Americans for Constitutional Action: The Forgotten Conservative Interest Group
Admiral Ben Moreell, first chairman of Americans for Constitutional Action.
I have mentioned Americans for Constitutional Action numerous times as well as how politicians fared under their standards. Now is the time to explain this conservative group, which has been defunct since after they published their 1984 ratings of Congress.
Although the 1950s often get looked back on with some reverence by conservatives for being a relatively calmer and more “family friendly” time than the decades that followed, it was a time of some disappointment for them too. President Eisenhower was only moderately conservative, the GOP was not nearly as gung-ho against New Deal measures as they were when Truman was president, and Southern Democrats too were proving less conservative than during the Truman years. On June 27, 1958, at the behest of a group of conservative senators, a new organization, Americans for Constitutional Action (ACA), was born to elect more constitutional conservatives. This was the conservative answer to Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a liberal group founded in 1946 dedicated to preserving and expanding the New Deal and internationalism. The 1958 election proved calamitous for Republicans, with them losing thirteen seats, all went to liberal Democrats. Democrats also gained two Senate seats with the admission of Alaska that year and in two cases retiring Republicans were replaced with more liberal ones. This midterm set the stage for the liberal politics of the 1960s.
ACA’s Mission
ACA issued seven guidelines for which it based its index to judge members of Congress. These were, “For safeguarding the God-given dignity of the individual and promoting sound economic growth by strengthening constitutional government; for sound money and against inflation; for the private competitive market and against government interference; for local self-government and against central government intervention; for private ownership and against Government ownership; for individual liberty and against coercion; for National sovereignty” (Congressional Record). They also aimed to strengthen the Conservative Coalition, made up of Republicans and Southern Democrats.
ACA’s Start
Under the leadership of retired Admiral Ben Moreell, founder and former head of the Seabees construction battalions and chair of Jones & Laughlin Steel Co., this organization lobbied for these principles and for electing legislators of both parties who would do so. People who were on the organization’s Board of Trustees included former President Herbert Hoover, former Secretary of the Navy and New Jersey Governor Charles Edison (yes, a son of that Edison!), Dwight Eisenhower’s older and much more conservative brother Edgar, Hollywood actors John Wayne and Walter Brennan, and former Congressman Howard Buffett (Warren’s father). In 1960, they published their first ACA-Index, which covered for the Senate 77 votes from 1955-1959 and for the House, 40 votes from 1957-1959. These were intended to influence conservatives for the 1960 election and was a change from the initial opposition conservatives had to interest group ratings, namely that of Americans for Democratic Action. But until this point, conservatives nonetheless simply inversed ADA ratings to determine where legislators stood in their books, and they eventually concluded that it was better for them to define their positions as opposed to letting their opposition do so. The issuing of conservative ratings did serve to provide a useful contrast not only between where liberals and conservatives stood, but also what issues were of importance to conservatives as opposed to liberals. Of particular interest were the scores of Senators John F. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Lyndon B. Johnson (D-Tex.), which were 11% and 10% respectively. While Kennedy’s score fit with common perceptions of his liberalism, Johnson’s score was considered surprisingly low, as although he was considered one of the more liberal Southerners, he was also not trusted by liberals and organized labor, the latter because of his vote for the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. However, both would find Johnson to be their champion during his presidency. This publication got some publicity when General Edwin A. Walker, under his mandatory “Pro-Blue” anti-communist program, got in trouble for calling former President Truman, Eleanor Roosevelt, and former Secretary of State Dean Acheson “definitely pink” in print, promoting conservative literature and the ACA-Index to troops under his command and telling them and their families to consult it before voting, for which he was accused of violating the Hatch Act. He would resign from the army after being admonished, being the only American general to do so in the 20th century. ACA was fearless in its selection of votes: there were years in which no senator would get a 100% because their standards were so high, and they didn’t seem to care who voted for or against their position. They would count votes on raising debt limits, for instance, regardless of whether such votes were supported by Democratic or Republican presidents. However, ACA did use Americans for Democratic Action ratings as a guide for being in the right direction or not. They broadly opposed the New Frontier, the Great Society, foreign aid, farm subsidies, raising the debt limit, and major civil rights legislation. Because ACA counted a vote for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as against their position, this meant that no senator that year received 100%; had they not done so Republicans Carl Curtis and Roman Hruska of Nebraska as well as Milward Simpson of Wyoming would have received a 100%. However, Chairman Moreell made it clear that they didn’t expect perfection: when the organization honored Congressman Bob Dole of Kansas with their Distinguished Service Award on May 25, 1965, Moreell stated, “The acceptance of this award does not mean you are in complete agreement with all of the measures advocated by ACA nor does it imply any commitment to support those measures in the future. ACA will never impugn the motives or question the probity of those who do not agree with our views” (Americans for Constitutional Action). Yet, despite this opposition to perfectionism, this didn’t stop people from holding minor dissents from the conservative position against people. Indeed, researcher Emily Charnock asserts that such ratings serve to encourage this sort of thinking.
Issues They Considered and Didn’t, or ACA vs. ADA and ACU
Americans for Constitutional Action had some interesting inclusions and exclusions for what they graded. ACA was most consistent of all the major ideological interest groups in counting subsidies and bailouts. They were opposed to subsidies with the rationale that they opened the door to more government intervention and that subsidy programs tended to be expanded rather than be a one-time assist for an ailing industry. One example of this was the fishing vessel subsidy enacted in 1960 which Congress expanded in 1964. ACA also called many things “subsidies”, including foreign aid and anti-poverty legislation. During the 1950s they counted zero votes on final passage for mutual security bills in the House and Senate while ADA often counted them for the House. ACA counted some specific measures involving foreign aid and amendments increasing foreign aid though, a few of them being tougher than if they counted a vote for passage of foreign aid. ADA undoubtedly placed more emphasis on the issue of civil rights than ACA; ACA did not count civil rights as an issue in the House until 1964 and in the Senate, they counted it as an issue three times before 1964. ADA had from 1955 until 1964 counted votes on civil rights three times in the House and ten times in the Senate. In 1964, over 100 votes were held in the Senate on civil rights; ADA counted eight of those votes, including on invoking cloture and for bypassing the Judiciary Committee, while ACA counted three - two striking key sections from the bill (Titles II and VII, public accommodations and employment discrimination respectively) and on passage. For the Senate, they did not count the invoking of cloture to end debate until 1974, even declining to do so when they were the only Senate votes on the proposal to end the “right to work” provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act during the Great Society Congress. This may have been because ACA was aware that certain western state senators tended to vote against ending debate even if they favored the legislation being filibustered, such as Senators Carl Hayden (D-Ariz.) and Alan Bible (D-Nev.), who supported the key provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and voted for the bill even though they voted against ending debate. Thus, if counted, Hayden and Bible would get credit for votes on procedure rather than substance. ADA was more focused on procedure, focusing strongly on easing passage of legislation by lowering the threshold of the filibuster, which was achieved in a bipartisan effort in 1975. The vote on the subject that year, by the way, was the only time ACA ever counted a vote on reducing the threshold of the filibuster, demonstrating their far lower level of emphasis for altering legislative procedures. One of the most notable exclusions I’ve seen was the entire issue of abortion. The closest they come to it is counting a House vote considering the Equal Rights Amendment extension in 1978 and the 1983 House vote on the ERA. ADA and ACU both counted abortion as an issue, but ACA repeatedly declined to do so. Maybe this was seen as a Catholic issue for them (as it is often seen in many other nations) or they failed to reach a consensus on whether they thought abortion ought to be seen as a matter government should be involved in. They were also late on covering proposals to limit the reach of the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration, not opting to count it until 1975, whereas ACU started counting in 1972. ACA also only counted votes on three Federal nominees: the 1959 vote on Lewis Strauss for Secretary of Commerce (prominently featured in the film Oppenheimer), the 1977 vote on Paul Warnke as chief negotiator for SALT II, and the 1980 vote to end debate on the nomination of William Lubbers as general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board. Thus, at no time did ACA count Supreme Court nominations even though the nominations of Abe Fortas as chief justice, Nixon’s failed nominations of Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell, and Nixon’s successful nomination of William Rehnquist all could be considered votes on the liberal-conservative spectrum. The ACA system I nonetheless think in many ways was a better one than both ADA and ACU’s systems. They counted each issue as a point (as opposed to double-counting most important ones), didn’t count absences against people, often were more comprehensive in their vote selection than either ACU or ADA, sometimes they counted some lower profile economic issues such as measures regarding interest rates on government loans, and they were the most principled in coming out against subsidies and bailouts. They also far more regularly counted matters such as budget cuts than ADA did and were less heavy on social issues.
ACA and Tax Reduction
Although conservatives have historically been interested in reducing/not having an income tax, under what circumstances they have been willing to do so have varied. Today’s crop of conservatives are more likely to go forward with tax reduction even in the absence of budget cuts or budget caps. Not so with Americans for Constitutional Action, which represented a more traditional strain of conservatism. They were on balance more concerned with budget balancing than reducing taxes. ACA opposed Democratic efforts at tax reductions not paid for by spending cuts, thus they opposed Keynesian tax cuts. ACA even spelled out the reasoning for opposing the Kennedy tax cuts in their inclusion of the tax reduction bill in their 1963 ratings, “ACA firmly believes that a “tax cut” is necessary for it will act as a stimulus to our national economy by presenting the opportunity for greater investment by the private sector of our society. However, tax reductions during periods of budgetary deficits can only lead to additional inflationary pressures. A realistic tax reduction program should be coupled with efforts to decrease Federal expenditures with the objectives of securing balanced budgets” (Americans for Constitutional Action, 1963, 32). This perspective showed up again in 1964, when they opposed the Senate version of the tax reduction as well as supported Senator John McClellan’s (D-Ark.) amendment to cancel the tax cuts if federal spending exceeded $100 billion in any fiscal year. In 1975, they backed President Ford in his opposition to the tax reduction bill passed by the Democratic Congress as they had not agreed to his proposed spending restraints. However, most unusually, this perspective showed up again in 1982, when ACA counted a vote for the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act as favorable in the House, while ACU counted the same vote as against their position. ACA was thus an older school of conservatism, one that did care about tax reductions (both ACA and ACU counted Reagan tax reductions as well as tax indexing for inflation as positive) but was more budget conscious. Chairman Moreell ultimately hoped through its endorsements and active support for conservative candidates as well as these ratings to make the two parties ideologically responsible: Republicans being the solidly conservative party and the Democrats being the solidly liberal party. ACA and other organizations and people who had this in mind have certainly been successful, for better or worse.
Curious Intersections
There is a theory of politics out there called the “horseshoe theory” that posits that the ultra-left and ultra-right aren’t all that different. However, I find that often it is really a matter of the most left and most right people reaching the same conclusion on an issue for different reasons. This happened with ACA and ADA on six occasions. These were:
. Both opposed the Lockheed Martin bailout in 1971. ACA was against based on an opposition to bailouts of businesses, while ADA was against as Lockheed Martin was a key player in the defense industry providing armaments during the Vietnam War.
. Both opposed Senator Moynihan’s (D-N.Y.) 1980 proposal to provide federal funding for private school tuition. ACA opposed the allocation of funds, while ADA was opposed to encouraging students to move from public to private schools.
. Both supported Senator Garn’s (R-Utah) 1980 amendment to substitute a middle-income housing subsidy program with the status quo on housing funding.
. Both supported Congressman Devine’s (R-Ohio) 1980 motion to recommit and thus kill the Energy Mobilization Board. ACA opposed the implications for federalism presented by the Energy Mobilization Board while ADA didn’t want energy projects overriding environmental regulations, especially not when Ronald Reagan was strongly favored to win the 1980 election.
. Both supported Congressman Pritchard’s (R-Wash.) 1981 amendment deleting the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. ACA was against spending the money on the project, while ADA was opposed to the environmental impact of the project.
. Both were in support for the House vote on the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act in 1982, ACA for the measure being a step towards balancing the budget while ADA was for as it partially rolled back the Reagan tax cuts.
Criticisms of ACA and Their Methods
The rise of ACA provoked multiple reactions from politicians. While many conservatives praised the organization, there were some who had their criticisms of their methodology, such as Wint Smith (R-Kan.) and William Colmer (D-Miss.). Both crossed ACA on a few agricultural votes, and they contested the validity of including such votes. Smith, for instance, wrote to ACA’s Kenneth W. Ingwalson, “You seem to forget the fact…that 20 years ago the New Deal begged and promised the farmer to plant more crops to sustain the economy – not only our economy but the economy of the world. Now that there is a surplus you expect us to break every small person, business and bank in our area” (Charnock, 2018). By contrast, ADA’s inclusion of such issues tended to be limited, and if agricultural issues were included, it was usually over some anti-communist proposal surrounding food exports, which is more clearly a left-right issue. Some liberals regarded the establishment of ACA as legitimate, such as Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn.), who regarded this organization as a proper counterpart to ADA.
An Ideological Critique
Congressman Ronald Cameron (D-Calif.), who would develop a voting record unfavorable to ACA positions (he sided with ACA positions 13% of the time) and defeated John Bircher John Rousselot for reelection in 1962, attacked both the John Birch Society and Americans for Constitutional Action in a speech before Congress called, “Who is Doing the Devil’s Work in American Politics?” He regarded John Birch Society and ACA as “a reactionary, right-wing extremist group” as opposed to what he thought of as traditional conservatism (Charnock, 2018). He connected them with such disreputable figures as Gerald L.K. Smith, America’s most notorious anti-Semite at the time who seldom expressed nuance or moderation in his right-wing views as well as connected ACA with the John Birch Society. While his connecting them to Smith was spurious as both eschewed Smith, with John Birch Society founder Robert W. Welch even explicitly excluding Smith, he did have a point with connections between ACA and the JBS, as two members of their Board of Trustees at the time were also in the John Birch Society; Vice Chairman Bonner Fellers and Howard Buffett. Several conservative representatives came to the group’s defense, and some would join the group after their time in office, including former third-ranking House Republican Charles Hoeven of Iowa, Katharine St. George and John R. Pillion of New York, and William M. Tuck of Virginia.
The Slow Decline of Americans for Constitutional Action
The beginning of the fall of Americans for Constitutional Action came with the landslide victory of President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. After that election, another conservative organization was founded, the American Conservative Union. This group had the backing of National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. and several former and current representatives. However, the ACU’s first year of rating Congress was 1971, so the ACA had the conservative monopoly so to speak on this matter until then. Although the more fringe groups of Liberty Lobby and Conservative Society of America issued their own ratings, they didn’t get the attention by political scientists and on Capitol Hill that ACA ratings did. In time the ACU would get more attention and more prominence and crowd out the ACA, particularly with people like Buckley at the helm. In 1969, Moreell stepped down as chairman of ACA with Republican lobbyist Charles McManus succeeding him, but he still was on the Board of Trustees as Chairman Emeritus. However, in 1973, now a man of eighty-one and in increasingly poor health, he retired to private life. ACA’s impact declined throughout the 1970s and eventually McManus was succeeded by Charlene Craycraft Baker, a young woman who had been ACA’s liaison to Congress. As late as 1980 it still attracted former members of Congress to its Board of Trustees, including H.R. Gross (R-Iowa), Gordon Scherer (R-Ohio), Al Cederberg (R-Mich.), Ed Lee Gossett (D-Tex.), Alton Lennon (D-N.C.), and O. Clark Fisher (D-Tex.). They continued to exist during the 1980s but after 1984 their ratings were no longer listed in Congressional Quarterly or Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics. I have not heard of ratings issued by ACA after 1984, so 1985 from what I have researched appears to have been the year they went defunct. ACA was also, unlike the ACU, uncomfortably close to segregationists during its time. While the organization did have some people who voted for civil rights legislation on its Board of Trustees such as Charles B. Hoeven of Iowa and Katharine St. George and John Pillion of New York, it also had dyed-in-the-wool segregationists. The worst among those involved was a man who wasn’t even a member of Congress or the Board of Trustees: ACA Assistant Director John J. Synon. Synon was one of the major lobbyists against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, called for closing all public schools and reverting to private schools in response to desegregation, and actively campaigned for George Wallace in 1968. Author William P. Hustwit wrote of him, “Calling someone like Synon a segregationist would be kind. He distributed works of scientific racism through the Patrick Henry Press and always took the most radical stances against civil rights” (125). From what I have researched, on the question of whether institutions should be segregated or not they were neutral, but they were against major civil rights legislation, particularly those that granted the attorney general new powers. They referred to fair housing as “forced housing”, opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as an intrusion on state’s rights, and opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as an intrusion on state’s rights as well as interfering with private enterprise and individual freedom. They specifically objected to Titles II and VII of the act, which covered public accommodations and employment discrimination. ACA seemed to ease up a bit on civil rights by the 1970s but still counted issues such as busing and affirmative action. The ACU seems to have constituted as an organization a decisive break with the John Birch Society as well as the segregationist elements of the Conservative Coalition, although Southern Democrats did score rather high during the 1970s by their standards as well. The American Conservative Union today is the most significant and oldest conservative organization that issues ratings of members of Congress, but Americans for Constitutional Action was the first.
At one time, their ratings were not available online, but they will be on here…by me, based on my research! This post as well as the organization’s ratings which will be posted are posts that will remain free for access to everyone. These ratings illuminate the positions of conservatives from the first term of President Eisenhower to the first term of President Reagan. Although ACA positions often were those of a majority of Republicans, they were not always. In Senate votes, for instance, Democrats sometimes fared better by ACA standards than Republicans on foreign aid, and because of their Southern wing, frequently more favorable to them on civil rights at least until the 1970s. Although, as I indicated in the headline, ACA is a forgotten organization, it is one that ought to be remembered as representing what conservatism is, was, and how its emphases have changed, and also the fact that a former presidenr was part of this group! That is one claim that neither ACU nor ADA can make, although the latter can claim a former First Lady in Eleanor Roosevelt as a founder and a future president as a member in none other than Ronald Reagan. How times change, right?
References
ACA-Index, first session 88th Congress. (1963). Washington, D.C.: Americans for Constitutional Action.
Adm. Ben Moreell Dies. (1978, August 1). The Washington Post.
Retrieved from
Charnock, E.J. (2018, April 26). More Than a Score: Interest Group Ratings and Polarized Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Retrieved from
Charnock, E.J. (2020). The rise of political action committees: Interest group electioneering and the transformation of American politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Extension of Remarks of Hon. Bruce Alger of Texas. (1963, June 3). Congressional Record.
Retrieved from
Click to access GPO-CRECB-1963-pt8-3-2.pdf
Hustwit, W.P. (2013). James J. Kilpatrick: Salesman for segregation. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
Peppard, A. (2018, November 19). Before gunning for JFK, Oswald targeted ex-Gen. Edwin A. Walker and missed. Dallas News.
Retrieved from
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2018/11/19/before-gunning-for-jfk-oswald-targeted-ex-gen-edwin-a-walker-and-missed/
News Release. (1965, May 26). Americans for Constitutional Action.
Retrieved from
Click to access 650526conc2p1.pdf