Election results usually result in claims of a mandate from the voters, no matter how narrow the margin of victory. Blowouts like that of 2010 in the House of Representatives, accompanied by clear Senate gains, understandably leads to even more certainty of the significance of the voting. But this has happened before, and history since then suggests a more studied approach to governing.
The 1946 Landslide
Democrats had controlled the House since 1930. They took over the White House and the Senate in 1932 and governed without interruption through Depression and war. With the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1945, the succession of the little-known Harry Truman, and a host of reconversion problems including inflation and widespread strikes, the Republicans were given a chance to present an alternative in the 1946 midterm elections.
They made the most of it. Behind the slogan of "Had enough,?" they captured both houses of Congress, gaining 12 Senate seats and 55 in the House of Representatives. Immediately flexing their muscles, they went about redressing major grievances against the New Deal. They gutted the generous pro-labor provisions of the Wagner Act of 1935 by passing the Taft-Hartley Act over Truman's veto. They enacted a major tax cut. And to make sure no future President would seek to perpetuate himself in office as FDR had done, they passed the 22nd amendment, limiting the Chief Executive to two terms. Perhaps as important as what they did, they failed to take action on Truman proposals in the field of housing, health, and welfare to curb the growth of government. Sound familiar?
In the face of a Cold War with the Soviet Union, they cooperated admirably with the President in providing military aid to Greece and Turkey, economic aid to Western Europe under the Marshall Plan, and a major reorganization of the defense and intelligence establishments.
On the strength of this record, they went into the 1948 elections confident, having given the people what they wanted, of retaining Congress and electing the first Republican President since Herbert Hoover. They succeeded in neither.
What's the Mandate in 2011?
As expected, much has been inferred from the 58-seat gain in the House and the narrowing of the Democratic majority in the Senate. The size of government and of deficits and debt have been obvious assumed objects of the popular desire for change, with the Republican positions in the recent appropriations and deficit battles consistent with their inferences. The Obama health legislation is already being subjected to attempted repeal, either at once or piecemeal, and moves are being made against a host of energy and environmental programs.
Some observers have suggested that the mandate of 2010 is more modest. Persistent unemployment, an imperceptible economic recovery, bitter and unproductive partisan infighting, and an inexperienced President who seemed less effective at governing than campaigning may have impelled the electorate to give the outs a chance to participate in running a fumbling government.
Looking back at 1946-48, a cautious view of the mandate would seem to be in order.
Source:
- Andrew E. Busch, "1946 Midterm Gives GOP First Majority Since 1928 Elections, Helps Ensure Truman’s Reelection", Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University, June 2006
David Hornestay - DavidH began a career as a freelancer after 34 years in government management. Keeping a hand in as a consultant in federal human ...
Join the Conversation