So who was Frank Church anyway?

For Christmas I got a biography about Frank Church, called Fighting the Odds. I finished it today. It's a pretty powerful book - Church was in the senate for 24 years, 1957-1980, and he was involved with all the important events of the time, most specifically Vietnam and its fallout.

Maybe I can start with my important thought: While reading the book, I perceived a lot of uncomfortable parallels between Nixon (to a lesser extent, Ford and Carter) and still president Bush. Perhaps the most clearcut one is between Vietnam and Iraq. Now, after Nixon resigned and the Vietnam clusterfuck ended, Congress reasserted its authority. Church, being a senior Democrat, was naturally involved in ferreting out the wrongdoing and numerous misdeeds of Nixon and more importantly the "Unitary Executive". Will the wrongdoing and numerous misdeeds of Bush be investigated by the new 111th Congress? Will there be any Churches ready to scavenge among the Bush detritus and chair special subcommittees?

(My answer: don't hold your breath.)

So that's Church! A brave courageous fellow, especially considering he was a liberal Democrat from Idaho. He was the only Democratic senator from Idaho to be elected to multiple terms. John McCain got 61.5% of the presidential vote, and the Republican percentages have been persistently high since 1960. Idaho elected its first Democrat to Congress since 1992 in 2008, and that man, Walt Minnick, is something of a fluke. (He was running against an extremely unpopular incumbent.) What I am trying to emphasize is that Frank Church was even more of a fluke, and it's amazing that he was a senator at all.

How did he do it?

Constituent service. Like most Western congressmen, he was on the Interior Committee. He had a fine grassroots organization during his elections. He went to a bunch of dinky little towns and gave many speeches. He was popular with the Mormons - he was a real straight arrow type. He was no Eliot Spitzer - much less Larry Craig. He was devoted to his wife. His wife was a pretty amazing political asset. He was willing to defend his stances, even when they were unpopular. Let's not forget misconceptions - a lot of Idahoans thought he was moderate or conservative. He was conservative on some issues. He opposed gun control, like any Western politician. He wasn't exactly pro-life, but he sided with the pro-life crowd on some issues. He was temperamentally conservative.

I guess that's my list of why he lasted four terms. He was defeated in 1980, the Reagan landslide year. Some conservative groups (analogous to today's 527's) spent a bunch of money softening him up, emphasizing all of his stands that were unpopular in Idaho. His most unpopular action was probably playing a key role in the Torrijos-Carter treaties, which returned the Panama Canal to Panama in 1999. His opponent was a fellow named Steve Symms, an extremely conservative congressman from Idaho's 1st district. He was up against a mighty tide, a conspiracy of circumstances. Amazingly, he lost by one percent.

(My analogy to this is pretty dreadful, but hey, it's my blog: Pennsylvania is a fairly moderate to liberal state. Rick Santorum was dreadfully conservative and a two term senator. In 2006, with a strong Democratic tide, he lost by 19 or so percent. That's why I think Church's narrow loss is quite amazing.)

But let us not dwell on Idaho politics! (Summary: Idaho's conservative.) Let us talk instead of Church's important legislation, of the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, of Church's subcommittee on multinationals, of Church's memorial. Let us talk about that tomorrow.

Except for Church's memorial. Church is rightfully most famous for his efforts to uncover wrongdoing by the various intelligence agencies, but he was also a conservationist. Here is his memorial.