Gayle B. Montgomery, James W. Johnson. One Step From the White House: The Rise and Fall of Senator William F. Knowland. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. xiii + 361 pp. $29.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-520-21194-0.
Reviewed by Steven Wagner
Published on H-Pol (December, 1998)
Gayle B. Montgomery and James W. Johnson, them to exaggerate his infuence and overlook the authors of One Step From the White House: early signs of his eventual self-destruction. The Rise and Fall of Senator William F. Knowland, As the title of the book suggests, the life of are professional journalists and former employ‐ William Knowland is truly an American tragedy. ees of the Oakland Tribune who knew William Knowland was born in 1908, the son of a three- Knowland personally. They make little attempt to term Congressman from California who later be‐ hide the hagiographic nature of their study, stat‐ came editor of the Oakland Tribune. After gradu‐ ing at the outset that since his death they had "en‐ ating from the University of California at Berke‐ visioned writing a biography of a man who was so ley, Knowland began a promising career in Cali‐ infuential in our professional lives," but had fornia state government. This career was cut waited until "time had softened the pain for those short by World War II, in which Knowland earned close to the senator" before telling his story (p. ix). his place as an ofcer after entering the Army as a Knowland, according to the authors, was "one of general enlistee. the fnest statesmen of the 1950s," but his self-de‐ In 1945, the thirty-seven year old Knowland structive side led to his "tragic" demise. "Stub‐ was appointed by California Governor Earl War‐ bornness, ambition, and self-assurance bordering ren to fll a vacancy in the United States Senate on feelings of divine right," the authors tell us, caused by the death of Senator Hiram W. Johnson. caused not only his own professional and person‐ This fortuitous development was facilitated by the al downfall but the downfall of the California Re‐ relationship Knowland's father had cultivated publican party and his family's business, the Oak‐ with Warren through friendly editorial treatment land Tribune, as well. While it is difcult to dis‐ in the Oakland Tribune. Knowland was subse‐ pute the importance of William Knowland in Re‐ quently elected to a full term in 1946 and reelect‐ publican party politics of the 1950s, the authors' ed in 1952. Knowland served as Senate Majority desire to salvage his reputation and their reliance Leader from 1953-1955, taking over for the ailing on journalistic and secondary evidence leads H-Net Reviews
Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, and as Minority Lead‐ mained loyal to California Governor Earl War‐ er from 1955-1959. During his period of Senate ren's favorite son candidacy at the 1952 Republi‐ leadership, Knowland played an important role in can convention despite his personal preference the divisive intra-party politics of the time. He for Robert Taft. Since Warren's candidacy contrib‐ and like-minded conservatives thwarted many of uted to the nomination of Dwight Eisenhower, the domestic and foreign policies advocated by Knowland deserves credit for putting loyalty the moderate Republican President, Dwight D. above self interest in this case. On other occa‐ Eisenhower. sions, however, Knowland's actions were more Knowland decided to forgo a third full term akin to the "stubbornness, ambition, and self-as‐ in the Senate and in 1958 made a run for the Cali‐ surance" that the authors refer to than to integri‐ fornia governorship. Knowland challenged the ty. Contrary to his professed loyalty to the Repub‐ state's incumbent governor for the Republican lican party and his role as its leader in the Senate, nomination, a move that resulted in the "big Knowland was constantly at odds with his party's switch," where Knowland ran as the party's gu‐ incumbent president. Despite Eisenhower's land‐ bernatorial candidate while Governor Goodwin slide victories in the general elections of 1952 and Knight ran for Knowland's Senate seat. Knowland 1956, Knowland and other conservative Congress‐ was soundly defeated in the race for governor, a men refused to cooperate with him on important result widely attributed to his promotion of "right policy decisions. Because of this, they squandered to work" legislation, a stand that was interpreted the Republican party's chance to leave a legisla‐ as anti-union by California's sizable organized la‐ tive mark. Knowland also put personal motives bor constituency. After this defeat, Knowland ahead of those of his party in 1958 when he went to work for his father at the Oakland Tri‐ passed up an almost guaranteed reelection to the bune, where he played an active role in state and Senate to challenge the incumbent Republican local politics. governor of California. This action resulted in the loss of both ofces to Democrats. Finally, Know‐ Knowland's political tragedy, however great, land's repeated marital infdelity, far from show‐ was surpassed by that of his personal life. After a ing integrity, is a testament to his improbity. series of extramarital afairs, Knowland divorced Helen (Herrick) Knowland, his wife of forty-fve It is difcult to overstate the importance of years, in 1972 and married the much younger the Senate majority/minority leader to his party, Ann Dikson. Two tumultuous years followed, as but the authors leave the reader with the impres‐ Knowland squandered his personal fortune and sion that, although Knowland and Eisenhower went deeply into debt to support his gambling had their diferences, that Knowland was an im‐ habit and the extravagant tastes of Dikson. In portant policy advisor to Eisenhower and his Cab‐ 1974, amid rumors of threats upon his life from inet. This impression is false. Despite Eisenhow‐ organized crime fgures to whom he owed money, er's occasional public professions of Knowland's Knowland took his own life. integrity, Eisenhower had a personal dislike for Knowland and little respect for his opinions on The most common accolade the authors give the major issues of their day. Eisenhower's diary to Knowland in their biography is that he is a man entry stating that in the case of Knowland "there of integrity. The reader is treated to a litany of im‐ seems to be no fnal answer to the question, "How portant fgures--Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon stupid can you get?" (p. 195), while perhaps over‐ Johnson, and Earl Warren among them--who at‐ stated, is fairly representative of Eisenhower's test to Knowland's integrity. Often the distinction private statements regarding Knowland. This gen‐ is well deserved. For instance, Knowland re‐ eral dislike can be extended to most members of
2 H-Net Reviews
Eisenhower's inner circle, rendering trivial those biggest mistake of his presidency (p. 152). This occasions, given great importance in the book, on statement carries a great deal of weight in the which Knowland appears to be advising Secretary present study because of Warren's importance in of State John Foster Dulles and other important Knowland's career. This statement is misleading policy makers (pp. 167, 203). Knowland's relation‐ at best. While Eisenhower was not altogether ship with Vice President Richard Nixon is also pleased by the Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. misrepresented. While the position of House ma‐ Board he did not blame Warren for the unani‐ jority/minority leader is more important than that mous decision; in fact he continued to suggest of vice president in terms of making policy, it is Warren as a possible presidential candidate not necessarily, and was not in this case, more im‐ should he decide not to run again in 1956. State‐ portant in terms of political power. The authors ments by Eisenhower to the efect that appointing correctly portray Knowland's dislike for fellow Warren had been a mistake occurred in the 1960s, Californian Nixon, but they leave the impression not immediately following the Brown v. Board de‐ that Knowland was Nixon's superior in California cision. and national politics, criticizing him for not defer‐ More troubling than the use of questionable ring to Knowland on a number of occasions. sources are those occasions when no source is cit‐ Nixon and Knowland both came to Washington in ed at all, particularly when potentially important the same year, 1946. Lacking powerful patrons information is given or conclusions are made (pp. like Warren and Taft, Nixon played the political 109, 121, 123, 145, 147). Sentences that begin with game as well, if not better, than anybody, earning "It is clear," but do not end with a reference are enough political clout to put him on the national even more difcult for a historian to accept than ticket. (Knowland, the authors believe, missed his those that contain such phrases as "seems more chance at the vice presidency when Taft failed to likely" and "probably" which are abundant in this win the 1952 Republican nomination. This is ap‐ book. parently the justifcation for the book's title One Where the authors' strengths as journalists Step From the White House ,since Taft died in are most recognizable is in the last third of the 1953). Nixon had no reason to defer to rival book. This portion deals with William Knowland's Knowland in his home state. life after he was defeated in the 1958 California Some of these problems likely come from the gubernatorial race. Interviews with family mem‐ authors' choice of source material. Although their bers, friends, and business associates paint a vivid bibliography lists archives--including the Bancroft picture of Knowland's tumultuous post-Washing‐ Library at the University of California, Berkeley ton years. These events provide a sharp contrast and several presidential libraries--most of their ci‐ to Knowland's previous years as a staunchly con‐ tations refer to secondary sources, published pri‐ servative man, very much in control of the events mary sources such as memoirs, and popular print in his life. That Knowland was able to lose control journalism of the time. Contemporary quotations of his life to such a degree is nothing short of re‐ are often taken from secondary sources, even markable. This portion of the book is an impor‐ when the original documents are available in ar‐ tant contribution to our understanding of Senator chives listed in the bibliography. Exclusive use of Knowland. Fans of political biography, particular‐ these types of sources puts an author in danger of ly those that present American lives as American perpetuating myths that have crept into the histo‐ tragedy, will be satisfed with this book. Serious riography over the years. One example is the au‐ students of American post-war political history, I thor's statement that Eisenhower often said that believe, will be disappointed. appointing Warren to the Supreme Court was the
3 H-Net Reviews
This review was commissioned for H-Pol by Lex Renda
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-pol
Citation: Steven Wagner. Review of Montgomery, Gayle B.; Johnson, James W. One Step From the White House: The Rise and Fall of Senator William F. Knowland. H-Pol, H-Net Reviews. December, 1998.
URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=2567
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
4