Reply #160: FDR had to compromise to get elected

[happyslug]

Form the 1880s to the 1960s (and the re-alignment of the Parties to reflect the South's embrace of the GOP) for a Democrat to win the White House, the Democrat needed to maintain their base in the South (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virgina, Kentucky, Missouri and South including Texas) and then try to win California or New York and a few other Northern States.

Cleveland in 1884 was the first to do this, he won New York, New Jersey and Indiana in addition to the Solid South (He Lost California). Cleveland lost those three Northern States in 1888 AND the election, but won them back AND California, Connecticut, Illinois, Wisconsin in 1892. No Democrat won New York or California till 1912 (and then only New York, but most of the Nation given the three way nature of that race). In 1916 Wilson won re-election with the Solid South, California, and most of the West (Oregon and South Dakota were the only Western States to go GOP in 1916). After the 1916 win, till 1932 the Democrats had a hard time holding onto the South and won nothing outside the South. In 1932 FDR won every state in the Union, EXCEPT, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire. In 1932 FDR expanded his victory to include every state EXCEPT Maine and New Hampshire, but in 1940 the GOP finally put up a decent candidate and FDR's election was reduced, he still won most states but the GOP was building its base.

The GOP thought they would win in 1948, but Truman held onto most the South (Four deep south states went to the Dixiecrats instead of the Democrats AND Delaware and Maryland went GOP) but Truman won California AND all of the States West of Pennsylvania EXCEPT North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas, Michigan and Indiana. Also for the first time in a CLOSE election Massachusetts went Democratic (It has gone Democratic for FDR, and Wilson in 1912, but NOT in 1916).

In 1952, the Democrats could NOT even hold onto the Solid South, every state outside the South went GOP as did Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Maryland Virginia and Delaware. It was worse in 1956, the Democrats lost every state EXCEPT Seven AND all of those were in the South (North Caroline, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and Missouri). In 1960, Nixon won EVERY state West of the Mississippi River EXCEPT, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri and Minnesota. The South still went Democratic EXCEPT for Florida, Texas and Kentucky (Mississippi decided NOT to give its electors to either candidate). The Midwest went to Nixon, except for Illinois and Michigan (i.e. Ohio Indiana and Wisconsin went GOP). What put Kennedy over was the Switch in the Mid-Atlantic State, Pennsylvania a long time GOP stronghold (Even going GOP in 1932) went for Kennedy in 1960, as did West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York Massachusetts and Connecticut.

In many ways 1960s shows how each party was changing. The Democrats were growing in Strength in the former GOP Stronghold of New England AND the Mid-Atlantic states (Excluding New York, which separates these two region and has its own history, which also shows greater tendency to Democrats after 1960). The South was feeling left out by the Democrats, mostly as the Democrats embraced Blacks north of the Mason-Dixon Line. The GOP went with the movement of money to the South and West. The South would revolt against the Democrats in the 1964 election which was held AFTER LBJ pushed through the Civil Rights Acts (LBJ won every state EXCEPT, got Goldwater's home state of Arizona AND Five Southern States, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina). Except for Louisiana, these states had NOT even voted for Eisenhower in the 1956 election.

The Democrats would lose the next two election, 1968 and 1972. Nixon would win almost every state in the Union in 1968 EXCEPT For Washington, Minnesota, Michigan and West Virginia outside of the Northeast and the South. The Northeast would stay on its Democratic Tendency, going Democratic in 1968 Except for Delaware (Maryland went Democratic) New Jersey, Vermont and New Hampshire. The South would split, Texas going Democratic, and except for North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Arkansas (All of whom went for Wallace) would go GOP. The 1972 election was a Democratic disaster, with McGovern only winning Massachusetts.

On the other hand the 1976 was the last Hurrah for the Solid Democratic South. Every Southern State EXCEPT Virginia and Oklahoma went Democratic. Hawaii, Minnesota, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts all went Democratic. Reagan would outdo this winning every state EXCEPT Georgia, West Virgina, Maryland and Minnesota in 1980. The Democrats would only win Minnesota in 1984 and Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, West Virginia, New York and Massachusetts in 1988. In 1992 every state Including and north of Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri went Democratic. The rest of the South went GOP EXCEPT for Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas and Georgia. The line of States from North Dakota to Texas went GOP, as did Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and Alaska, but the rest of the west went Democratic (Including California). In 1996, the Solid South Started to be seen again, but this time as a Solid GOP base along with the West (But NOT the West Coast).

This had been building up since the 1960s but was clear in the 1996 election. The parties had REVERSED as to regions. In the 1800s New England was was a Solid GOP bastion, followed by the Mid-West. The GOP plan was to secure these two areas and then fight over the battlefield states of New York, California and some of the Border states. The Democratic plan was to solidify its hold on the South and then look for allies up north (This the Democrats refused to nominate a Southern for President Till Carter, Truman and LBJ had won the nomination as a Sitting President and Wilson had been elected as Governor of NEW JERSEY not his home state of Virginia. By the end of the 20th century both parties had SWITCH they base and you can see this in the 2000 election. The Democrats won their base in the North East (Except for New Hampshire) as far south as Maryland and Delaware. The Democrats also won the West Coast AND Hawaii. The GOP won the South and West (except for New Mexico). Leaving the Mid West up for grabs. Here the Democrats were weak, wining Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa and Illinois. The GOP won the rest including West Virginia (Yes Florida was a debacle, but had the Democrats won another Midwestern State, Florida would NOT have been Important). The 2004 election was almost a duplicate, with New Hampshire going Democratic while New Mexico and Iowa going GOP. The 2008 is a third tried on this system, with the Democrats willing all of the states it won in 2000 and 2004 AND NEVADA, Florida, Virginia and Maryland.

I go into the above to show that the election map facing FDR was completely opposite of what it is today. FDR to get elected AND to have a Democratic congress he could lead had to secure the South, New York and California (if Possible) and as many other Northern States as possible. Thus FDR never had the opportunity to do more then say he was against segregation. FDR NEEDED the Support of the segregationist to get elected and to get his program through. FDR needed the support of California and thus agreed to the internment of the Japanese in California (But NOT in Hawaii, shows you how much of a threat the Japanese American were, NOT interned in a war zone, Hawaii, but interned in an area with very little enemy activities were expected or even done). FDR did the interments to get Democratic Party support in California, nothing else.

Truman election in 1948 was a shocker, everyone thought given the opposition to his racial policies in the South he would lose. The problem was the GOP did NOT pick up those votes in 1948, thus most of the South went with Truman and those that did not he made up in the North. Kennedy, Johnson and Carter all won with the south Voting for them. Clinton won for he won the new base for the Democrats the North East AND was able to get enough southern support to get elected. Obama also had to win some Southern States to win. If the GOP would have been able to keep the Solid South GOP, Obama would have lost. This points out the GOP needs the South almost as badly as FDR needed it in the 1930s and 1940s. It is the base you build your campaign on and as such you have to accept them as they are. The Democratic Party made a conscience decision in 1964 to support the Civil Rights Act KNOWING it would kill the Democratic Party in the South for a Generation (And the GOP took advantage of this by making the South its base).

My point is no one is an island and neither were FDR and Obama. Where is they political base? FDR was New York State and the US South. Obama's is the North East and the West Coast. The West is hostile territory to the Democrats at the present time, but it is the area with the least votes. The Fight between the parties is between these two bases of support, with the states in between as the Battleground states. (i.e. The American South and West are GOP strongholds, the Northeast and West Coast Democratic strongholds).

What this means when looking at FDR, is he could NOT push through anything the South OR New York did NOT want. In Obama's case he can NOT push through anything the Northeast or West Coasts do NOT want. When the GOP is in control the GOP can NOT push through anything the South or West do NOT want. These are the bases for each party and that base MUST be maintained even at the cost of losing an election.

Given this situation what you lost as FDR failures were NOT Failure in the sense he did NOT get them done, they are failure for HE COULD NOT GET THEM DONE. Remember to do things, you must be elected. To be elected you must maintain your base AND keep the swing voters on your side. Whatever you may say FDR knew how to keep his base happy AND get swing voters to support him. He could not pass anything his base would oppose. Most of the items you mentioned his base would oppose so they were NEVER proposed (or went anywhere in Congress, remember Congress was also Democratic under FDR and as such had the same political outlook as FDR).

What is amazing is what FDR did pass that we would now think would be opposed by his base in the South, for example the National Labor Relations Board and its support for Unions and Unionization. The South seems to have looked at it as something that did not affect the Rural South (Where most southerns lived at that time) BUT would get support for the Democrats among Urban Workers (With the urbanization of the South Since the Great Depression, it has become the most anti-union area of the Country, but that is one of the reason the South slowly defected to the GOP starting in the 1960s along with Race).

As to FDR's lowing of the unemployment rate, he first had to solve the problem of declining economy. Doctrine at his time (and you are hearing it again today) is that deficients are bad. He did some deficient spending but not enough to stop the decline in the economy till the 1938 recession when he finally rejected the idea that deficients are bad. He was still attacked for it and he lost Democratic Congressmen in the 1938 election over it, but it worked and the US economy was roaring by 1939 (It is common belief that WWII brought the US out of WWII, but the US was out by 1939, we had bottomed out and on an upgrade, so noticeable by 1940 that FDR easily won a third term, in many ways FDR acceptance that the deficients were NOT bad by 1938 permitted him to go wild on deficients during WWII, but also to impose restrictions on that boom do to how it was screwing the economy).

In many ways FDR grew in the office, hopefully Obama will also, but right now Obama is doing more then what Hoover did in the 1930s but less then FDR but that is the result of the congress each President had. FDR's found his main role was to keep the Democratic Congress in line so they do NOT do things he opposed. Obama has a much less radical Congress then FDR had. This Congress is NOT willing to push thing over and through the GOP. No one took up Byrd's call to force the GOP to do a Real Filibuster i.e. tie up congress till it is passed and if the GOP oppose it by use of a Filibuster force them to keep talking about why they oppose it, even having them arrested if they are NOT in Congress when a role call is made. That is what LBJ did to get the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed and they was no reason for the Democratic Leadership of the Senate NOT to do the same when it came to health care. The GOP after the 1932 election dare NOT do a filibuster for the Democrats were willing to do a filibuster (i.e. endless debate, if you no longer want to talk then someone else has to, if no one wants to talk call a voe to end the debate, when it fails, force the GOP to re-start the debate. Keep them talking, if necessary for 24-48 hours. Sooner or later they would crack and the Filibuster would be voted down. The GOP in the 1930s knew the Democrats in the Senate were willing to do that, something our Senators do NOT want to do. This is the main difference between FDR and Obama, the Democratic Congress of the 1930s were Radical compared to the Democrats today and the GOP of the 1930s and today know the difference. Thus it is CONGRESS and mostly the Senate that is the problem, not enough Politicians committed to reform and progressive legislature in today's Congress compared to the Congress of the 1930s. Obama has to get the whip out (and he is reluctant to do so) to get Congress to pass any progressive legislature, FDR had to threaten to Veto what his more radical congress was passing when he was President.