Tapas Course 2: Bob Bartlett
I take this story from Professor Robert Burt, who led the seminar for which this unit is derived. He tells it much better then I do, probably because he watched it unfold in front of his eyes as he sat in the gallery of the Senate that day. I will use his version from his book "Constitution in Conflict" by Robert A. Burt pages 304-306.
During the final months of the 1968 congressional term, a number of congressmen were trying to get the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act) passed before the summer recess, however they could not get the bill to a vote with constant revisions being added during debate. Vice President Hubert Humphrey attempted to rally senate Democrats to call for a cloture of debate and call the bill to a vote. They would need sixty-seven votes, or one more then two thirds to pass the cloture and bring the bill to a vote. Humphrey met with those Democrats that he thought he could convince to call for cloture because at that time he did not have a guaranteed sixty-seven votes. One would be one of the original senators from Alaska, Democrat Bob Bartlett. A relatively small, quiet senator from the rural state of Alaska was seen as a potential ally and crucial vote for cloture. Humphrey sought out Bartlett and asked him if he would vote for cloture so that he could get the bill to a vote before the recess. Bartlett replied that he could not. He stated that even though he supported the bill on moral grounds, Alaska did not have a sizable number of blacks, so this bill really did not affect those he represented. He added that Georgia Senator Russell had offered him appropriations for a highway that would link Alaska and the continental forty-eight if he either abstained from voting or voted against the bill. Russell even agreed to travel to Alaska to help campaign for Bartlett's reelection and make it clear to Bartlett's constituents that Bartlett was the one that got them the highway.
Humphrey could not argue with Bartlett's reasoning on the grounds of that he was doing what was best for his constituents, which would ensure his reelection bid at the end of the year. All Humphrey asked of Bartlett was to wait until the last minute of the vote to come into the senate floor and whisper to in his ear if his vote were needed. Humphrey did not want Bartlett's vote to be wasted if it was not the deciding vote, as this could cost Bartlett his highway deal, which Humphrey did not want to jeopardize. Bartlett listened to Humphrey's offer, but assured him that even if he was the deciding vote, that he could not vote for the bill.
The date of the vote arrived, and senators moved to the roll to cast their vote. Many did so in private so as to not alert opposition to their vote, fearing reprisal by hard line proponents for and against the bill. Just as the vote was finishing, the large doors to the senate chamber opened and the diminutive Senator Bartlett entered the room. As he walked down through the doors, Humphrey met eyes with the lonely Bartlett. Humphrey hammered his senate gavel and called out "Senator Bartlett from Alaska... may I please have your vote!" Bartlett looked astonished that Humphrey was calling him out. That was not the plan that they had agreed on. Bartlett waved his hands as if to say, "do not call on me, leave me out of this." Again Humphrey hammered his gavel and shouted out, "Senator Bartlett from Alaska...what is your vote?" Bartlett kept walking down the senate stairs ignoring Humphrey's call. Humphrey would not be swayed by this lack of response, hammering even harder and shouting even louder, "Mr. Bartlett...your vote?" Bartlett looked up, meet eyes with the Vice President and gave him a thumbs up, "Yes" was his vote. The Vice President hammered his gavel and announced the cloture by that one vote. Bartlett's vote had been the 67th vote, just enough for the cloture.
Professor Burt, at that time a senator's aide, was awed at what had just unfolded and needed to know what had just happened. That was not the plan that had been agreed upon by the Humphreys and Bartlett. The next day Burt called Bartlett's office to ask the senator's staff why he had changed his position. His assistant said that he stated that as a senator he should act like one, and do what was right, and what was just, and that was to vote for the bill. Later that year Bartlett would lose his life to a heart attack, however without his contribution, the 1968 Civil Rights Act would never have been passed.
The moral of this story was that Senator Bartlett had to make a choice between what he knew to be morally right for the country and what would be fiscally right for his constituents. Bartlett knew that although the country might gain from his choice to vote "yes," he would lose any reelection attempt and his state would lose a much needed transportation link to the greater United States, a potentially huge blow to their economy. At the foundation of American democracy is the question of whether an official of an electorate should represent the will of the majority, or the will of their own conscience. Which ideology will work towards the betterment of the whole? Is it a representative's job to represent the needs of his constituents, or perhaps a moral high ground that a majority of voters have not realized, one that might even be detrimental to the constituency itself? At times these two choices might not be the same, and a decision must be made. Many members of congress and even the president might say that there is a factor of "the ends justifying the means." That is to say, that in casting their vote, it might not help their constituents, might not be morally correct, and might not even benefit the nation right now, but it is a decision that will, in the long run, help the community through a system of reciprocal favors (i.e. Bartlett's highway deal).
Strategies:
Students will read the first half of the story of Bob Bartlett's civil rights vote and create a pro/con chart of his choices, then decide the decision he should make. I will reveal the second half of the story (casting of vote) and students will debate whether or not his decision was the right decision to make. It is easy to look back at this decision today and say that Bartlett's choice was the obvious one, but students will have to put themselves in the minds of the constituents who voted for him and would be adversely affected by Bartlett's loss of highway funding. I will conduct a role-play, giving students scenario slips putting them into the role of congressmen from different districts, each having different agendas and stances on the issue. They will have information about their district, allowing them to weigh in a particular bill, one that the whole class will vote on. For some this bill will be detrimental for their local constituency, but better off for the nation as a whole for one of a variety of factors (economic, moral, environmental or majority issues). An example would be a law restricting pollution. A law such as this might hurt a congressmen's local factory by causing them to spend more money on pollution controls rather than jobs, but it will potentially benefit local and national ecosystems.
Others students will have different views on this same issue. Students will have to decide whether they will be a trustee or delegate with their vote. They will have to write a brief explanation as to why they made their decision and what factors were considered before casting their ballot. Students will meet in the "house floor" where I will moderate a debate on the issue. Students will have to speak in front of the congress (the class) as to why they should vote or not vote for the bill. Students will listen to the debate and will then have a bit of time to "make deals" before the vote. Students will be able to gain resources by "holding out" for deals before casting their vote. Students will also be able to trade some of their resources to gain a yes or no vote from unsure congressmen. In the end, the congress will come to a vote. The class will discuss the result, including the how and why of congressmen making those votes and create a consequence chart that could have future vote information inputted to create a deciding outcome. After the students create this chart, they will analyze how these decisions impact minority groups, in particular whether or not these decisions pit minority group's interests against each other.
Comments: