Where Have You Gone, Everett Dirksen?

As historians often remind us, American political discourse has always had its nasty elements. Early pamphlets and newspapers were more openly partisan than Fox. Founding Father Thomas Jefferson helped fund one publisher, James Callender, who wrote that Jefferson's antagonist, John Adams, was "mentally deranged," and a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

So those who claim that today's nastiness is business as usual are probably pretty accurate, when they're talking about the fringe extremes. But what those claims miss is the fact that a whole category of politician has disappeared: the partisan who is also a centrist and moderate. Job one for today's minority party leader is to hasten the success of his allies, which in today's hyper-competitive America, means making governance difficult for those on the other side of the aisle. In a zero-sum world, me winning means you losing, and I've got to do what I can to achieve those goals twenty four-seven. Everybody on my side has to be on board.

It wasn't always that way. Minority party leaders were once able to cooperate with their opposites in the majority. Proof of that fact is no farther away than the public comments of Senator Everett M. Dirksen, the Illinois Republican who happened to be Senate Minority Leader from 1959 to 1969. Could Mitch McConnell make himself say these words about any Democratic president?

• July 3, 1966
  

Q: Is Lyndon Baines Johnson a good President? How do you evaluate him?

A: Well, he is a skilled president. He is a president who is founded in history. And when he was a majority leader and we were opposite numbers, we went on a theory that this was a two-way street and government had to be made to work, and he still undertakes that, and his door is open any time I want to see him. My door is open any time he wants to see me. My telephone line is open any time he wants to call. And so from the standpoint of a cooperative endeavor between that part of the legislative branch that I have the privilege to represent, and the executive branch, I must say he has done quite well.

• February 7, 1965

. . . it is quite a compliment, I think, when the President who bears another party label from mine calls me to ask how he gets out of a difficulty and extricates himself from a real problem in the Senate. My duty as an American, of course, with an allegiance and fidelity to my country requires than I help him. I would be a poor citizen indeed if I didn't do the same for any President regardless of his politics where the country's interest is at stake.

• March 5, 1961

Q: Senator, a recent Gallup poll after President Kennedy's first month in office asked the people whether they approved of the way he was handling his job. . . .

How would you have voted, sir, if the Gallup poll had asked you?

A: Well, I haven't the slightest idea how I would have voted. I think from the standpoint of diligence and devotion and timing, he has done a very good job.

Could a modern Republican repeatedly sound such conciliatory notes toward Democrats and maintain a leadership position within the party? Arlen Specter would probably say not. Today, a partisan must oppose. That includes everything from withholding votes to shouting "You lie!"

Henry Clay, Senator, Speaker of the House, and Secretary of State, was known as The Great Compromiser. In 19th-century America, that label was an accolade. Today, it would be a snide insult.