The 1948 General Election can be a template for 2016. The times were similar in several ways: both houses of Congress were Republican; race issues simmered in the big cities, Russia was belligerent in Europe; the Middle East was a burning fuse; New Deal agencies were under Congressional attack; and the Democratic candidate lacked the charisma of his predecessor.
In 1948, Republicans had been certain that the Democrats would lose without the star power of FDR- his replacement seemed so lackluster. And based on their massive off-year victory in 1946, they thought that the electorate was favorable to them. But not only did Truman win the Presidency, he provided Congressional and Senatorial candidates with a successful theme that won them majorities in both houses of Congress. Ouch!!
That landmark election taught the Republicans two lessons that they have never forgotten:
1) They lose if the Democratic foreign policy is as belligerent as theirs. Truman's rhetoric was vociferously anti-Communist, representing himself as the personification of American values by attacking the evil of his day, and by bluster and saber rattling in the face of Soviet tactics. And he forced Congressional votes on military budgets and foreign aid funding that they had to pass lest they be seen, themselves, as being soft on Communism and as squandering the victories of WWII.
2) They lose if the campaign is about their domestic policies. Truman ran more forcefully against the "do-nothing" 80th Congress than he did against the Republican candidate. (An upcoming diary will address Truman's bold approach to an antagonistic Congress.)
One of the differences between 1948 and 2016 is that Truman was the sitting President with three years to lay the groundwork for the General Election. Obama should be studying Truman's playbook if he wants to effectively position The Democratic Party for the 2016 campaign.
First, with regard to foreign policy, Truman understood that the Republicans wanted to push him to the left by forcing him to argue with them on anti-Soviet tactics. Truman's response was sermonesque rhetoric, decrying the evil of communism as antithetical to The American (Judeo Christian) Way of Life. It was so militant that it forced the creation of The Progressive Party that favored a diplomatic and cooperative stance with the USSR. As it turned out, that was very much to Truman's benefit, because it proved his distance from the "commie-loving" left wing of the Democratic Party.
The Netanyahu invitation and Iranian letter are calculated to put the 2016 Democratic candidate into a position of defending diplomacy with Iran and appearing soft on militant Islam. Democrats can take a page from Truman's book by deliberately, repeatedly, and loudly emphasizing their loathing for Iran and ISIS as evil, and espousing a love for American values with equal fervor. In other words, they need to stay on a moralistic plane and avoid tactical disagreements on particular foreign policies. Progressives, prepare yourselves for some rhetoric that will resonate with values voters.
Truman's cleverest move was to force the Republican Congress into passing foreign policy budgets of his devising. He introduced legislation to fund the Marshall Plan, an enormously expensive foreign aid program that some Republicans, still isolationist, viewed as a foolish giveaway of tax dollars. We look back on the Marshall Plan as wise and necessary, but it did not seem so at the time. It would not have occurred to the average American that we should fund rebuilding of all the countries of Western Europe. Truman gambled by endorsing the idea, sold it as a continuation of his winning WWII policies. The Republicans were forced into accepting the idea lest they be seen as squandering America's victories.
During the 1948 election campaign, at every opportunity, Truman congratulated the Republican elders for their wisdom and courage in agreeing with him.
If Obama wants to use a similar approach, he could introduce foreign policy legislation that the Republicans cannot refuse. The Administration could look at every foreign policy position supported by Republicans with which Democrats agree and craft bills that forward those policies. Perhaps they do this by funding proxy armies or by foreign aid to countries in opposition to Iran and Isis. Not only could they introduce the legislation, but they could trumpet the initiatives as major.
Comments are closed on this story.