Scott Lucas, Everett Dirksen; and the 1950 Senate election in Illinois

Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, Spring 2002 by Deason, Brian

On May 4, shortly after receiving the nomination, he sent a letter to Barnet Hodes in which he wrote that "isolationists and reactionaries" in Illinois were putting a great deal of effort into defeating him. In their eyes, this would be a defeat for the Truman administration as well. Furthermore, the Republican National Committee would pour funds and manpower from throughout the nation into Illinois to oppose Lucas. He continued: "The election in Illinois this year is not only a State matter, but a battleground on which will be fought out the domestic program of the Administration and the nation's foreign policy." He also wrote that his duties as Majority Leader would require him to be in Washington most of the time until the end of the current Congressional session. Thus he would be spending less time in Illinois than in previous campaigns.14

In its criticism of Dirksen, the Lucas campaign's major theme was Dirksen's inconsistency. Lucas's staff produced a 400-page work entitled The Diary of a Chameleon, which presented Dirksen's voting record in his 16 years in the House of Representatives, and charged that he "has literally stood for nothing."15 The liberal Chicago Sun-Times also made much of Dirksen's inconsistency, reminding readers of Dirksen's frequent changes of position on foreign and agricultural policies. Other newspapers followed suit. One way that Dirksen responded was to argue that change was often a good and necessary thing: "In a society such as ours you can't plow just that one furrow. You have to re-examine your premises in the light of changing conditions."16 This argument was not without substance-some of Dirksen's changes in position over the years were understandable, even admirable. For example, in September 1941, he had left the isolationist camp and begun supporting the Roosevelt administration's policy regarding the war in Europe.17

President Truman appeared in May at a Chicago political rally, calling on voters to return Lucas.18 He lauded Lucas's performance in office and noted the election s significance. He also held up the Majority Leader's arm in front of the crowd in a display of support and unity. This image would later appear on numerous billboards in the Chicago area, above the slogan "Keep America Prosperous, Secure, and Free."19 On May 20, Truman sent Lucas a letter in which he wrote: "As I look back on the trip I have a feeling of increasing satisfaction .... I need you-your country needs you."21

On June 8, Dirksen sent a letter to Republican National Committee Chairman Guy Gabrielson, in which he wrote: "We are at an important point in our program for recovering the colored vote in Chicago ...."21 In a letter dated June 16, Dirksen's campaign manager Harold Rainville gave his take on the campaign. He wrote that Lucas had faced a relatively weak opponent, in Richard Lyons, in his previous Senate campaigns. Also, Lucas had used his stance against President Franklin Roosevelt's Supreme Court reorganization plan to cast himself as an independent in earlier campaigns. Lyons had been unpalatable to many business people, so "a strong Republican organization" had supported Lucas in the past. Furthermore: "While Lucas always had the opposition of the John Stelle downstate wing of the democratic party and not much active support from the Chicago machine, still their policy of straight ballots gave him substantial majority [sic]." Dirksen was a superb speaker and "completely free of all state, national, or Chicago Tribune [sic] tie ups." He was from downstate, while Lyons had been from Chicago. Dirksen had the support of many Republicans who had not wanted Lyons, including "retailers, farmers, businessmen and newspaper publishers." Also, Dirksen had won prestige in the House. Furthermore, he had opposed "socialism in all its forms, whether it be FEPC [Federal Employment Practices Commission], the Brannan plan, or socialized medicine." Because of this, doctors and dentists were actively supporting his campaign, as were farmers, who shared Dirksen's distaste for the Brannan plan. Lucas currently opposed the plan, but farmers were concerned that he would reverse himself in order to accommodate President Truman. Dairy farmers in particular were opposed to Lucas because of his support for a bill concerning oleo. Rainville also wrote: "we have set up strong independent [sic] organizations in Chicago to offset the expected sellout of Italian leaders and the weaknesses in several other areas. For instance, we have one thousand young negros organizing a strong campaign . . . ." He also mentioned "German-American clubs" and "a strong college and young married group of workers." He added: "we have ceased being too dependent upon our regular organization workers and are carrying our campaign directly to the men and women in the precincts . . . ." Regarding campaign issues, he wrote that communism was becoming more important than either the Marshall Plan or taxation, "as is evidenced by a strong under-current of an ethical revival among our people." The public was becoming quite angry about "many of the things which have taken place in Washington." More specifically, he stated: " . . . the admission that there are ninety-two perverts [sic] in Washington in the State Department alone has made a strong impression on our campaign."22