THE BLOG

One Party Government Does Not Equal "Extreme"

11/30/2008 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011
  • Julian E. Zelizer Author, 'The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and the Battle for the Great Society'

Republicans have unveiled their closing argument. Desperate to prevent a huge Democratic landslide, Republicans warn that one-party government under Democrats would surely mean liberal extremism.

Raising the specter of an "Obama, Pelosi and Reid" government, Sen. John McCain refers to the combination of Sen. Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as a "dangerous threesome." Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) warns, "Liberals are bent on handing Barack Obama a filibuster-proof Senate majority to rubber-stamp his radical agenda."

The argument is based on a misreading of American history. For during periods of one-party government, when Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress, history demonstrates that they have not shifted radically toward a leftward agenda.

Few observers, other than those on the far right, characterized the New Deal as liberal extremism in action. Most perceived President Franklin D. Roosevelt as an experimenter who tried to please everyone. FDR and his Democratic counterparts did everything in their power to save capitalism from the threat of totalitarianism and communism during the Great Depression.

The period between 1933 and 1938 witnessed a dramatic expansion of government. But with each and every policy, Democrats were careful to constrain the ability of government officials to control capitalist institutions and to protect the power of state and local government.

The rest of this article can be found at the Washington Independent

YOU MAY LIKE