The Truman Parallel Bush Doesn't Want to Think About

            An unpopular President with low approval ratings presides over a frustrating war in which American power appears checked by a less technologically advanced enemy who also poses an ideological threat.  Members of the President’s party are openly critical of how the Chief Executive is handling the war effort.  Despairing of losing control of the Congress, former party allies of the President seek to distance themselves from the discredited incumbent by challenging him on divisive domestic issues dealing with race and citizenship.  While the above scenario appears to describe the George W. Bush Presidency on the eve of the 2006 Congressional elections, it is equally applicable to Democratic President Harry Truman in the early 1950s.

            Truman won an upset victory over Republican Thomas Dewey in the 1948 Presidential contest.  Although his party enjoyed control of Congress, Truman was besieged by issues of corruption as well as national security concerns regarding the threat of international communism and the Soviet Union.  Fears regarding the communist threat were exacerbated in 1949 and 1950 by the Soviet development of the atomic bomb, Rosenberg spy case, invasion of South Korea, and demagogues such as Joseph McCarthy  exploiting American insecurities.  Truman was criticized for failing to place South Korea firmly within the defense perimeter of the United States.  The entry of Chinese “volunteers” into the conflict, the retreat of American forces, the firing of General Douglas Macarthur, and the notion of limited war did not set well with a nation accustomed to the victory culture of World War II.  Republicans sensed an opportunity to regain control of the Presidency and Congress for the first time since Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated the New Deal in 1932. 

            Democrats were also critical of Truman’s war policies.  The efforts of many in the Democratic Party to distance themselves from Truman, however, should also be framed within the historical context of opposition to the emerging civil rights movement.  Many Southern Democrats bolted from the party in 1948 to support the Dixiecrat Presidential candidacy of South Carolina’s Strom Thurmond.  The discontent of Southern Democrats with Truman civil rights policies, such as the desegregation of the armed forces and sponsoring legislation to make lynching a federal crime, dominated the political scene even without the Korean War, providing support for the conventional wisdom that American elections are primarily influenced by domestic concerns rather than foreign policy issues.  The Korean War simply provided fuel for the fire of Democratic discontent with Truman.

            Republicans were quick to take advantage of the Democratic divisions and regain control of Congress under President Dwight Eisenhower.  These gains, however, proved short lived, and Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson presided over a resurgent Democratic Party.  But again the issues of civil rights and war—this time in Vietnam—demonstrated the fragile nature of the Democratic majority.  When President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law, he stated that the Democratic Party was writing off the South for a generation.  Johnson was prophetic as the war on poverty, which addressed the economic legacy of racial inequality, was never fully funded as the President’s attention was increasingly focused upon Vietnam.  With the Southern strategy employed by Richard Nixon and subsequent Republican leaders, the South has emerged as a Republican stronghold well beyond the generation predicted by Johnson.

            Does the Republican Party of George W. Bush confront similar threats in 2006?  Historical parallels often provide oversimplifications, but it does seem that issues of war and civil rights once again pose a threat to an increasingly unpopular President and his restive party majority.  Public opinion polls indicate a growing discontent with the lack of progress in Iraq, and even members of the President’s own party are voicing misgivings with the Chief Executive’s violations of civil liberties in the name of national security.  The Democratic Party, however, gives little evidence of providing a strong voice of dissent against the war in Iraq.  During the 2004 Presidential campaign, Democratic challenger John Kerry was timid in his criticism of the conflict; albeit, he is more assertive off the campaign trail.  Terrified of being branded as unpatriotic for failing to support the troops, the Democrats offer only rather vague proposals for some type of timetable for troop withdrawals.  The opposition does not seem poised to wage a vigorous campaign over the President’s policies in Iraq.  Instead, the Democratic strategy appears to be that the Republicans will self-destruct over such domestic issues as corruption and high gasoline prices.

            Another domestic concern, nevertheless, poses a greater threat to the ruling Republican Party.  Just as the civil rights movement impacted the post World War II Democratic Party, the civil rights issues surrounding immigration may rip the Republican Party apart.  In this case, the President and his business allies represent the more liberal wing of the party, as exemplified in the Senate version of immigration reform, providing a process of citizenship for undocumented workers living in the United States.  On the other hand, the extreme conservative wing of the party supports the more punitive House bill calling for more immigration restrictions and penalties against those residing in the country illegally.  Many in the Latino/a community perceive the proposed House legislation as punitive and racist.  And when the delay of the Republican Congressional leadership in extending the Voting Rights Act, which addresses political discrimination against the Latino/a community as well as black Americans, is also factored into the equation, the Republicans run the risk of being characterized as the anti-Latino/a party.

            With the Latino/a population of the United States continuing to rise, the Republicans may be placing themselves in a political bind from which all the emotional rhetoric regarding gay marriage and abortion may not be able to rescue them.  It is 2006, not 1952, but the juxtaposition of an unpopular President, a frustrating war, and emerging civil rights issues may drive the ruling party from power.  And being on the wrong side of the immigration issue raises serious questions regarding the long term prospects for Republicans.