« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Understanding the Modern Democratic Party

To Defeat Obama, We Must Defeat FDR's Frankenstein Monster

Franklin Roosevelt forged the modern Democratic Party in the midst of the Great Depression.  Long before Rahm Emanuel spoke of “never letting a crisis go to waste,”  FDR used the economic crisis of the 1930s to bludgeon the Republican Party and unite a governing coalition that made the Democratic Party the dominant political party from 1930 to the present.*  In the process, FDR demonstrated that he was a first rate political strategist on the level of Machiavelli.

FDR set about his task even before his election as President in 1932.  Shortly after the financial crash in 1929, he began to travel the country to raise his visibility and that of the Democratic Party while making sure that the Republicans, and President Herbert Hoover, received the blame for the financial crisis.  He instructed the Democrats in Congress to block Hoover’s attempt to remedy the crisis thus making sure the economic slump continued until the election.

After taking office in 1933, FDR did not hesitate to use the power of the New Deal programs, the promise of government largesse (relief, money and jobs), and federal regulations to build his coalition.  He withheld federal aid and the benefits of the New Deal programs – like grants from the Federal Emergency Relief Administration – from Congressional districts that continued to vote Republican or otherwise opposed the New Deal.  He used the the National Recovery Administration to bully and harass those businesses and corporations that opposed unionization.  He used relief measures like the Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Farm Credit Administration to bind elements of the middle class to the Democratic Party.  And, in the end, he simply made many of the unemployed, employees of the federal government through the Civilian Conservation Corp, the Civil Works Administration, and the Public Works Administration.

FDR’s efforts paid off in the Presidential election of 1936 when the New Deal Coalition first emerged on the political battlefield.  The coalition consisted of traditional Democrats in both the North and South, western farmers aided by the farm programs, ethnic groups in the northern cities who benefited from the new welfare programs**, middle-class property owners saved by the refinancing programs, intellectuals (and pseudo-intellectuals), unions and the larger labor movement, Socialists, and African Americans.  The coalition crushed the Republican Presidential candidate, Alfred M. Landon of Kansas (28 million to 17 million in the popular vote, 523 to 8 in the Electoral College), and gained a super majority in the Senate (77 to 19) and the House (328 to 107).  FDR would use the coalition to win reelection two more times for a record four terms.

African Americans joined the New Deal Coalition for reasons unique from the other members.  Since the U.S. Civil War, African Americans had been stalwarts of the Republican Party and many Republicans took it for granted that they would always follow the Party of Lincoln.  In the early years of the New Deal, FDR did not embrace African Americans as part of his new coalition because he needed the votes of Southern Democrats to pass much of the New Deal legislation.  In fact, many of the early New Deal programs either excluded blacks, segregated them, or actively harmed their interests.  (For example, the attempt by the Agricultural Adjustment Act to lower farm production led to the eviction of many black sharecroppers from southern farms.)  Gradually, however, African Americans began to drift into the New Deal fold through the work of Eleanor Roosevelt.  She served as the link between the administration and the black community.  She visited their political and social organization, interceded for them with the administration and the New Deal agencies, and gradually won them  to the cause.

Although the New Deal Coalition has changed over the decades since 1936, the core of the coalition has remained – unions, the urban centers, farmers dependent on government subsidies, government employees (Northern Virginia), intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals, Socialist and African-Americans.  New groups like the modern druids and worshippers of Gaia (environmentalists), hedonists, and the young voters (Do I repeat myself?) have joined the coalition to replace those that departed.***

The Democratic coalition is still held together by the promise of government largesse or other forms of government intervention on their behalf – federal regulations, the promise of new “rights,” etc.  To keep the coalition together, the Democrats have been forced over the years to pay tribute to the coalition members who keep them in power.  The Great Society programs of LBJ, the unionization of public employees by Clinton, ethanol subsidies, the promise of gay rights, and increasing environmental regulations should all be viewed in that light.

In recent years, the Democratic coalition has become increasingly strained as the interests of the various members have come into conflict with one another.  The most glaring example is the growing conflict between the unions and the environmental movement.  Environmental regulations continue to cost union jobs – just ask those who work in the oil industry or the coal miners of the United Mine Workers Association.  These political fissures can only be covered over by increasing government largesse that delays the day of reckoning, which is why we now have almost two years of unemployment payments to buy off those who have lost their jobs due to government regulation.  The Democrats have now become the hunted victims of the Frankenstein monster they created.****  They must continue to pay or risk political dissolution.  They face the unenviable choice of driving the country into the fiscal abyss or losing their electoral power.  At one point the day of reckoning will come.  It will either come now or when the country is too broke to pay off the Democratic coalition.

The Republicans can hasten that day of reckoning by refusing to raise taxes to pay for the Democratic coalition.  Republicans can also refuse to raise the debt ceiling and thus block efforts by the Democrats to borrow money to pay off their coalition.  Why should Republicans be complicit in feeding the Democratic monster and thus ensuring Democratic dominance at the ballot box?

Republicans can also begin to make inroads into that coalition.

Southwestern Virginia, the heart of the coal industry and once a bastion of Democratic power, voted overwhelming against Obama and his regulatory regime.  Republicans need to politically consolidate on that opposition and turn those disgruntled Democrats into pro-job growth, pro-energy Republicans.  If southwest Virginia becomes a part of the Republican growth coalition, then the other coal areas will fall.

Republicans can also make inroads into the African American community.  We need to proceed like Eleanor Roosevelt and make a personal connection.  Republicans need to communicate that the black community can be much more than just dependents of the federal government.  We need to teach the value of conservatism one family, one community organization, one church at a time.  Where are our ambassadors to that community?  African Americans already align more with social conservatism than they do with the social liberalism (gay rights, abortion) of the Democratic Party.  We need to strengthen that natural affinity.  Why not bring representatives of the African American community to CPAC and the Value Voters Summit each year.  Forget the older leadership and go for the next generation.  Give them some real hope and show them what real change looks like.

These are just a few suggestions.

*I say they are the dominant party, not because they have always held the Presidency, but because they have successfully shaped the national debate to favor their liberalism.  Republicans have only succeeded in turning the debate and going on the offensive under Reagan and the Republican Congress under Newt.

**Not the “Welfare Program” of the Great Society but little “w” welfare programs.

***I do not include women in the coalition.  Women are not a permanent part of the Democratic coalition.  In the recent election, the gender gap is non-existent if African American women are removed from the equation.

****Yes, I know Frankenstein was the name of the scientist and not the name of the monster.  That is why I said Frankenstein monster.

COMMENTS

  • exitsfunnel

    I think that overall this is a pretty good diary and very well written. I do slightly take issue with the dismissal of the gender gap because it goes away if you exclude african american women. I never understand that talking point. Aren’t african american women, women?

    Genrally, on the topic of party coalitions, I think that both parties right now have real issues and have been of the opinion that there is a major realignment coming. It’s hard to guess how it is all going to shake out but I am absolutely convinced that 15 years from now, we will have two parties, both of which are very dissimilar to the ones we have now.

    • kipling

      Regarding the gender gap, the question is whether or not their voting pattern is determined by their gender or their race. I hate to put it in those terms but those are the catagories used.

      • exitsfunnel

        You can play that game with any row of the crosstabs though. Do white men vote for rebublicans because they are white or because they are men? What about hispanics who make less than $40,000? Do they vote for democrats because they are hispanic? Or because of their education level? Or because of their income?

        None of these questions make any sense? I mean, they might be interesting to ponder but in terms of the electoral demographics they are irrelevant. You want to know what the gender gap is? Count up the number of women who voted for each side and there you go.

        • kipling

          I agree that the interpretation of the data will vary. I hate to even use demographic data in some ways because it says that demographics determine outcomes. I don’t think that has to be the case.

      • rustyoldgarand

        A very similar analysis is used by liberals to show that Obama breaks even with whites as a whole outside of the south, and wins among white women, so therefore, the GOP is the party of white, southern racists. Is this true? No, but demographic data can be sliced a lot of ways to fit a lot of different arguments.

        • kipling

          Demographics obviuosly say something. The question is what. That is why we have a bunch of pundits all pushing their interpretation of the data. No argument here.

        • kipling

          On another note, do you have a rusty old garand. I killed my first hog in Texas with an old veteran (a garand) from World War II.

          • rustyoldgarand

            As a matter of fact, there is a garand in the family, though it belongs to my father and is quite well kept. Hasn’t been fired in a good while, though, so the bolt and chamber are going to need a good working over one of these days. The handle is mostly a play on my first name.

        • exitsfunnel

          I wish that that argument had occurred to me, because that’s exactly the point that I was trying to make.

  • westcoastpatriette

    “The Republicans can hasten that day of reckoning by refusing to raise
    taxes to pay for the Democratic coalition. Republicans can also refuse
    to raise the debt ceiling and thus block efforts by the Democrats to
    borrow money to pay off their coalition. Why should Republicans be
    complicit in feeding the Democratic monster and thus ensuring Democratic
    dominance at the ballot box?”

    The best para in the diary. It is as clear as the nose on one’s face. If only our cowardly Republican leadership would keep it that simple.

    • kipling

      Thanks, wcp. I think you hit upon the money quote.

  • Jim_Riggs

    Good diary, very well written. I particularly applaud you for using the adjective “democratic” instead of “democrat” when describing the other side. I’m fully aware of the reason some people use “democrat”. It totally drives them crazy. However, I’ve always felt that it makes the person using it sound uneducated and detracts from their argument.

    Just my opinion.

  • rustyoldgarand

    Fighting for more spending cuts in a fiscal cliff compromise is extremely important, and more entitlement cuts (as many as we can squeeze out, as far as I’m concerned) would obviously be good for the country.

    Refusing to pay the country’s debts would be very bad.

    Why in the hell are these two things placed right next to one another in this diary, and in so many people’s minds? One is a vital, positive step towards ensuring our stability in the future. The other is economic and political suicide. The debt ceiling is a dead issue, anyway. House republicans aren’t going to stick their necks out on that issue again in the near future, what with Obama in his 2nd term and the 2014 mid-terms coming up.

  • checkmate2012

    Excellent diary Kipling! The historical perspective and success is a lesson Republicans should have learned by now. We don’t because we see individuals as just that and not seperate voting blocs. Team O was masterful at dividing and conquering each sub-group if you will, pandering to them and then getting out their vote.

    The good news as you stated is that there are cracks in their foundation. Blacks and Hispanics held back voicing their disappointments of him to get him re-elected and now they want their payback. And if the Republicans quit feeding the Democratic beast now, they and many other of their constituents will be ready for a change soon.

    Very informative and well written.

    • kipling

      Like you said, Team Obama ran a very small but tightly focused campaign that edged out Romney. Thanks checkmate2012. Good to see you.

      • checkmate2012

        Thanks kipling. I know I fell off the RS bandwagon for a while but I’m back. I wrote a diary a few weeks after the election (What if Apple was called Lemon?..) with a bit about demographics, strategy and that we should change our Republican party name. But I really liked how you spelled out the origins of their party mentality. I’ll add that Obama also reminds me of Wilson alot. He’s a combo Wilson/FDR- the worst of the worst!

        • kipling

          Wilson and FDR shared the same ideology. FDR served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson and was indoctrinated into the progressive ethos. However, Wilson was never able to put together the governing coalition that FDR did. The financial crisis and the ability to use the resources of the federal government to further a political cause enabled FDR to do what Wilson could not.

          Good to have you back.

  • Viet71

    Excellent, thoughtful diary.

  • mtmnd

    “***I do not include women in the coalition. Women are not a permanent part of the Democratic coalition. In the recent election, the gender gap is non-existent if African American women are removed from the equation.”

    While we are at it, then let’s not include young people in the coalition, either. They won’t be young forever. Plus, the youth gap is nonexistent if we remove voters aged 18-29 from the equation.

    More seriously, if we are going to take a scalpel to the gender vote, it may make more sense to make cuts according to marital status rather than race. According to exit polls, 67% of unmarried women voted for Obama, while only 46% of married women voted for him.

    So at the very least unmarried women need to be included in the coalition, especially since they are a growing demographic. (The percentage of those currently married has been in steady decline for at least a half century. According to Pew Research, only 51% of adult Americans are currently married, as compared to 72% in 1960.)