Lessons from the Political Past
Much of modern political discourse is centered around the degree to which parties can truly make changes to their country and unapologetically follow through on their core beliefs or aims. To many voters, most especially the young ones first becoming enamored with politics, such change often appears to come too slow and politicians too moderate, with their party frustratingly stubborn in its hesitancy to enact desired change. However, many of my fellow politically-involved young operate without the full context or historical perspective of why the modern political system is organized the way it has come to be, and how strategies developed. The lessons from the recent past of the 1980s and 1990s, although before the birth of many who voted in the 2020 election, could help shine a light on how to realistically comprehend politics in the context of enduring constraints. Armed with such historical knowledge, we will be able to better effect change and achieve the goal of positively and meaningfully interacting with the wider world.
In the early American political history following the creation of the Republican Party, it was the national and dominant one, only losing presidential elections under unusual circumstances. This paradigm was flipped on its head during the Great Depression, when President Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition was forged and won the presidency for him four times, cementing a newly dominant Democrat party for the following decades. This alliance endured from 1932 into the 60s, and in that span Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and countless other progressive reforms were passed. Roosevelt was once even reelected with 48 states, and Democrat Johnson won in a landslide with more of the popular vote than any candidate in any election since 1820, which was the last to be uncontested. He won that victory over Goldwater, a Republican nominee who notably was deemed as too conservative for the mainstream. Republicans were only able to break through the Democratic victories of this era by nominating famed war hero General Eisenhower for President, who was already widely known, liked, and respected, and not particularly political, as not to upset the liberal consensus dominant at the time. For all the other elections from the 1929 stock market crash up to 1968, the Democratic candidate won, and the New Deal coalition had a popular mandate to make major reforms to the American economy and society. While liberal reformers may have become thrilled at their free rein to enact change, it would soon come to an end.
Ultimately, this movement stalled, and such a dominant position became eroded, as White Southerners, Northern Catholics, and other constituencies once key to the New Deal coalition drifted towards Republicans. Their fatigue with liberal changes, skepticism of increased welfare and government programs, reaction to rising crime rates, and the newfound salience of social issues all united to turn the political environment on its head and return the Republican Party to dominance, a dominance which is hard to overestimate. President Nixon and Reagan were both reelected with 49 states. The 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988 elections were all convincing and often overwhelming Republican victories, only broken by Southerner Jimmy Carter squeaking into a narrow win after the Watergate scandal. Democrats found themselves in the political wilderness and their situation seemed hopeless.
It was in this environment that Bill Clinton emerged. Many current Democrats have a negative opinion of Bill Clinton as a too conservative or compromising president, frustrated with his form of politics. However, the historical context demonstrates that these strategies were turned to by Democrats after a seeming inability to break into public conscience. With the public mood veering right, Bill Clinton adapted his party to the mood of the time. While previous Democratic nominees like Michael Dukakis were lampooned as supporting too large a government or too weak a police force, Bill Clinton strategically steered as far from those positions unpopular with the public. Clinton and his “New Democrats” found a way to be decisively elected — twice — and turned the Democratic Party around from being sidelined to a successful one that, following Clinton’s first election, would win the popular vote in seven of the next eight elections. While this pole position could be taken for granted by its supporters, it was not that long ago that a Democratic candidate had lost to Nixon by 17 million votes — the most ever.
In office, centrist Clinton stayed true to many of his more conservative stances, while also passing some progressive reforms of his own. He signed a tough-on-crime bill, the Defense of Marriage Act, and welfare reform — famously and unorthodoxly declaring that “the era of big government is over” — but also passed family and medical leave, additional health insurance for families with children, moderate tax increases, an assault weapons ban, and other liberal priorities. On the international stage, he signed new free trade agreements and successfully intervened in the Yugoslav Wars, carrying out an internationalist vision which both parties mostly favored at the time. The support behind Clinton allowed him to competently establish his vision for the United States’ uncertain global role after victory in the Cold War. A presidency of compromises, Bill Clinton’s may have been the only Democratic one possible after 24 years of Republican ascendance.
Concluding this brief historical journey, it should be evident that political fortunes often change and often demand new strategies from its participants. Both political parties in the modern US experience similar but inverse debates, between establishment politicians and their dedicated voter bases wanting to see as much and as ideologically aligned change as possible. However, all would be wise to look at the history that has come before, and the many periods in the 20th century during which one party had almost exclusively governed for decades. Clearly, it’s possible for the political winds to turn towards or against a party, depending on both economic conditions and that party’s alignment with the national mood, which demand either change in tactics or positions to address and breakthrough with desired reforms. Whether in Republicans successfully running relatively liberal Eisenhower during New Deal dominance, or Democrats’ Bill Clinton during the Reagan Era, history has shown that compromising is often necessary, and that “less than everything” is often a better strategy than defeat.
