Everett Dirksen was one of the lions of the Senate. The Republican from Illinois served in the Senate for 18 years and as Minority Leader for the final decade of that time. He was known as a gifted orator, nicknamed “The Wizard of Ooze” for his rich baritone voice and flamboyant speaking style. He is perhaps best remembered for his role his passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a commendable act of bipartisan statesmanship.
However, in his era, Dirksen was also known as of the Senate’s foremost champions of big business. He served for many years on Estes Kefauver’s Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly, where he served as a foil to Kefauver’s populist crusades and a spokesman for the business leaders whom Kefauver grilled in his hearings.
Dirksen – along with fellow Republican subcommittee member Roman Hruska of Nebraska – saw it as their goal to frustrate as many as possible of Kefauver’s attempts to crack down on economic concentration.
Despite his disagreement with many of Kefauver’s views, Dirksen felt that the subcommittee did do important work and defended the subcommittee against its critics within his own party.. When then-Minority Leader William Knowland sought to silence the subcommittee by slashing its funding in 1958, Dirksen stood up in opposition, in a memorable speech that detailed his love/hate relationship with the subcommittee:
I think this particular subcommittee has burdened me, ever since I have been on it, more than have all the other subcommittees put together… One might think that, since I am in disagreement with the subcommittee, I ought to be in favor of cutting off funds for it. I am not, because I think the work the subcommittee does is important, even though I disagree so generally with my able and affable friend from Tennessee… [T]he subcommittee cannot be blamed for not wanting to fill the Seante Calendar with a lot of proposed legislation. I have used every parliamentary device and what feeble skill I have as a parliamentarian go keep these little brain children from seeing the light of day, if it is possible…
So even though at times I feel harassed and even though I feel the subcommittee has burdened my time to the point where I felt virtually a one-week vacation in the adjournment last year, because I came back for the hearings last fall in October and November, I still believe that [the funding request by Kefauver] is a reasonable and very proper amount…
Knowland’s bid to cut the subcommittee’s funding failed, and the subcommittee continued its work. Dirksen also continued his work to thwart Kefauver. The two of them engaged in legendary sparring matches in subcommittee hearings, often disagreeing violently but maintaining a bone-deep respect for one another.
Perhaps the most notable disputes between the two occurred during the prescription drug hearings. After Dirksen became minority leader in 1959, he told Kefauver that due to his new duties, he would object to the subcommittee holding hearings while the Senate was in session. Kefauver cheerfully agreed to heed Dirksen’s request, and said that he would henceforth hold his hearings after the Senate had adjourned for the day. Dirksen responded by keeping the Senate in session until 9 PM; undaunted, Kefauver continued holding his hearings at night, sometimes continuing as late at 2 AM. After three days of this, Dirksen gave in and dropped his objection.
During another hearing in April 1960, The New Republic’s Richard Strout was on hand to capture another memorable confrontation between the friendly antagonists. Dirksen launched into a long, theatrical complaint about Kefauver’s decision to call witnesses who were highly critical of the pharmaceutical industry’s practices. Strout humorously recounted the battle that ensued:
Alas, [Dirksen] faced one of the most wooden antagonists in the Senate. Senator Kefauver’s long equine head, owl-like glasses and invisible coonskin cap did not move. Dirksen raised his mellifluous voice and wagged the remnants of his curly hair. Kefauver sat like an absent-minded doorpost. Again and again, the emotional Dirksen set lance and charged – the protector of doctors and druggists.
Milder and more limp came Kefauver’s languid response, always introduced with an infuriating pause and inquiry if the distinguished Senator from Illinois were finished. Assured by the fuming Dirksen that he was temporarily through, Kefauver deprecatingly repeated his damning statistics, his voice never changing, and continuing with the iteration of a leaky faucet. Dirksen, who has the face of a lost angel, writhed in disdain – like an alcoholic offered a bowl of warm milk.
This continued for an hour or so, while unfortunate witnesses waited and other Senators occasionally interrupted. Finally Dirksen stopped trying to fire Roman candles into this pile of damp sawdust. The two veterans (who had hitherto hardly exchanged glances) softly turned at the end and grinned.
Again, despite his disagreement with Kefauver’s aims, Dirksen had nothing but kind words for the Senator himself. In July 1962, Dirksen lavished praised on Kefauver’s investigation, saying that Kefauver’s “patience is certainly equal to that of Job. He is as single-purposed as an Apache Indian. He is as gracious as a Victorian lady. There is a rare diligence about him, and a rare consistency about him also.”
Of course, Dirksen could afford to be gracious at that moment, since he and Judiciary Committee chairman James Eastland had just worked with drug industry reps to gut Kefauver’s draft bill, which would have imposed price controls and extensive safety and efficacy requirements on prescription drugs. (Kefauver eventually managed to get the safety and efficacy provisions restored, but not the price controls. For the details on that story, see here.)
In many ways, the affable antagonism between Dirksen and Kefauver represented the best of the Senate in that era; two vastly different viewpoints being freely discussed, but with the holders of those viewpoints remaining cordial and respectful toward one another and not resorting to the ad hominem attacks we see all too often today. There are plenty of aspects of midcentury politics that we are well rid of, but the tradition of respectful and friendly debate is one that we would benefit from bringing back.
Estes Kefauver for President 