rssOne-Party Government Does Not Equal ‘Extreme’
Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 3:35 pm
- 16 Comments
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Wikimedia)
Republicans have unveiled their closing argument. Desperate to prevent a huge Democratic landslide, Republicans warn that one-party government under Democrats would surely mean liberal extremism.
Raising the specter of an “Obama, Pelosi and Reid” government, Sen. John McCain refers to the combination of Sen. Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as a “dangerous threesome.” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) warns, “Liberals are bent on handing Barack Obama a filibuster-proof Senate majority to rubber-stamp his radical agenda.”
The argument is based on a misreading of American history. For, during periods of one-party government, when Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress, history demonstrates that they have not shifted radically toward a leftward agenda.
Illustration by: Matt Mahurin
Few observers, other than those on the far right, characterized the New Deal as liberal extremism in action. Most perceived President Franklin D. Roosevelt as an experimenter who tried to please everyone. FDR and his Democratic counterparts did everything in their power to save capitalism from the threat of totalitarianism and communism during the Great Depression.
The period between 1933 and 1938 witnessed a dramatic expansion of government. But with each and every policy, Democrats were careful to constrain the ability of government officials to control capitalist institutions and to protect the power of state and local government.
The economic regulations passed in the 1930s allowed private economic institutions to maintain power and profit. Wall Street regulations primarily curbed dangerous and unethical transactions, while the Securities Exchange Commission was set up to monitor wrong-doing. This left the basic decisions to investors.
The major effort to manage pricing and production was the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933. In the worst economic moment of the nation’s history, the legislation essentially asked businesses to voluntarily adhere to codes that would be enforced through voluntary compliance combined with public pressure. The program collapsed by the end of 1934, before the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional, because so many business leaders were not living up to their promises.
The farm programs, created in 1933, subsidized agribusiness as opposed to taking it over. The New Deal offered the agriculture industry financial incentives to make decisions that benefited the larger economy. The government paid for crops. The Communist Party leader, Earl Browder, lamented that Roosevelt was “carrying out more thoroughly and brutally than even Hoover the capitalist attack against the masses.”
Social Security, passed in 1935, only covered a limited portion of the workforce — excluding farmers, domestic workers, professionals and others — while relying on a regressive, self-financed tax to pay for benefits.
Lyndon Baines Johnson (Wikimedia)
Lyndon B. Johnson and the Democratic Congress in 1964 and 1965 were also quite timid. The War on Poverty received meager funding. Democrats had given priority to passing an across-the-board tax reduction to stimulate the economy, rather than spending on the poor.
Congress allocated $500 million for the Community Action program, a figure that paled in comparison to what Washington spent on Social Security, agricultural benefits or defense. The War on Poverty focused on developing self-sufficiency among the poor, a far cry from socialism, and the programs relied on civic organizations and local government rather than centralized control in Washington.
The civil-rights bill that Democrats passed in 1964 emphasized the protection of individual rather than group rights. The more aggressive program of affirmative action would not emerge until a Republican was in the White House, in 1969, and then there was divided government.
When Democrats controlled the White House and Congress, in 1964, they insisted on civil-rights legislation that focused on the more moderate goal of eliminating racial discrimination against individuals. This, they said, respected American principles. The government remained reactive under their plan, responding when individual rights were violated, rather than proactively combating institutional racism.
When it came to health care, the Medicare bill of 1965 was a watered-down version of the far bolder health-care proposals that Democrats floated in the 1940s — unsuccessfully. To avoid another defeat, Democrats decided to narrow their ambitions with a limited program to provide hospital insurance coverage just to the elderly. Medicare was created within Social Security to bolster political support, using its regressive self-financed tax system. The government refrained from regulating the prices hospitals could charge. Blue Cross and Blue Shield handled the insurance.
Even when Southern Democrats lost their power in Congress, united government did not result in a dramatic swing to the left. President Jimmy Carter struggled with the various factions within the Democratic Party over energy independence, welfare reform, defense spending and more. United government did not help the president overcome horrible relations with legislators in his own party. Carter’s concern with inflation trumped his worries about unemployment.
Conservative grass-roots activists took advantage of these problems by allying with the GOP congressional minority in the Congress to stifle measures like SALT II.
Bill Clinton (Flickr: World Economic Forum)
President Bill Clinton did not fare much better. Democrats controlled Washington, but Clinton decided to start his term with deficit reduction and free trade. When he proposed health-care reform, it was a far cry from the single-player, national health insurance models that had been championed by Democrats like Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. And even that legislation did not make it through Congress.
The best case for Republicans to show how one-party government produces extremism comes from the period of GOP rule between 2002 and 2006. One-party government allowed Republicans to pass a massive tax reduction in 2001 that severely cut into the coffers of government and provided significant tax relief to wealthier Americans. After 9/11, the Bush administration authorized a huge expansion of the national security state.
Yet much of what George W. President Bush actually accomplished still relied on executive power and secrecy. Signing statements, covert national-security programs, executive orders and misleading information were all instrumental to how Bush achieved his goals. Bush has continued to rely on these tactics under divided government as well.
The historical record is clear. One-party government does not lead to political extremism — and a look at the past contradicts GOP claims that Democratic control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue would produce a dramatic shift to the left. Democrats will face all sorts of pressures, from internal factions to budgetary restraints to the 2012 election, that will serve as a powerful check on what the party can accomplish.
Disappointment, not extremism, is a more realistic prediction of what the party could ultimately face.
Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School. He is the author of “On Capitol Hill: The Struggle to Reform Congress and its Consequences, 1948-2000″ and the editor of “The American Congress: The Building of Democracy.” He is finishing a book on the history of national-security politics since World War II and another on the presidency of Jimmy Carter.
16 Comments
Comment posted October 30, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
I am afraid professor, that you are setting up a straw man to knockdown with the “extremism” argument. The problem with One Party Rule, is not extremism. The problem(s) is(are) concentration of power, abuse of power, undermining constitutional protections, erosion of freedom, faster rate of growth government size and spending, lack of oversight, excessive secrecy and more corruption all of which took place under all of the single party rule episodes that lasted longer than two years (and some less). I will grant you, that the damage done is a function of time, and if the One Party Rule lasts two years or less without a filibuster proof Senate, the damage can be minimized. You also gloss over the fact that the primary constraints on ” the ability of government officials to control capitalist institutions”under the Democrats and Roosevelt were not applied by the Democrats as you suggest, but by the Supreme Court, which ruled several of the Roosevelt government initiatives unconstitutional. We will undoubtedly be reliant on the Supreme Court to again protect our freedoms under the impending Obama One Party Rule. We'll see how that goes
Just as a reminder of some of the abse of power that took place under your favorite example FDR: Abuse of IRS and FBI power for political gain, Massive Expansion of Federal Government, Confiscation of gold from American citizens, Seizing Coal Mines and other business, NIRA and the National Recovery Administration to imposing price controls, setting production quotas and implementing centralized control of the economy (later ruled unconstitutional), Federal seizure of control of state tideland oil resources, Attempted stacking of the Supreme Court, Broad expansion of Executive War Powers, Higher Taxes, Widespread political corruption and of course – Internment Camps for American Citizens (of Japanese ancestry).
Comment posted October 30, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
Just because the Republicans were and may still be an inch away from declaring a totalitarian, authoritarian one party state doesn't mean the Democrats will fall to the same level. The Democratic party is famously incapable of marching in lockstep, let alone sponsoring 76 trombone parades. IF you want some good Leni Reifenstahl visuals, Wagnerian music, and feel good stormtroopin', you need Republicans. Morning in America? Thousand points of light? New World Order? Only Republicans and the Reich could come up with and actually share slogans.
Comment posted October 31, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
Thanks for pubishing this historical perspective. It's featured on RealityChex.com at http://www.realitychex.com
Comment posted November 5, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
When you focus too far to the left, you leave out America. Stop hating the country you live in and embrace the face that you still have freedom of speach as an American!! Sing the pledge of allegiance… I bet you can't!!!!
Comment posted December 7, 2008 @ 11:10 am
As usual the Republicans are crying foul before the game starts.
Additionally they are hypocrites in that they had a ONE PERSON (party) government for 6 years and never cried foul.
I believe that the contrast between Obama and Bush will show that a one party government is as good or as bad as the people in charge and the things they do with power.
Comment posted December 7, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Jason
You don't have freedom of speech; you just think you do.
If the Emperor can simply say you are an enemy combatant and have you imprisoned without habeas corpus or a lawyer or a trial FOREVER, you live in a third world dictatorship that has you conned into believing you live in a Constitutional Republic.
Comment posted December 7, 2008 @ 11:51 am
MW,
Has the Bush Administration:
Abused the IRS, FBI, Justice Departments power and gutted the Constitution is many ways?
Caused a Massive expansion of the Federal Governments power and spending?
Tried to stack the Supreme Court?
Hugely and illegally increased the Executive War and other powers?
Contained widespread corruption including the loss of billions in war funds?
And, finally while the Internment Camps were shameful they don't even come close to Guantanamo and Rendition to countries that torture or the Out of the US Prisons.
Oh and last participated in the deregulation the financial markets to the advantage of…
Your first paragraph sounds like an indictment of the Bush Presidency to me.
Finally I fault Congress for wimpiness and disgusting politics in office. Every administration will push to get what it believes and wants. Congress even after 2006 was rudderless and impotent at best and let things get worse to anger the public and win bigger in 2008 at worst. Congress passed horrible legislation even after 2006 just because they were afraid the Republicans would claim they were soft on terrorists if they didn't. That is not checks and balances it is politics. It is not one party anything.
Finally I hope and believe that the Supreme Court will have its docket full trying to undue all the illegalities that the Bush Administration did in the name of keeping us safe.
Enjoy your Christmas flying, but don't go out of the country. And beware of what you say on the phone or other electronic mediums as it may cause the unconstitutional spot light to shine on you. I'll bet that you, and I know that I would, admit to anything to stop the water-boarding or other “legal” interrogation methods used by OUR government.
These are not abuses of a one party government they are aberrations used by and approved by scared or avaricious politicians.
Comment posted January 25, 2009 @ 6:42 am
Actually, the New Deal wasn't “liberal extremism,” it was more pure Communism. Why mince words. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Communist. A soft Communist; not a murderous dictatorial Communist like his buddy Stalin, but a Communist none-the-less.
Consider his Vice-President for 8 years, Henry Wallace, was a card-carrying member of the Socialist Party USA. Roosevelt nationalized industries at a faster pace than even Hugo Chavez. And he instituted a mandatory Draft, and subsidized government work through the civilian conservation corps.
Oops, just realized our new President has much the same views. Communist II you might say.
Eric – Libertarian (not a Conservative)
Comment posted February 26, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
Both sets of my grandparents were saved by the New Deal, as were many others of that era.
Comment posted April 20, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Republicans complain about Democrats because they are afraid the Democrats will actually do what Republicans have done. Now that Obama has the power of the extreme executive the right is shouting about fascism at their teabagging festivals. Jonah the whale has written an entire book trying to obfuscate the definition of fascism and confabulated a narrative that claims that liberals and leftists are the fascists, not the corporatists and their authoritarian lackeys. The GOP has dominated the presidency, the Congress, and the judiciary, the latter of which does not change rapidly and which is salted with political partisans of a most perverse stripe, the Federalist Society.
The GOP is afraid that though it can dish it out, it will not be able to take it.
Comment posted April 20, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Republicans complain about Democrats because they are afraid the Democrats will actually do what Republicans have done. Now that Obama has the power of the extreme executive the right is shouting about fascism at their teabagging festivals. Jonah the whale has written an entire book trying to obfuscate the definition of fascism and confabulated a narrative that claims that liberals and leftists are the fascists, not the corporatists and their authoritarian lackeys. The GOP has dominated the presidency, the Congress, and the judiciary, the latter of which does not change rapidly and which is salted with political partisans of a most perverse stripe, the Federalist Society.
The GOP is afraid that though it can dish it out, it will not be able to take it.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
