcolo of Massachusetts, and Herseth of South Dakota—were replaced by more conservative Republicans. The Republicans gained control of ten State Legislatures and lost two, a net gain of eight.

So much for the temper of the electorate. In addition, the effort to push through a huge paternalistic spending program will now find itself up against a hard (or should one call it soft?) economic reality: The loss of gold, the weakness of the dollar.