Maine Humanities Council

Margaret Chase Smith

by Jim Melcher

Margaret Chase Smith, who served Maine in Congress for 32 years, is still one of the most iconic figures in Maine political history over 15 years after her death in 1995. She remains a significant figure in American national political history as well. What can we still learn from “The Red Rose of Skowhegan”’s experience in politics almost three decades after she left the Senate in 1973? As a scholar of American politics, I tried my hand at this question at a conference titled “The Politics of Conscience: Margaret Chase Smith and Today’s Political Climate” hosted by the Maine Humanities Council at G.W.-Hinckley (formerly Good Will-Hinckley) this past September. (The podcast available here on the MHC website is from a later presentation on this topic I made in Professor Amy Fried’s class on Women and Politics at the University of Maine). I argued that not only are there ways in which we can learn from Margaret Chase Smith’s experience still holding valid today, but that there are other ways in which her experience offers a contrast to the way American politics works now.

What’s often mentioned about Smith is her courage and her “firsts” as a woman in politics. Her notable stand against Senator Joseph McCarthy in her first “Declaration of Conscience” speech and being the first woman to receive votes for a major party nomination for President (at the 1964 Republican convention) are among the most familiar examples.  But these events also point to a legacy somewhat more difficult to observe: a political career that proved that principled partisanship and civility can go together effectively. She was able to combine a career in which she was both a nationally noted spokeswoman for her party and a senator able to both work and enjoy civil relationships with political leaders from across the aisle. Her 1970 “Second Declaration of Conscience” speech, reacting largely to uncivil politics and behavior on college campuses, effectively made the point that civility in politics is not just something to be asked of political leaders, but of the public as well. Finally, an examination of Smith’s 1964 presidential campaign strategy and her suspicion of the role campaign contributions (and disdain for raising them) shows that even where the approaches she took might not work as well in today’s political world, they offer a contrast that shines light on how American elections work today. Even as much has changed in American politics since she first was elected to Congress in 1940, Smith continues to stand as an illuminating example of the possibilities of principle.

Jim Melcher is Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Maine at Farmington