Actually at that time Jackson was considered a standard northern liberal Democratic U.S. Senator. Kennedy had almost put him on the ticket in 1960. It wasn't until the 70s that Jackson was seen as more conservative, but only on foreign and defense issues, where he had changed little compared to most liberal Democrats, whose views evolved during the Vietnam war. On domestic issues, Jackson remained steadfastly liberal.
Jackson always remained a member of the party's "Kennedy wing" and was close to both Bobby and Teddy, even as their views on some issues grew apart.
I agree that Jackson as an excellent Senator: hard-working, knowledgeable, principled. He knew his facts, how to legislate, and how to work with others across the aisle or of different ideologies. He was a New Deal liberal of the very best kind. He had previously served in the House of Representatives from 1940-1953 and was a phenomenal vote-getter in Washington: he ousted a conservative Republican incumbent in the face of the Eisenhower landslide in 1952, and in 1970 established a state record by beating his GOP opponent by the astounding margin of 84%-16%.
A little-known bit of Scoop Jackson trivia: after Nixon won in 1968, he asked Jackson to become his Secretary of Defense. Jackson was interested, but had concerns. Politically, he was worried about the fact that if he resigned to enter the Cabinet, Washington's Republican Governor, Daniel J. Evans -- who, ironicaly, would himself be appointed to succeed Jackson after his sudden death in 1983 -- would name a Republican to his seat, so the Nixon people arranged a guarantee from Evans to appoint a Democrat, Representative Tom Foley (later the Speaker of the House), to succeed Jackson. But the kicker was when Jackson conferred with his close friend Ted Kennedy. Kennedy knew Scoop wanted to be President and told him that if he joined Nixon's Cabinet, his White House ambitions would be ended for good. That, plus Jackson's distrust of Nixon and basic disagreement with most of his policies, led him to turn down the offer.
As to mdudnikov's rhetorical question -- would Jackson (or JFK) "have any place in today's democrat [sic] party" -- the answer is certainly yes. First, Jackson's disagreements with many fellow Democrats were over issues mainly dealing with the Cold War. With the collapse of the Soviet empire, and the USSR itself, in 1989-1992, and the retreat of what was left of global Communism thereafter, that major area of contention would have dwindled to insignificance. Later issues of terrorism and other problems would almost surely have found Jackson largely in agreement with the Democratic mainstream, as both sides converged in their thinking. Jackson undoubtedly would have remained more "hawkish" on some matters than most Democrats, more willing to go into Iraq for instance (at least in 1991), but these were not serious enough to lead Jackson away from his party. These issues aside, Jackson remained a staunch liberal in all other areas and could never have reconciled his views with the present Republican Party, now moved to the far right and devoid of virtually all its old moderate and liberal elements. And the fact is, most of today's Republicans would not accept him. (All this also goes for JFK, whose views would undoubtedly have evolved over the years in common with most Democrats, and who would not find today's ultra-right GOP mainstream at all convivial.)
A better question is whether Nixon, or Eisenhower, would have a place in today's Republican Party. Eisenhower disliked the conservatives in the party even in his time, preferring centrists. The Eisenhower clan all switched to the Democratic Party in 2008, as did Julie Nixon Eisenhower, as well as many former Republican office holders from the 60s, 70s, 80s and even 90s (including Nixon administration appointees as well as George Romney's successor as Governor of Michigan). Even Barry Goldwater was endorsing some Democrats in Arizona in the 1990s as the religious right infiltrated the GOP. The Republican Party of today isn't the one Scoop Jackson knew and worked with, with people of various ideologies, and legislators willing to cross party lines to craft legislation. And his own ideology was never predominantly conservative, let alone of the rightist variety that dominates the present-day GOP. Jackson would have remained a proud, independent Democrat.
And by the way, Jackson belonged to the Democratic Party, not "democrat party", a childish name used by some immature Republicans since the 50s.
Incidentally, 2012 is the centennial of Henry M. Jackson's birth. Time flies.
reply
share