Feb. 10, 2016 SIGN IN | REGISTER

Give ’Em Hell, Barry?

‘1948’ Shows Why Truman Victory Is No Model for Obama in 2012

W. Eugene Smith/Time Life Pictures/Getty Images

There is talk that President Barack Obama plans to reprise President Harry Truman’s strategy from the 1948 campaign and run against the “do-nothing Congress” in hopes of pulling out a similarly Trumanesque come-from-behind victory.

After reading David Pietrusza’s “1948: Harry Truman’s Improbable Victory and the Year That Transformed America,” count me as skeptical. 

“1948” is the author’s third campaign book and, by a healthy stretch, the best of the lot.

The 1948 campaign had a compelling cast of characters, easily rivaling 1920’s “Year of Six Presidents” or 1960’s “LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon.” 

What made 1948 a watershed was the cementing of a new Democratic coalition that had begun to form under President Franklin Roosevelt but was made firm by the splitting of the party into three parts, with former Vice President Henry Wallace claiming the leftist faction made up mostly of communists and fellow travelers, and Strom Thurmond peeling away the segregationist Dixiecrats. 

That left Truman with the rump of a party, in search of a bloc of new voters. Pietrusza concludes that he uncovered them, ironically, thanks to the exits of Wallace and Thurmond, whose bolting made the Democratic Party less leftist and less racist, making it safe for Catholics and African-Americans to support. 

Having lost the Solid South and the leftist intellectuals, Truman created a new coalition centered on those black and Catholic urban dwellers, anti-communist liberals who couldn’t stomach Wallace and Midwestern farmers who liked the New Deal.

That coalition appears to be unraveling now, as all political coalitions eventually do, and Obama is hoping to forge a new one that brings in well-off social liberals, blacks and organized labor because he appears to have lost the white working class.

That could make Obama, like Truman, competitive in states that were previously Republican territory, while requiring that other states once competitive for Democrats be written off.

That certainly appears to be the future of the Democratic Party, in any case, and it could work in 2012, but the book demonstrates that other analogies to 1948 are based on faulty interpretations or are simply false.

For starters, the “do-nothing Congress” label will be much harder for Obama to sell than it was for Truman. 

Certainly, even in 1948, Republicans rejected the notion that Congress had done nothing and published long lists of measures passed by both chambers that Truman had vetoed. In reality, the 80th Congress was not a “do-nothing Congress” but a “do-nothing-that-Truman-wanted-done Congress.”

The 112th Congress has actually done less than the 80th and is viewed with more disdain by voters. But the Senate is in Democratic hands, diluting any Congress-based sales pitch by the president.

Obama will not benefit, if that’s the word, from a divided party — there are not likely to be any radical third parties peeling away from the Democrats and driving worried voters to the incumbent. 

comments powered by Disqus




Want Roll Call on your doorstep?