By Dr. Ken Wolensky

How do today’s gubernatorial candidates and issues compare to what has come before in Pennsylvania? In this first installment on contemporary versus historical gubernatorial elections we’ll explore the positions of Democrat Joe Hoeffel with two like-minded governors.

Pennsylvania has a limited tradition of so-called progressivism. It is unusual for a gubernatorial candidate to espouse himself in this vein. Such politicians are seen as overly liberal, out-of-step, and bent on tax and spend policies. Joe Hoeffel is atypical; so, too, were Gifford Pinchot (1923-1927 and 1931-1935), a progressive Republican, and George M. Leader (1955-1959) a liberal Democrat. Here’s a look at the similarity of Hoeffel’s platform with those of Pinchot and Leader in three areas: taxes, environment, and workplace and labor issues.

Taxes
Pennsylvania failed on at least two occasions to implement a graduated income tax. Governor Milton Shapp (1971-1979) enacted the first flat percentage-based income tax in 1971. Leader pushed-hard for a graduated income tax to alleviate a state budget deficit soon after taking office. Republican opposition was vehement and he was forced to increase the state sales tax from 1% to 3%. Similarly, public opposition to any income tax resulted, in part, in Democrats loosing a majority in the House of Representatives in the 1956 election.

Though not overly specific, Hoeffel argues for a graduated income tax and points to its fairness especially for those with low and moderate income as well as middle class home owners already burdened with high property taxes. The Commonwealth’s track record is very poor in this regard, however, and Hoeffel is likely to face stiff opposition similar to Leader.

Environment
It is rare for gubernatorial candidates not to address to address environmental issues. Yet, up to the mid-20th century it was rare that the environment was even mentioned. Gifford Pinchot and George Leader were rare exceptions (as were Bob Casey and Milton Shapp later). Hoeffel’s platform on the environment closely parallels these two governors.

Pinchot was an ardent environmentalist who served as the nation’s first professional forester for President Theodore Roosevelt. Prior to the governorship he headed PA’s forestry commission that expanded state-owned forests and parks, especially important in an era when clear-cutting was the norm of the private sector. As governor he further expanded state forests, protected waterways from industrial pollution, and taxed gasoline tax to fund roadways especially so-called ‘Pinchot Roads’ to aid rural farmers while protecting rural landscapes and forests.

Leader was quite similar to Pinchot when it came to the environment. He and his Secretary of Forests and Waters, Maurice Goddard, added thousands of additional acres to state forestry lands and led initiatives to place a state park within 25 miles of every Pennsylvanian (a vision largely achieved by the late 20th century). Leader also enacted policies to further protect state waterways from industrial pollution and the discharge of a new type of waste – that produced by nuclear power plants. Finally, his administration took the first statewide approach to soil erosion problems in rural areas by planting trees and regulating farm run-off.

While Hoeffel doesn’t address forestry issues he professes that he’ll “push the Assembly to enact laws requiring at least 100-foot buffers along all streams in our state. This would require new construction be set back from all Pennsylvania streams, reducing pollution and flood damage and protecting drinking water quality.” Moreover, though energy wasn’t an issue in Pinchot or Leader’s time, Hoeffel supports the development of “cellulosic ethanol from sustainable raw sources like wood chips and agricultural waste, as well as biodiesel, which is made from vegetable oil or animal fat” as it helps farmers and reduces reliance on fossil fuels. And, he advocates a green building policy to reduce energy consumption.

Workplace and Labor Issues
Hoeffel’s workplace and labor platform certainly stands out among his competitors. Besides supporting increasing the minimum wage, protecting workers’ rights to organize, eliminated gender and race-based wage discrimination, and increasing workers compensation benefits, the Democrat advocates a highly unusual position: that of restoring full funding to the State System of Higher Education to rejuvenate practically dormant workers’ and labor education programs. A longstanding tradition in industrial Pennsylvania, such programs educated workers and union members on all types of subjects from workplace safety to contract negotiations to labor history. Opponents argue that these programs are obsolete and out-of-step with Pennsylvania’s ‘new’ economy. Hoeffel argues that there are numerous schools of business and MBA programs in the Commonwealth, but none on labor or for working people.

Leader was a labor-friendly politician and received overwhelming support from unions. Despite strong Republican opposition he signed the Commonwealth’s first substantive civil rights law: the Fair Employment Practices Act, prohibiting race-based employment discrimination. He appointed like-minded professionals to the Labor Relations Board, and expanded civil service so that qualified workers had access to solid public sector jobs void of patronage. And, it was during Leader’s administration that the foundation for the SSHE was put into place (formally created in the early 1960s) and the Commonwealth committed funding to community colleges. State and community colleges offered workers’ and labor education programs and enhanced access to higher education for working people.

Among Pinchot’s accomplishments when it came to working people was a restriction on so-called ‘homework’ where workers took contract work into their homes. A form of contracting-out, it permitted employers to escape paying workers’ compensation, provide for basic workplace safety measures, and encouraged workers to outbid one another to the employer’s benefit. And, to alleviate the ravages of the Great Depression Pinchot embraced many New Deal public works programs to building roads, parks, and public buildings. Moroever, Pinchot appointed labor-friendly members to the Labor Relations Board; he argued that the board was typically the purview of private interests. Finally, in his first term Pinchot inaugurated the state’s first civil service system to root out patronage and hire the qualified.

In sum, Gifford Pinchot and George Leader remain anomalies in Pennsylvania politics. Both were elected, in part, in the spirit of change especially away from Republican machine politics that had dominated the Commonwealth since the end of the Civil War. Though a Republican, Pinchot ran hard against the party machine and was elected largely on the reforms he advocated. Similary, Leader ran hard against an eroding Republican machine, vowed change, and delivered. His youth (36 years old) and vigor combined with his platform propelled him into office.

Like them, Hoeffel, too, is an anomaly especially in the current era of conservatism in Pennsylvania and nationally. Whether his progressivism will be embraced by a skeptical electorate remains to be seen. Yet, he walks in some legendary footsteps.

Dr. Ken Wolensky is a historian who frequently writes and speaks on Pennsylvania’s political, social, and industrial history. He is publishing a biography of Governor George Leader entitles “Challenging Complacency” to be available early in 2011.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 9th, 2010 at 12:28 pm and is filed under Front Page Stories. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.