Of the many American institutions that have failed to meet the moment since Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, none is more deserving of our disappointment and disapproval than Congress.
Its failure, especially the Republican majority in the House and Senate, to honor constitutional obligations as well as legislative and oversight responsibilities is disheartening.
Those on Capitol Hill looking for a model of wisdom, probity and courage would do well to study the career of U.S. Sen. Philip Hart of Michigan. Hart was a highly consequential and deeply compelling 20th century lawmaker who has largely been lost to history. His career is a case study in quiet and effective statesmanship. He combined goodness and greatness, sweetness and steel.
Hart was a decorated World War II veteran who was badly wounded on D-Day. He enjoyed a successful career in Michigan politics before his election to the U.S. Senate, where he served from 1959 to 1976. Though an unabashedly liberal Democrat, Hart commanded respect from lawmakers of both parties for his intellect, decency and grit. He had a clear political philosophy but was not an ideologue. He listened far more than he spoke. And when he spoke, it was often to ask polite but penetrating questions that drove to the heart of an issue.
Hart quietly assumed a leadership role in drafting and passing landmark legislation that advanced civil rights, protected consumers, overhauled immigration policy, championed fair housing and preserved the environment.
He was a Senate standout who served effectively alongside better-known colleagues including Mike Mansfield of Montana, Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, Everett Dirksen of Illinois, Edmund Muskie of Maine, William Fulbright of Arkansas, Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, George McGovern of South Dakota, and John, Robert and Edward Kennedy from Massachusetts.
Hart was substantive, tenacious and modest. Mary McGrory, a Washington journalist who covered the senator, said he was willing to acknowledge mistakes “not in off-the-record dinner party murmurings or from the privileged sanctuary of memoirs long after the fact, but at the time and in public.” Edward Kennedy wryly observed that Hart “lived by the Golden Rule of Washington, that there is no limit to what you can accomplish in this city, if you are willing to give someone else the credit.”
Several aspects of his statesmanship deserve reflection and emulation.
First, Hart was committed to fact-based and future-focused legislating, tackling difficult and neglected issues that provided few political rewards or media attention. He worked methodically for years on consumer, environmental, health, housing and anti-trust issues. During one Senate Democratic meeting, he urged his colleagues to reject a politically expedient approach, saying, “This might get us through the problem today, but we all have history to worry about.”
Second, he was willing to disagree with political supporters and constituents on consequential matters. In the 1960s, Hart implored automobile company executives, based in his home state of Michigan, to build safer and more fuel-efficient cars, even though it would disrupt their business model. He even questioned whether General Motors, Ford and Chrysler should be broken into smaller, more competitive companies. He supported busing to integrate public schools even when this was fiercely unpopular. Hart’s stance infuriated some of his liberal supporters and sparked a Michigan recall petition to oust him from the Senate. He also backed gun control legislation in a state that had more than a million active and vocal hunters.
Third, he was open to changing his mind if new and persuasive evidence came to light. “For Hart, being liberal meant never being too sure you were right,” said Michael O’Brien, one of his biographers. He was also unflinchingly fair. During Senate debates, he would fully describe the matter under consideration. He was legendary for carefully presenting the opposing perspective, sometimes more effectively than its proponents did. During policy discussions with his staff and other senators, he frequently said, “Let’s try to see this from the other side.”
Hart was not perfect. He agonized over policies and could be indecisive. He was prone to self-doubt. He may have been the only senator in American history who openly said he would make a bad president because he did not believe his temperament was sufficiently decisive.
Hart, however, made a wonderful senator, a model public servant and an inspiring statesman. “In his 18 years in the Senate,” wrote Colman McCarthy, a Washington Post columnist, “Philip Hart has practiced as pure a style of politics as that body has ever seen, elevating not only the level of thought but also the vocation itself.”
We urgently need and deserve an elevation of thought and renewed sense of vocation on Capitol Hill. We need statesmanship of the caliber that Hart demonstrated.
John T. Shaw is director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute. Shaw’s columns, exclusive to the Tribune, appear the last Monday of each month. His most recent book is “The Education of a Statesman: How Global Leaders Can Repair a Fractured World.”
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
