If you believe that the current conservative wave is a historical accident, think again.
The political history of the United States reveals an essentially conservative country that only took a new course in the wake of the greatest economic disaster it had ever experienced.
The Great Depression, which began in 1929, led to the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, beginning in 1933. He successfully advocated an increased role for the federal government, putting limits on what the private sector could do and creating the first real “safety net” for Americans.
From 1933 until the arrival of President Ronald Reagan in 1981, Roosevelt’s progressive policies became the new normal in American public affairs.
Conservatives now believe that the reforms begun under Roosevelt have gone too far, leading to government displacing the private sector in the management of the economy. They also worry that, by promoting community interests, government has infringed on the rights of individuals.
Progressives or liberals believe that the conservatives reject a historic change marked by Roosevelt’s New Deal, which they say gave the federal government a necessary and proper role in protecting people.
On the national stage, the two sides traditionally could find compromises. Whether it was Republican Richard Nixon or Democrat Lyndon Johnson, leaders on both sides could get their proposals adopted by making enough careful concessions to get their opponents to agree. In part, that was the result of the acceptance by Republican presidents like Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower and Gerald Ford of a greater role for government than was traditional for their party.
But the battle lines between the two sides have hardened in the past two decades.
Believing that the country was turning back to its traditional conservatism, Republicans organized to challenge the authority of Bill Clinton, a Democratic president. Somewhat to their surprise, Clinton chose to move his party on a more conservative course, epitomized by his agreement to a tougher welfare law and the loosening of controls on banks.
Democratic President Barack Obama presented a new challenge. Though a moderate on most issues, he does not agree that the role of the federal government should be reduced. The Republican Party, now almost a purely conservative force, strengthened its opposition to most proposals Obama has made.
Emerging painfully slowly from a deep recession that has revealed the need for a change in economic expectations, the two views of the proper relationship between government and the people have been thrown into sharp contrast.
Both sides agree that the government debt must be reduced, because of the threat that it poses to future economic growth. They do not agree on what caused the huge debt. Democrats say the cause is two wars coupled with tax cuts for the wealthy, while Republicans say it is overly generous spending by the Democrats, pandering to certain groups.
The Democrats would reduce the debt by cutting spending and raising taxes on the wealthy, so that there would be at least some funds available to stimulate the economy. The Republicans would rely on spending cuts alone and might even cut taxes further to allow for more individual spending to stimulate the economy.
The differences are small enough that compromise would seem to be possible. But many conservatives see the moment as being favorable to a return to the country’s traditions of minimal government and unfettered individual and economic action. Giving any ground to arrive at compromises could cause them to miss their golden opportunity to restore historical conservatism.
They want not only to stop the growth of government, but also to roll it back by replacing Medicare with insurance vouchers and converting Social Security into an investment account dependent on the financial market.
While polls show that as many as 40 percent of Americans consider themselves moderates, more interested in government dealing with issues than stalemate between two conflicting views, they appear unable to influence the course of American politics.
Though Obama is the incumbent president seeking re-election, the burden has fallen on him and his fellow Democrats to make the case for government’s role, even as spending is reduced.
Do programs identified with the Democrats ”“ Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid ”“ merely represent a temporary departure from the traditional American reliance on the individual and the private sector? Or did their adoption mark a permanent change in the role of government in American life?
The election this year is essentially about the answers to these questions. It is possible, even likely, that there will be no resolution this year, only prolonged stalemate. But choices must inevitably be made.
— Gordon L. Weil, a weekly columnist for this newspaper, is an author, publisher, consultant and former international organization, U.S. and Maine government official.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
