User talk:2001:8A0:F802:2B01:BC8D:7F1E:392D:2FCF

Hi,

in the otherwise excellent article about Raymond Baldwin, I take a little exception to the categorization of his being a "conservative Republican". The conservative wing, and "Mr. Republican" Robert A. Taft in particular, would certainly have raised doubts about it. After all, Baldwin was a typical Eastern Seaboard Republican (some called them even then "liberal"). While his attempts at opposing Taft's leadership as a "Young Turk" (and freshman senator) could be attributed more to procedure than substance, I find DW-Nominate scores more indicative. Baldwin's Score in the joint House-Senate Score for the 80th and 81st Congress are with .208 rather moderate, very liberal (then) Republican Wayne Morse scoring -.226, Bob Taft .363, pinko-hunting Ken Wherry .547, JJ Williams of Delaware the most extreme in both Congresses .618. Edward H. Moore of Oklahoma served his last biennial in the 80th Congress, and scored even more extreme: .671.
On substance, I should mention that Baldwin on the state level was far friendlier towards labor, and I think that his vote e.g. FOR Taft-Hartley had more to do with his inclination to protect States Rights. For example, Baldwin as governor pushed for "an anti-injunction bill, the redefinition of conspiracy laws, greater workers´compensation benefits, and the first comprehensive pension system for state employees." (at last link) I wonder how conservatives today would react to such a record.
Furthermore, as mentioned, Baldwin was an early supporter of Willkie's, Connecticut being the first and (in the first ballot the only) state delegation voting in its entirety for Willkie. This had not only to do with the instant personal liking they took to each other, but I tend to think with shared political ideas - I admit I have no proof. But then, should we consider Willkie a "conservative Republican", too?
But then, "conservative" is a term of changing colors, and maybe in a Burkean sense, Baldwin was a "conservative".AugoKnoke (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]