• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Shellackings Past and Present

    Three weeks ago, Democrats took what President Obama dubbed a “shellacking” at the polls: Republicans picked up 62 seats in the House, enough to gain a majority, and six in the Senate. The next day, the post-election analysis and finger-pointing began. Defeated Democrats blamed the President. Defeated Republicans blamed the media and the Washington establishment. The President (whose usual reaction is to blame Bush) blamed the American people’s anxiety over not feeling the change he had promised. All blame games aside, the real question remains unanswered: what did the 2010 election mean?

    To gain some perspective, we should look to previous major midterm Republican sweeps: 1994 (54 House: 9 Senate), 1946 (55 House: 13 Senate) and 1938 (81 House: 6 Senate).

    In 1994, Republicans won because Democrats overreached. The Republican Revolution of 1994 ushered in the first Republican-controlled Congress in 40 years. Their success was attributable not only to Democratic missteps (scandals and presidential support of unpopular government-run healthcare), but also to Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. The Contract provided a new vision of limited government, including specific proposals for legislation on jobs, taxes, and welfare, and structural reforms for Congressional committees and leadership.

    1994 was not the only time Americans rejected an expansionist agenda in favor of a vision of limited government.  As Michael Barone argues, the key issue of the 1946 midterms turned on the scope of government:  would the United States become like Britain, who “elected a Labour government that instituted national health insurance and a cradle-to-grave welfare state.” In his 1944 State of the Union address, Franklin Roosevelt had proposed exactly that—a cradle-to-grave welfare state disguised as a new bill of rights. FDR died before he could implement it, leaving Truman to continue his legacy. But, after numerous labor disputes and strikes, Truman’s attempt to take over industries in response to those strikes (without any constitutional authority), and the threat of communism, the American people had enough. Wary of a united and expanding government, the American people gave Republicans large gains and the majority in the House and Senate during the 1946 election.

    The 1938 midterm election is even more telling, as Matthew Spalding suggests. Following his landslide election in 1936, FDR expanded his agenda and consolidated control of government. He tried to expand the power of the presidency and pack the Supreme Court with justices who would rubber-stamp his expansionist agenda. He did not let the 1937 recession go to waste: he waged a campaign against the wealthy, abandoned his promises to balance the budget, and embraced stimulus spending. In response to FDR’s actions, Republicans picked up 81 seats in the House and 6 Senate seats in the 1938 midterm elections. While Democrats still controlled Congress, and FDR went on to be re-elected, twice, the expansionary phase of the New Deal was over.

    What the 1994, 1946, and 1938 midterms demonstrate is that the American people punish overly ambitious, expansionist agendas—especially agendas that aim to nationalize health care. But, history also indicates that the ascendance of conservative legislators does not translate into total victory over progressive goals. In both 1994 and 1946, Republicans misjudged their opponents’ political skills. The instances of bi-partisan cooperation with the executive resulted in wins for the president. More importantly, Republicans failed to reiterate the need to limit government, contributing electoral defeats. Indeed, as the 1996 and 1948 presidential elections reveal, presidents can always recover from a midterm drubbing. Clinton triangulated, supporting the popular conservative proposals and vetoing others to secure re-election in 1996. Truman found common ground with his Republican Congress on foreign policy, but exploited those efforts in such a way that the 80th Congress is still remembered as the “Do-Nothing Congress.” Finally, as the presidential election of 1940 reveals, progressive ideas do not loosen easily once they are entrenched in the American way of life. FDR had successfully realigned American politics to the degree that even Republican’s 1938 midterm gains did not result in congressional majorities or long-term dominance.

    By all accounts, the 2010 midterms were meant to punished lawmakers for unpopular expansions of the federal government.  James Ceaser writes that the 2010 election was the most nationalized midterm election in American history: “Every Republican competing for national office, from Hawaii to New Hampshire, ran against the Obama agenda and made it the centerpiece of the campaign.” There is reason to assume that the midterm shellacking has halted Obama’s expansionist agenda. But, as Spalding notes, “it does not yet mean the national course has changed, that progressive successes have been reversed or that a liberal president might not go on to be re-elected.” To be sure, conservatives must continue to argue for limited government. But like Clinton, Truman, and FDR, President Obama could tweak his agenda and coast to a second term in 2012. It looks like we may have to wait for 2012 to understand 2010.

    Posted in First Principles [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Shellackings Past and Present

    1. LibertyAtStake says:

      What's unique about this cycle is the existence of the Internet. I don't think anyone can claim to know for sure it's full impact. But my personal view is it will aid the long-term memory of the electorate, and thereby diminish the capacity of a sitting Prez to earn re-election with a "tweaked agenda."

      http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com
      "Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"

    2. Kevin H, College Par says:

      What's even more interesting about the biggest shellacking – in 1938 – was that it came right after the Dem congress and Dem President passed Social Security and signed it into law. Much like with health reform, many opponents spent great deal of resources speaking about how this was socialist expansion of government, and would cost people jobs, etc. And years later it is one of the most popular social programs ever created and something people are passionate about keepign intact. 3 election cycles later, the Repubs lost even more seats than Dems lost in 38, because the american people discovered the truths. I expect teh same to happen in the current environment, when the American people discover all the truths through the lies spread by foxnews and chamber of commerce or freedom works and all the other right wing mouthpieces.

    3. Kevin H, College Par says:

      You may not be aware, but the 1938 defeat came on the tal of Social Security being passed. The Dem Congress and President passed and signed it to screams from conservatives abotu socialist expansion of government and all the same types of rhetoric you heard about health reform. The American masses bought the misinformation and voted 60+ new Repubs into Congress. However, three cycles later, we saw the biggest shift in the history of COngress when 75 seats went back to the Democrats, after the American masses saw the Repubs were just telling lies and the truth came out. Now Social Security is wildly popular. If you ask the average American, they would much rather have Social Security than not have it.

      Same will happen with health reform and the stimulus. I hear absurd lies about the stimulus being a failure, when 95% of all economists point to it being a vast success. heritage calls it a failure which is ridiculous. They point to unemployment number rising (less than 2% higher now than when Obama took over), but fail to look at every other economic indicator, like GDP growth, manufacturing increases, numbers of jobs added, private sector jobs added, etc.. To call it a failure shows how obviously biased one is. The Repubs used same 1938 strategy with health reform, and sure enough, when all the lies are sifted through, the repubs will be voted out again.

      Liberty – that's a pretty sad tagline. I guess that means you are against progress. To me, progress is a good thing. Do you call yourself a regressive?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×