Hubert humphrey and political science By paul c light Paul c light is associate dean and professor at the hubert h humphrey institute of public affairs. He formerly served on the staff of the senate govemmental affairs committee, as director of studies at the national academy of public administration and as senior adviser to the volcker commission. His sixth book, The new monitors, will be published in nineteen ninty two by brookings. Political science was never quite sure what to do with hubert humphrey. On the one hand, humphrey clearly viewed himself as a member of the discipline. Political science was his lifelong passion, one kindled at the university of minnesota, pursued through nineteen count them nineteen undergraduate political science courses, strengthened by a master of arts degree at louisiana state university, and reinforced through years of service to the american political science association A P S A and its members. Footnote 1 These tidbits are drawn from materials available in the hubert humphrey archives at the minnesota historical society, an excellent summary of humphreys college career is contained in carl solberg, hubert humphrey A biography. end footnote 1. On the other hand, humphrey was, after all, a politician, something too often ignored by those who study politics. As humphrey became more the politician and less the student, the connections were bound to change, particularly as new theories swept through the discipline. Unfortunately, humphreys value to the discipline as one of the countrys most effective practitioners of politics to weaken over time, in part because of his links to the highly unpopular Vietnam war, in part because political science became less and less interested in what real politicians had to say. Nevertheless, humphreys dual love for political science and politics remained strong to the end of his life, and was finally merged in a multidisciplinary center created in his name at the university of minnesota, one that would try to blend the best of both theory and practice. The goal was kindled by his fathers own involvement in south dakota politics and fueled at the university of minnesota in the late nineteen thirties. Returning to the university after a six year hiatus in his undergraduate studies spent working at his fathers drug store in huron, south dakota, humphrey took every available course, attacking the discipline and winning one prize after another, including the willam jennings bryan prize for the best senior essay. Humphrey would later describe these two years as among the most important formative experiences of his life. More to the point of his later connection to A P S A, it was at minnesota that humphrey met a young professor named evron kirkpatrick, whose american constitutional government course captured humphreys energies as never before. Kirkpatrick would later become executive director of the A P S A and a lifelong source of advice and counsel for his former student. It was at minnesota that humphrey also met many of those who would work with him to merge the democratic and farmer labor parties into a nearly unbeatable political coalition. Not the least of these was orville freeman, a classmate of humphreys, future governor of the state and u s secretary of agriculture, and longtime confidant. It was also at minnesota that humphrey met max kampelman, another political science graduate student, who eventually became humphreys top senate aide. Humphrey might never have entered politics but for the financial pressures that plagued him throughout his life. With a few more dollars in his pocket, he might have endured the near poverty of graduate school and finished the p h d he started at l s u. Alas, "broke, married, with a daughter," as he later described the period, he eventually left the academic life for a meager one hundred and fifty dollars a month as a w p a adult education teacher. Within three years, he made his first run for mayor of minneapolis, within four, he was elected, and within eight, he made his first national impact in the civil rights platform fight at the democratic national convention in philadelphia. Despite this break from academic life, humphrey the politician maintained his old contacts with the discipline, in part because the department of political science at minnesota listed as its faculty many of the most talented practitioners of politics of that era, including professor arthur naftalin, future mayor of minneapolis. That humphrey still considered himself a political scientist, albeit one who had crossed that invisible fine into real world affairs, was obvious. Indeed, among the very first letters that he drafted in noneteen fifty one were those to colleagues that he had encountered three weeks before at the annual political science meeting, which was then held over the christmas, not labor day, break. Humphreys service to A P S A would have been impressive for any member, let alone one also pursuing an increasingly visible legislative agenda. He served as A P S A vice president in nineteen fifty five, helped raise money for the new hampshire avenue headquarters building that still serves the discipline today, read the american political science review 'faithfully, worked with those in A P S A who wanted mayors, legislators, and other politicians to join the discipline, always paid his membership dues on time, hosted far more than his fair share of A P S A congressional fellows, became the first chairman of the board for the woodrow wilson international center for scholars, which, in turn, has hosted dozens of political scientists over the past decade, and gave hundreds of talks, lectures, and short courses to political scientists far and wide. Humphrey considered himself something of a wayward scholar to the end of his life. One might characterize his life as one long political science seminar, interrupted by occasional floor votes and legislative hearings. Humphrey was never more active in political science than during the late nineteen forties and early nineteen fifties when the discipline clearly considered him an admired colleague. His speech "party responsibility" was well received at the nineteen forty nine A P S A meeting and closely mirrored the soon to be released findings of the A P S A committee on political parties, which issued its "Toward a more responsible two party system" later the following year committee on political parties nineteen fifty). "It is my feeling that political parties should clearly stand on issues rather than personalities alone," humphrey wrote in nineteen fifty. "in that sense, elections will become issue elections rather than popularity contests. In that sense, too, I should like political parties at their conventions, through their party caucuses, through their state meetings, to develop policies and programs. I think that part of what I consider to be essential can be labelled as 'party responsibility.' This clearly means that office holders and representatives of a political party can be expected to subscribe to the principles of that party." Footnote 2 Letter to laurence leiter, january 1, nineteen fifty. All letters cited in this article are from the humphrey archives. End of footnote 2 Even after his election to the Senate, a point when any political scientist might be forgiven for concentrating on other matters, humphrey continued to participate in the discipline. In nineteen fifty one, for example, his stream of correspondence included congratulations to the A P S A president, peter odegard, a note of encouragement to the editor of the review, noting that he had just read the december nineteen fifty issue, and a dozen letters to colleagues expressing his interest in their work. Humphrey obviously understood that he had a special status within A P S A. He did not have a p h d or a top rank masters degree (years later, muriel humphrey would muse that humphrey would have been president had he gone to princeton for graduate work), nor was he a research scholar. His masters thesis on roosevelt and the new deal was more polemic than research, "not an objective essay in the usual academic sense," as professor robert harris later described it. "Indeed, the essay is infused with the writers underlying assumptions concerning the nature of society, the ends and purposes of government, and the rights of man which he has continued to hold with a singular degree of consistency during his public career" (harris nineteen seventy, volume 6). Never the less, humphrey had more than enough intellectual curiosity to compensate for the lack of traditional bona fides and was never reluctant to use his growing stature to benefit the discipline. As noted above, he was active in raising funds for the new A P S A headquarters building and continued to attend annual meetings throughout his career, sometimes sending staff in his place. If humphrey saw his A P S A connections as essential to his political career, it is not clear in any of his correspondence quite the contrary. Consider, for example, his concern when, in nineteen fifty five, newly elected A P S A president harold lasswell proposed an annual A P S A "state of the nation report." Lasswells idea was to have the A P S A "summarize the rise or fall of democratic practice through the american commonwealth and with less detail world environment", hardly an earth shattering proposal. Yet, responding to an inquiry from charles mckinley, lasswells predecessor at the A P S A helm, humphrey wrote that "we have always insisted that the association remain free of partisan conflict and not get itself too involved in matters which might be considered of a partisan nature." As much as humphrey saw merit in lasswells proposal, he worried that such an annual report could quickly become a vehicle for partisan advantage. The problem for humphrey over time, as noted above, was that political science was increasingly ambivalent about its former officer, particularly given his service in a somewhat more visible vice presidency, and was less and less sure of just what to do with him. The discipline has never known just how to handle members who get drawn into real politics. As much as political scientists may support colleagues who launch careers in public office, there is some sense that they ought to stay out of politics, that they cannot spend too much time in washington or the statehouse before empirical analysis gives way to self serving partisanship. Like moths to a flame, or so the theory goes, they will become so admiring of the politicians and their institutions that they may be unable to see the real patterns. Moreover, nothing gets in the way of an active research agenda more than a sojourn in government, which reduces publication output and limits objectivity. Certainly, humphreys estrangement from political science involved more than just a slim publication record. He was intimately connected to the vietnam war and had been part of one of the most unpopular presidencies of the era. He was no camelot democrat, ready for reappointment at harvard, but the "happy warrior" who had so openly endorsed the escalation of the war. Yet cut adrift from national politics in nineteen sixty nine as only a presidential defeat can cut, humphrey returned to his academic roots. Humphrey not only needed work, he desperately needed challenge. As carl solberg writes, perspectives on political science offers came in. Max kampelman, who resumed the intimate counseling from which he had been shunted during the campaign, told him the presidency of columbia university was open, and brandeis university wanted to make him a life professor. His old friend bill benton president of encyclopedia britanica offered him a place as a roving ambassador for his encyclopedia britannica enterprises, and humphrey liked that. Dewitt wallace of the readers digest promised a handsome stipend if he would go back to teaching where he had started at wallaces alma mater, little macalester college in saint paul. And minnesota for humphrey was home. Footnote see solberg, page 412. The university of minnesota also offered a slot, and humphrey gratefully accepted positions at both minnesota colleges. Unfortunately, the political science departments at both institutions simply did not know where he fit. Although vietnam had something to do with their puzzlement, so, too, did the process of appointment. Humphreys teaching appointments were tendered by the presidents of each institution without faculty approval, his salary was supported by special benefactors, and his courses were offered outside the normal curricula. The approval of political science faculties, particularly at minnesota, was an afterthought in the process, if a thought at all. Solberg explains the appointment. Malcolm moos, his old debating teammate and later eisenhowers speech writer, was now president of the university of minnesota. After a football game that fall of nineteen sixty eight moos invited humphrey back to his house. Another old republican friend, Regent les malkerson, went along. Malkerson said later "Humphrey was lower than a snakes heel. He was depressed. Its a rough go when you think your a failure. But right there in macs basement den we worked out the arrangement for hubert to teach at the university. We would get outside money through the minnesota foundation. As we saw it, the kids would have the opportunity to talk to the vice president, and humphrey would be kept involved. Solberg, 412. It was hardly the way to assure a welcome embrace from any faculty, especially given the highly charged antiwar atmosphere on campus, and meant that humphrey would be an outsider throughout his brief term. Whatever the reason, humphreys relationship with political science now felt forced, uncomfortable, it was hardly a substitute for the presidential prize that he had so long sought. Tainted with vietnam, even in the wake of his salt lake city break with johnson, Humphrey could not return quietly to the campus. Nor could political science give the warm embrace that he so clearly wanted. Moreover, within months of his return to minnesota, Humphrey began musing about a return to the senate and a nineteen seventy two rematch with nixon. Alas for his students, Humphreys reengagement with national politics came sooner than he expected. Chappaquiddick spelled ted kennedys banishment from presidential politics in nineteen sixty nine, and Eugene mccarthy voluntarily removed himself from the nineteen seventys minnesota senate election campaign only months later. Yet for one brief moment in the winter and spring of nineteen sixty nine, humphrey was back on campus, all the professor, full of energy and commitment to students. His class at macalester filed immediately, prompting one student to complain of the Elitist attitude of the political science department for closing the route without ever having opened it to nonmajors. Humphrey put every ounce of energy back into teaching and filled his days with students. Every wednesday at 3 fifteen, he met his students at the university of minnesota; every thurscay at 2, he began his course at macalaster. He talked about the issue voting theories of v.o.Key. "Does this theory still make sense in fight of what we know today?" campaign consultants, economic opportunity, health policy, civil rights, science and technology policy, all in a semistructured, some might say rambling, discourse on modern american politics. One week he would invite in Daniel patrick moynihan for a guest lecture; the next Jerry hirsch, CBS election director. Footnote 4 Footnote 4 As a student at macalaster just after humphrey left, I was treated to stories of four and five hour lectures in which one student and only one, would have asked a starting question that would launch humphrey into an all out answer. I had the pleasure of hearing humphrey several times in such lectures during his return to state from nineteen seventy one to nineteen seventy five. Often we students could not remember exactly what we asked to get humphrey rolling, But we were never bored with the outcome. End of Footnote 4 He hardly restricted his teaching to two courses a week, however. Consider his schedule for April fifteenth, nineteen sixty nine, as but one example (see table 1). Table 1. Hubert humphreys Schedule April fifteenth. nineteen sixty nine 8 thirty A M, Breakrast with pillsbury to discuss lectureship series Ten to eleven A M, Informal meeting with students open Q and A Eleven to noon, Class political philosophy "The evolution of lieralism, from nineteen forty eight to nineteen sixty eight" 2 forty five P M Informal meeting with students open Q and A Three thirty P M Class, History of the middle east: "Arab-Israeli conflict; Policy decisions made by L B J and johnson Administration" Four thirty P M, Short meeting with a member of the macalester faculty Seven thirty to nine thirty P M, International affairs seminar "U.S. U.S.S.R. Negotiations: Need for them now" There seemed to be no subject on which humphrey did not lecure that spring ofnineteen sixty nine. "Lessons to be learned from vietnam" for a world politics course at macalester; "Foreign policy formulation in the johnson administration" for an international politics class; "Evolution of federal policies in health education and welfare" for a university of minnesota social work seminar; "Civil rights acts of nineteen sixty four and nineteen sixty five" for Samuel krislovs american parties course at the university; Historical interpretation of the last twenty years" for a macalester upper level history workshop; "Civil rights struggle in congress" for a course on race and nationality; and "Social issues of business" for marketing 5 8 H at the universitys school of business administration all without honorarium; all with the full force of humphreys personality and experience. Humphrey clearly tried to maintain a low profile on both campuses that is as low a profile as a former vicepresident and Johnson administration surrogate could keep. There is no evidence that he attended regular faculty meetings, and he seemed to have reserved his views of academic life for private correspondence. This is not because Humphrey had no opinions, however. Commenting on a survey of macalester faculty that showed a majority in favor of permitting premarital sexual relations among students, Humphrey wrote macalester president arthur flemming that "my own view is that premarital sexual relations do not require encouragement from the faculty." On a more serious note, he clearly worried about a similar majority in favor of permitting drug use in macalester dormitories. "I wonder how many parents would be pleased to read this analysis," he wrote. "Of all situations, none is more serious than the one relating to drugs." Still, there is no evidence that his intense feelings about drug use on campus ever found a public forum. Instead, humphrey concentrated on students and occasional responses to faculty and alumni. His weekly and daily calendars for the year show meeting after meeting with individual students and long responses to even the most caustic comments from faculty, students, and alumni. Indeed, no letter seemed too angry to answer. "It could be that there are those of us who have not been in academic life for recent years who are every bit as sensitive to the needs of drastic change," he wrote one faculty critic, "even when it's done in a rough, cruel, and violent way, as some of you who have been able to witness all of this from the safe, secure, and sanitized atmosphere of a university." footnote 6 Footnote 6 Letter sent to irwin rinder march 1 nineteen sixty nine And, although much has been made about the antiwar fervor at both institutions, including the day in nineteen seventy that he came to macalester only to find his office barricaded by barbed wire placed by protestors, he seemed genuinely engaged by the debate: Too often members of faculties are so anxious to be popular with their students that they refuse to challenge their intellect and their sense of values.... I believe the students have much to tell us, and there is a definite need long overdue to modernize university administration, to change curriculums, and make it much more meaningful to the concerns or our students. I happen to believe that faculty members owe a good deal more time to students than they give. (see footnote seven) Footnote seven letter to james holly march 1 nineteen sixty nine Humphrey seemed in particular to enjoy the safety of the academic environment, an environment in which he could give and take without great risk. "Anyway, we will have a chance to discuss all of this in the safe and cloistered atmosphere of the college," he wrote one friend about vietnam. "Let me tell you, it's a far different environment from the firing line in government." There were trying days on campus, of course, as noted above. He was shouted off the stage at the university of massachusetts in amherst and was booed during a nineteen seventy commencement address at hamline university in saint paul. Yet he seemed undeterred. He spoke whenever and wherever he was invited, running up the following tally of guest lectures in nineteen sixty nine thru nineteen seventy: St. Cloud State University of Minnesota, Duluth Mesabi Junior College St. Thomas College Lea College Carleton University Atlantic College Worthington Junior College Missouri Western College Saginaw Valley College Trinity College Drake University Harvard Law School Carthage College University of California, Santa Barbara University or Nebraska Park College Wichita State University University of Illinois Marquette University University of Massachusetts, Amherst Brown University Yale University Marymount College University of Redlands University of Maine University of Wyoming Stanford University Pacific Union College Colorado Sta:e University El Centro College Duke University Florida Southern University Mary Baldwin College Louisiana State University Kentucky Wesleyan University St. Catlierine's College Springfield College University of Iowa Curry College Ottawa University University of Bridgeport State University of New York, Fredonia Notre Dwne University Syracuse University Kansas State University University of Kansas Gannon College Columbia University Hambne University Humphrey also gave what seems in retrospect to be an enormous amount of energy to a conference on congressional leadership held at the university of minnesota, May twentieth thru twenty second, nineteen sixty nine. Not only did he set the initial question "Is congress obsolete", raise the money 30 thousand dollars from the ford foundation), invite both academics richard fenno and nelson polsby) and former congressional leaders alike, and approve the four themes congress and policy analysis, the reality of congressional initiative, the process of appropriations, and congressional party leadership Humphrey hosted the three day event and pushed for a W E T A telecourse. "If the television production goes well," he wrote his friend and cohost thomas kuchel, "I could envision it being made into an instructional film for use in high school and college courses in american government. We will also be transcribing the group discussions into a short monograph that would be used in conjunction with courses on congress and the legislative process." This was not a former national politician looking for a new way of reaching voters, but a former academic looking for novel ways of reaching students. It is not surprising that, throughout this period, humphrey continued to advise students, never failing to answer with a response drafted for that one student alone. To a student who asked for humphrey's opinion on a series of broad topics, humphrey wrote his most moving response: We must have new dreams and we must learn to live with dreams. But must not believe that hopes and dreams alone can make a productive and happy life. It is hopes and dreams that are put to work causes and dreams for which we are willing to sacrifice that make for greatness for happiness. I have always been convinced that life has much more to it than just the daily drudgery of work and the honorable motivation of sacrifice. It must include a spirit of uplift, of joy, of purpose. Then things start to happen. Footnote ten Footnote ten letter to bill cox march fifteenth nineteen seventy As humphrey moved toward the nineteen seventy senate campaign, he began to drift away from academic life again. Whether he could have been satisfied as a university president, let alone a tenured political science professor, is surely in doubt, as suggested by his aggressive travel schedule. A university was just too small a playing field to contain him, and political scicnce no longer seemed fascinated by his insights. He did not attend the nineteen sixtynine A P S A meeting, nor is there any evidence that he was invited. Ultimately, humphrey's greatest problem as a political scientist may have been the discipline's increasing distance from practical politics itself. No longer were departments of political science, at minnesota or elsewhere, populated by practical politicians like arthur naftalin. Moreover, with its emerging focus on highly quantitative models of political behavior, the discipline had less interest in or need for politicians. Humphrey got a taste of the growing gulf between practice and scholarship as the first chairman of the woodrow wilson center in nineteen sixty nine thru nineteen seventy. Working with center director benjamin read to select the first class of fellows in nineteen seventy, humphrey decided to focus on ocean studies and environmental policy, both hot topics at the time and clearly in sync with his view of the center as a tool for strengthening "the fruitful relations between the world of learning and the world of public affairs." Footnote eleven Footnote eleven is a general letter of invitation to board members nineteen seventy The first class members were anything but traditional, however, averaging forty-three years of age. Among the scholars were C alton frye, thirty-three, former aide to senator edward brooke; Jackson giddes, thirty-four, an assistant professor at M I T; Elizabeth haskell, twentyeight a former aide to senator henry "scoop" jackson; and david wise, coauthor of The U 2 affair and The espionage establishment. Not only was the group unusually young eleven of the twenty nine were thirty five years old or younger they did not carry particularly impressive credentials some were assistant professors, some in transition, more than one was self-employed. One was even a twenty nine year old graduate student. Humphrey took his board chairmanship seriously, calling in favor after favor to save the center from being zeroed out of existence by a hostile Nixon administration, while lobbying successfully instead for an appropriations increase from seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars to nearly one million dollars. Given his success, he must have been surprised by the reactions to his leadership, for neither the topics nor the selections went unnoticed. Responding to letters from senior academics and a vote of "no confidence" at the Woodrow Wilson Foundation in Princeton, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then at the White House, wrote Humphrey of a "fierce discontent as to the direction the center is taking," noting that "a center for scholars is something profoundly different from a center for inquiry into topics of national politics." Note number twelve is the Letter from Daniel Moynihan to Humphrey, February 12, 1970. For Humphrey, of course, the distinction was not so clear, for in his mind scholarship was about ideas, and there was a potent relationship between ideas and policy. Back in the nineteen forties, such a distinction between scholarship and immidiacy would have been roundly rejected, particularly in a discipline about to endorse responsible parties. It most certainly would have been rejected by Humphrey's old department at Minnesota, particularly given its faculty's broad engagement in public affairs. Looking back at the changes wrought by Vietnam and Watergate, at the public distrust toward all of its institutions, universities included, one cannot but ask whether it was not so much Humphrey who drifted away from political science but political science that drifted away from Humphrey. The nineteen fifties effort to invite real politicians to join the discipline never took off, and Humphrey eventually became one of a diminishing breed whose careers linked political practice and political science. Although political scientists like David Price, former professor at the Univetsity of North Carolina and now U S Representative, continue to cross the line, they do so at great risk that they may never be able to return. If Humphrey could not do it, perhaps few others can. REFERENCES Committee on Political Parties. American Political Science Association nineteen fifty. Toward a more responsible two party system. American Political Science Review fourty four September supplement. Robert Harris nineteen seventy. Preface in Hubert Humphrey, The political philosophy of the New Deal. Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press. Carl Solberg nineteen eighty four. Hubert Humphrey. A biography. New York W. Norton. transcribed by richard altman