Which presidential elections really mattered?

John Steele Gordon has a very interesting piece in today’s WSJ, arguing that Trump May Herald a New Political Order.

For all their noise and news dominance, presidential elections typically don’t change the country all that much. That isn’t a bad thing but a sign of how strong American democracy is. It rarely veers far from the center, where successful policy usually lies. But on rare occasions, deep historical currents and extraordinary political talents produce an entirely new order. It happened in the presidential elections of 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932—and, quite probably, 2016.

Here are truncated versions of his arguments for why those years were transforming:

1828

“Jacksonian democracy” moved the locus of power sharply down the socioeconomic scale. Soon most states repealed property requirements for voting, a first step toward universal suffrage.

Jackson created the modern Democratic Party, and the intense opposition to his policies coalesced into the Whig Party, establishing the two-party norm that prevails to this day. No wonder the great 19th-century American historian George Bancroft considered Jackson the last of the Founding Fathers.

1860

The Republican Party, founded in 1854 as an expressly abolitionist party, grew rapidly as the Whigs collapsed. …It would take the greatest war in American history to reunite the country. By the time the Civil War was over, the nation had been transformed. The South, impoverished and politically crippled, would be effectively a Third World country inside a First World one for 100 years. The North, with its rapidly expanding industry and growing population, was politically dominant. More than half the antebellum presidents had been Southern. In the century after the war ended, only two Southerners were elected to the White House: Woodrow Wilson, a Virginia native who made his career in New Jersey, and Texas’ Lyndon B. Johnson.

Presidential elections in the decades after the Civil War tended to be close.

1896

William McKinley’s decisive victory in 1896 marked the dawn of an era of Republican dominance that lasted more than a generation. McKinley ran on a platform of “Sound Money, Protection, and Prosperity,” a doctrine that suited the interests of the nation’s fast-rising affluent classes. … Between 1896 to 1932, Republicans controlled the Senate for all but six years, and the House for all but 10. The GOP lost the White House only when Theodore Roosevelt split the party in 1912, giving Woodrow Wilson victory with only 41.8% of the popular vote.

1932

Democrats regained political dominance thanks to the Great Depression and the remarkable political talents of Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1928 the Republican presidential nominee, Herbert Hoover, carried 40 of the 48 states and enjoyed large Republican congressional majorities. Four years later, Hoover lost 42 states to FDR. The Democrats also took large congressional majorities, which allowed them to greatly expand the reach and power of the federal government, increasing taxes sharply on the rich and running budget deficits to pay for popular new programs such as Social Security.

Over the next 48 years only two Republicans were able to capture the White House: Dwight Eisenhower, a national hero, and Richard Nixon, who won by a narrow margin after the Democrats had torn themselves apart over the Vietnam War. Between 1932 and 1980, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress for a total of only four years.

2016

(Excerpting his entire argument since it’s topical)

But by the 1970s the liberalism that had powered the New Deal and the Great Society had succumbed to one of the basic rules of political science: Movements tend to evolve toward the extreme. The struggle for civil rights had been decisively won in the 1960s, but liberals kept fighting that war, deepening racial divides with identity politics. Though union membership had been sliding for years, out-of-date laws kept labor politically powerful. The federal bureaucracy metastasized, as program after program was added with little overall planning. Many government offices, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, were captured by Democratic constituencies.

Liberal policies were increasingly tailored to the interests of a political elite, not the country as a whole. The people noticed. Jimmy Carter came out of nowhere to capture the 1976 Democratic nomination, promising to clean up Washington. He failed, but Ronald Reagan, touting his own outside-the-Beltway bona fides, proved the most consequential president since FDR, both at home and abroad.

Because Reagan was always restrained by a solidly Democratic House, he was not as transformative a figure as Jackson, Lincoln, McKinley or FDR. But he did have a lasting effect. The next Democratic president, Bill Clinton, ran as a centrist. When voters rejected his liberal policies in 1994 by electing the first Republican Congress in 40 years, he bent with the political winds. He declared in 1996 that “the era of big government is over.” He compromised with lawmakers to reform welfare and produce the first budget surpluses in nearly 30 years.

But it didn’t last. Congressional Republicans became more interested in their own re-election campaigns than in fiscal discipline. Liberal social-engineering housing policies produced a housing bubble and a banking crisis. Then came the presidential election of 2008, the only one in history held amid a financial panic. A Republican candidate perceived as unsteady lost to a young, charismatic Democrat.

Barack Obama took office with strong Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. He pushed through a very liberal, and very unpopular, agenda. The Obama years have proved a disaster for Democrats. They lost the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014, both tidal-wave elections. Republicans now control most governorships and state legislatures as well.

So does Donald Trump’s stunning election herald something permanent—a shift akin to those brought by Jackson, Lincoln, McKinley and FDR? That’s a fair bet, considering the GOP gains that preceded it. …

The Obama years showed liberalism to be exhausted, its ideas out of date and its advocates living in an imagined past. The Democratic Party has never been so weak, or so old. The top three Democrats in the House are all at least 76. The average age of their GOP counterparts is 49. The Republicans’ Senate majority allowed them to delay the appointment of a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, ensuring that the Supreme Court will not tip to a liberal majority. There are more than 100 vacancies on lower federal courts waiting to be filled.

Most important, no new president, at least since Jackson, has owed so little to the political establishment. Mr. Trump was elected explicitly to change the self-serving ways of Washington. That greatly increases his freedom of action. His cabinet picks signal profound change, the likelihood of lower taxes and a regulatory environment more friendly to business. Mr. Trump also has a gift for communicating directly with the people and cutting out the oblivious media, long a part of the problem.

To bring permanent change, Mr. Trump needs policies that succeed on the ground, not merely in theory. Faster growth and rising incomes are always rewarded at the ballot box. If the president-elect makes good on his economic promises, skeptical Republicans in places like Waukesha County may come home in 2020.

But continued outreach to minority communities is also crucial. Mr. Trump has promised to address the problems of inner cities, which he accuses the Democrats of ignoring for decades. And at one rally last fall, he was handed a rainbow flag, a symbol of gay rights. He smiled broadly and held it aloft as the audience cheered.

This is not your father’s Republican Party.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Which presidential elections really mattered?

  1. Paul Marks says:

    1828 the program of Andrew Jackson was about reducing the size and scope of government – paying of the national debt and getting rid of the government backed (and therefore unconstitutional) national bank. Talking about “socioeconomic scale” rather misses the point and seems like something an academic would right (that is not a complement).

    1860 – the other major nation had a Civil War to end slavery, still less a Civil War that cost 600, 000 lives (out of a population of about 35 million). One does not have to be a Southern Apologist (and I am certainly am NOT one) to doubt the competence of the person elected in 1860 – although his murder made him a martyr. Much like the murder of President Kennedy in 1963 obscures the fact that as a man dying of Addison’s disease, and using every drug he could lay his hands on (medical and recreational) he was utterly unfit to be elected President in th e first place.

    1896 President McKinley’s program (wise or foolish) had nothing much to do with “classes” – indeed the man was a ex union lawyer. Again a touch of academic writing here rather than the truth. Ideas are right or wrong – and all economic “classes” have the same (not different) long term economic interests.

    1932 – Herbert Hoover had already massively increased taxes on “the rich” (from 25% top rate to 35%) and also indulged in deficit spending as well as telling businessmen how to run their enterprises (telling them not to cut real wages in response to the 1929 crash as they had done, quite correctly, in response to the 1921 crash). Sadly Franklin Roosevelt (who had denounced Hoover as a “socialist” in the 1932 campaign) carried on the policies of Hoover – indeed Roosevelt was even worse.

    The 1970s “liberalism” (not really liberalism at all of course) was as much that of Richard Nixon (a wild spending and regulator) as the Democrat Party. Economically the bankruptcy of places such as New York City was just the logical consequence of policies that went back decades. Indeed to a Republican Mayor in the 1930s – although Democrat Mayor Wagner in the 1950s and early 1960s had taken them to an extreme.

    1980s – yes the Democrat control of her House of Representatives means that we will never know if Ronald Reagan would have rolled back Big Government. I have my doubts – but we will never know.

    The 1990s – cuts in defence spending, and Welfare Reform (although many entitlement programs continued to grow).

    2000s – just awful. Endless government spending – on everything.

    Now – will Donald Trump get rid of any Federal Government Departments? No – because he is not even trying to. Big Government marches on – and the Federal Reserve Credit Bubble economy is actually WORSE now than it was in 2008. Mr Trump will be blamed when the economy collapses (although it is not really his fault) and Civil Society continues the path of decline it has been on since at least the 1960s. If there is any hope it is hard to see.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s