Did the Cold War favor the GOP?

[buritobr]

In the 11 elections that took place during the Cold War, the Republicans won 7 and the Democrats won 4. Among the 7 republican victories, only 1 was close. Among the 4 democratic victories, 3 of them were close.

Did the aversion to the communism create a bias to the most right-wing party?

Ironically, it looks like that before Reagan, the democratic presidents took more actions hostile to the communist bloc than the republican presidents did. Truman started the American participation in the Korea War, Eisenhower finished it. Johnson started the American participation in the Vietnam war, Nixon finished it. Nixon was the responsible for the treaties with the USSR and China.

[TNF]

Is this a serious question?

Of course the Cold War favored the GOP.

[Indy Texas]

Well, when communism is perceived as the greatest threat to American security and hegemony, it follows that Americans as a whole would vote for the party that was tougher on communism.

[RosettaStoned]

 Of course, the Democrats were always perceived as at least tolerant of communism.

[old timey villain]

Probably after LBJ at least. Kennedy proved himself to be tough on Communism and LBJ followed the containment policy through Vietnam. Although the one Democratic president we had in the final decades of the Cold War (Carter) was voted out of office because he was was not seen as tough enough on the Iranian Shah, who would probably be considered closer to a Fascist than a Communist.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Favored the GOP since the McCarthy days. The one or two elections where it favored the Democrats would've been in the 60's, and the tide soon turned on that.

[Person Man]

Probably after LBJ at least. Kennedy proved himself to be tough on Communism and LBJ followed the containment policy through Vietnam. Although the one Democratic president we had in the final decades of the Cold War (Carter) was voted out of office because he was was not seen as tough enough on the Iranian Shah, who would probably be considered closer to a Fascist than a Communist.

or too soft on the Islamists that replaced him? Wasn't it Eisenhower that had spies overthrow the popular left-wing government there in favor of the Shah over fear that Iran wanted to join the USSR or at least the Warsaw Pact? Though, most likely, Iran was probably going a very similar route as India and would probably by non-aligned, being opposed to both Russian and Western influence (Iran was occupied by both the UK and Russia after WWI).

The point I am trying to make is that every president was about as aggressive against Communism (save for maybe Nixon, Ford and Carter but that was probably because of the problem with Vietnam and the resulting demoralization of our relations with Communist countries) the difference was their strategy. Reagan probably had the best strategy of letting them come into our back yard but then outspending them so that we had both the economic and geographical advantage. However, as you way know, his tactics in fighting those proxy wars were unethical though they couldn't be proven to be illegal.

[Indy Texas]

Probably after LBJ at least. Kennedy proved himself to be tough on Communism and LBJ followed the containment policy through Vietnam. Although the one Democratic president we had in the final decades of the Cold War (Carter) was voted out of office because he was was not seen as tough enough on the Iranian Shah, who would probably be considered closer to a Fascist than a Communist.

or too soft on the Islamists that replaced him? Wasn't it Eisenhower that had spies overthrow the popular left-wing government there in favor of the Shah over fear that Iran wanted to join the USSR or at least the Warsaw Pact? Though, most likely, Iran was probably going a very similar route as India and would probably by non-aligned, being opposed to both Russian and Western influence (Iran was occupied by both the UK and Russia after WWI).

The point I am trying to make is that every president was about as aggressive against Communism (save for maybe Nixon, Ford and Carter but that was probably because of the problem with Vietnam and the resulting demoralization of our relations with Communist countries) the difference was their strategy. Reagan probably had the best strategy of letting them come into our back yard but then outspending them so that we had both the economic and geographical advantage. However, as you way know, his tactics in fighting those proxy wars were unethical though they couldn't be proven to be illegal.

No one ever said foreign policy wasn't often ugly and underhanded. But the reality is that the alternative to us meddling in the affairs of other countries is to have other countries meddling in the affairs of other countries - and that affects us in ways that we cannot easily control or have leverage over.

[old timey villain]

Probably after LBJ at least. Kennedy proved himself to be tough on Communism and LBJ followed the containment policy through Vietnam. Although the one Democratic president we had in the final decades of the Cold War (Carter) was voted out of office because he was was not seen as tough enough on the Iranian Shah, who would probably be considered closer to a Fascist than a Communist.

or too soft on the Islamists that replaced him? Wasn't it Eisenhower that had spies overthrow the popular left-wing government there in favor of the Shah over fear that Iran wanted to join the USSR or at least the Warsaw Pact? Though, most likely, Iran was probably going a very similar route as India and would probably by non-aligned, being opposed to both Russian and Western influence (Iran was occupied by both the UK and Russia after WWI).

The point I am trying to make is that every president was about as aggressive against Communism (save for maybe Nixon, Ford and Carter but that was probably because of the problem with Vietnam and the resulting demoralization of our relations with Communist countries) the difference was their strategy. Reagan probably had the best strategy of letting them come into our back yard but then outspending them so that we had both the economic and geographical advantage. However, as you way know, his tactics in fighting those proxy wars were unethical though they couldn't be proven to be illegal.

I misspoke. I meant the Ayatollah. If anything Carter was too chummy with the shah

[old timey villain]

This is actually kind of an interesting theory. Maybe the party most aligned with the views of our main enemy governments will always do worse because some people very vaguely associate the two.

In the 30s and 40s we were at odds with fascism in Germany which is a far right government. Maybe the increasing social liberalism of the Democrats starting with FDR and the party's success during that era has something to do with it.

From the 60s to the 80s we were in the Cold War, consumed in an ideological battle with a far left government. I suspect that the Republican's focus on capitalism, liberty and free enterprise created a nice contrast for American voters that the Democrats couldn't recreate.

Since the 90s we have been fighting against far right, militant Islamic groups. Not to say the GOP in any way resembles Al Qaeda but many have drawn comparison between the two groups' devotion to fundamentalist religious beliefs. I think the fact that Democrats stress equality and separation of church and state might help them in this regard.

(anybody remember that episode of the Newsroom when Jeff Daniels calls the Tea Party "The American Taliban?")

[Person Man]

This is actually kind of an interesting theory. Maybe the party most aligned with the views of our main enemy governments will always do worse because some people very vaguely associate the two.

In the 30s and 40s we were at odds with fascism in Germany which is a far right government. Maybe the increasing social liberalism of the Democrats starting with FDR and the party's success during that era has something to do with it.

From the 60s to the 80s we were in the Cold War, consumed in an ideological battle with a far left government. I suspect that the Republican's focus on capitalism, liberty and free enterprise created a nice contrast for American voters that the Democrats couldn't recreate.

Since the 90s we have been fighting against far right, militant Islamic groups. Not to say the GOP in any way resembles Al Qaeda but many have drawn comparison between the two groups' devotion to fundamentalist religious beliefs. I think the fact that Democrats stress equality and separation of church and state might help them in this regard.

(anybody remember that episode of the Newsroom when Jeff Daniels calls the Tea Party "The American Taliban?")

It cannot be this simple but no one quite has debunked it beyond not being entirely accurate. It probably explains something no matter what.

Probably after LBJ at least. Kennedy proved himself to be tough on Communism and LBJ followed the containment policy through Vietnam. Although the one Democratic president we had in the final decades of the Cold War (Carter) was voted out of office because he was was not seen as tough enough on the Iranian Shah, who would probably be considered closer to a Fascist than a Communist.

or too soft on the Islamists that replaced him? Wasn't it Eisenhower that had spies overthrow the popular left-wing government there in favor of the Shah over fear that Iran wanted to join the USSR or at least the Warsaw Pact? Though, most likely, Iran was probably going a very similar route as India and would probably by non-aligned, being opposed to both Russian and Western influence (Iran was occupied by both the UK and Russia after WWI).

The point I am trying to make is that every president was about as aggressive against Communism (save for maybe Nixon, Ford and Carter but that was probably because of the problem with Vietnam and the resulting demoralization of our relations with Communist countries) the difference was their strategy. Reagan probably had the best strategy of letting them come into our back yard but then outspending them so that we had both the economic and geographical advantage. However, as you way know, his tactics in fighting those proxy wars were unethical though they couldn't be proven to be illegal.

No one ever said foreign policy wasn't often ugly and underhanded. But the reality is that the alternative to us meddling in the affairs of other countries is to have other countries meddling in the affairs of other countries - and that affects us in ways that we cannot easily control or have leverage over.

Oh. We have to do that. I was making a reference to Iran-Contra.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

1952: Ike benefits from fears of domestic communism and the debacle in Korea.
1956: Ike benefits, I guess. Rerun of '52 for the large part.
1960: JFK benefits by calling Nixon and Ike weak on communism.
1964: LBJ benefits due to fears that Goldwater might start WWIII.
1968: Nixon benefits due to the debacle in Vietnam.
1972: McGovern, among other things--numerous things--can be seen as "too soft" on communism.
1976: Carter benefits from Ford's gaffe on Poland.
1980: Reagan benefits from Carter's perceived weakness on communism.
1984: Reagan's re-election, etc.

Kind of balanced, but on the whole, in favor of the GOP. 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's all had elections where the GOP benefited from the Cold War in various ways. If the Democrats did benefit, such examples are isolated to three elections.

[Mechaman]

I actually disagree.

On the Presidential level this might've been true to some extent.  However, on the Congressional level this was blatantly false.  If anything, I think there is an argument to be made that the Cold War actually favored a liberal Congress that would pass expansive government programs to make capitalism as an effective alternative to communism winnable.  Sure, the Democratic Party was more of a big tent back then, but even in many Southern areas many of the Democratic representatives and senators were at least economically populist.
The New Deal was a game changer that if anything forced the Republicans to make concessions to blue collar concerns.  Which is why politicians like Leverett Saltonstall, Republican Governor of Massachusetts from 1939-1945, were actually mediating with strikers in union conflicts and the 1950's GOP praised the record high number of union membership in the country.

The problem is, of course, that it's quite hard to find a national candidate who can appeal to such a wide party.  Winning as a Democrat on the state level in Michigan or Washington or Georgia is a bit easier than trying to win all three states at once, am I right?  Especially considering that a national candidate had to juggle with how to appeal to various cultures/demographics while also finding "the sweet spot" on communism and the Soviet threat.  THe Republicans, though weaker on the Congressional level, at least had the advantage of being perceived as the party of "Americanism".  They just had to tailor a message that appealed to bread, butter, god, happy thoughts and feelings, oh and patriotism!  That's a lot easier than crafting a national platform that people who can't stand each other (looking at you Southern Whites, Irish Catholics, Jews, blacks, Hispanics, union members, free traders, Baptists, atheist intellectuals, yada yada) can agree on top of Cold War politics.

In short, the politics of the Cold War had various effects on the political beast depending on what level you are talking about.  On local and state levels I believe, until Reagan at least, that it overwhelmingly favored Democratic politics.  On the national level, obviously Republican due to the natural complications that arose with the wide New Deal coalition.

[Indy Texas]

I actually disagree.

On the Presidential level this might've been true to some extent.  However, on the Congressional level this was blatantly false.  If anything, I think there is an argument to be made that the Cold War actually favored a liberal Congress that would pass expansive government programs to make capitalism as an effective alternative to communism winnable.  Sure, the Democratic Party was more of a big tent back then, but even in many Southern areas many of the Democratic representatives and senators were at least economically populist.
The New Deal was a game changer that if anything forced the Republicans to make concessions to blue collar concerns.  Which is why politicians like Leverett Saltonstall, Republican Governor of Massachusetts from 1939-1945, were actually mediating with strikers in union conflicts and the 1950's GOP praised the record high number of union membership in the country.

What do the current Republican Party and the Soviet Union have in common?

They both hate labor unions.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

The Cold War favored the Republicans from 1968 on.  The 1972 McGovern campaign instilled in folks' minds the idea that the Democratic Party would, in the name of pacifism, make deals and treaties that were not in the interests of the United States and reduce defense spending to a level where the United States would be at a military disadvantage vis a vis the Soviets.  The Nucear Freeze movement of the early 1980s was quickly discredited as it smacked of unilateral disarmament. 

What many people don't realize today is that in 1968, the Democratic Party was the party of what we would call "Neocons" today.  Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Ben Wattenberg, Henry Jackson, Irving Kristol, Zbignew Brzinski, Paul Wolfowitz, and a number of such folks were in the middle of the Democratic Party in 1968; Jackson died in 1983 and all of the rest gravitated to supporting Republicans, whether they formally changed parties or not.  And most like-minded Democrats followed suit at the polls.  These were the voters in the middle that delivered election after election to the Repubicans; they were the critical constituency, as many of them voted Democratic at the local and state level, and even for Congress.  The Democrats did not regain competitiveness in Presidential elections until the Cold War ended, and they did not regain a Presidential majority until most of these voters died off.

[buritobr]

I actually disagree.

On the Presidential level this might've been true to some extent.  However, on the Congressional level this was blatantly false.  If anything, I think there is an argument to be made that the Cold War actually favored a liberal Congress that would pass expansive government programs to make capitalism as an effective alternative to communism winnable.  Sure, the Democratic Party was more of a big tent back then, but even in many Southern areas many of the Democratic representatives and senators were at least economically populist.
The New Deal was a game changer that if anything forced the Republicans to make concessions to blue collar concerns.  Which is why politicians like Leverett Saltonstall, Republican Governor of Massachusetts from 1939-1945, were actually mediating with strikers in union conflicts and the 1950's GOP praised the record high number of union membership in the country.

The problem is, of course, that it's quite hard to find a national candidate who can appeal to such a wide party.  Winning as a Democrat on the state level in Michigan or Washington or Georgia is a bit easier than trying to win all three states at once, am I right?  Especially considering that a national candidate had to juggle with how to appeal to various cultures/demographics while also finding "the sweet spot" on communism and the Soviet threat.  THe Republicans, though weaker on the Congressional level, at least had the advantage of being perceived as the party of "Americanism".  They just had to tailor a message that appealed to bread, butter, god, happy thoughts and feelings, oh and patriotism!  That's a lot easier than crafting a national platform that people who can't stand each other (looking at you Southern Whites, Irish Catholics, Jews, blacks, Hispanics, union members, free traders, Baptists, atheist intellectuals, yada yada) can agree on top of Cold War politics.

In short, the politics of the Cold War had various effects on the political beast depending on what level you are talking about.  On local and state levels I believe, until Reagan at least, that it overwhelmingly favored Democratic politics.  On the national level, obviously Republican due to the natural complications that arose with the wide New Deal coalition.

Our theories are not opponents. Actually, they are complementary. Not only in the USA, but in most of the capitalist world, the Cold War favored the right in the competition against the left, but both the left and the right during the Cold War were more on the left than they are now.
The aversion of the communist made easier for the right to be in the power, but the right was more willing to accept a social safety net and some state intervention in the economy during the Cold War than it was before and after.

The Republicans won more elections during the Cold War than they win nowadays, but Eisenhower and Nixon were more willing to accept a social safety net than the GOP is nowadays. Even the Democrats shifted to the right on economic issues. Clinton and Obama are on the right of Truman, Kennedy and Johnson.
In Latin America, the Cold War favored far right military dictatorships. But except in Chile and Argentina, these military dictatorships did not support free market politicies. They supported national development models through state-led capitalist development. In the 1980s, Latin American countries became democracies again, and in the 2000s, many center-left governments were elected. Except in Venezuela and Bolivia, they respected free Market principles.
In South Africa, the apartheid regime, supported by capitalist superpowers during the Cold War, implemented a state-led capitalist development. The center-left black governments since 1994 were more free market friendly.
In Germany, that suffered directly the consequences of the Cold War, a political force on the left of the SPD was not feasible. The CDU was much stronger than it was after the reunification. But the CDU in the Cold War was more willing to accept a welfare state than it is now. The Left Party emerged after the reunification and became relatively strong even in some parts of the west, but the SPD shifted to the right.
In France and in Italy, the opposite hapadpened (in comparison to Germany). France and Italy had Strong communist parties that declined after the fall of the USSR. But despite the strengh of the communist parties, conservatives were on the power in France and Italy during most of the Cold War.

[Cassius]

Of course, and this is not a pattern confined to the United States. The Cold War, and the broader ideology of 'anti-Communism' grealty benefited right-wing political parties in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Germany (some of the more prominent examples), as the left (especially in the 1940's, 50's and 60's) could be portrayed rather easily as soft on communism. The aforementioned reversal of success when it comes to winning elections for parties of the right was demonstrated in the 15 years following the fall of the USSR (although that is not to play down the numerous other factors in the decline of right-wing and conservative politics since the 1990's).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is the kind of theory that 'makes sense' until you start poking around at the details. Then it all sort of falls apart a little. Remember that the Soviet Union had been around since 1917; 'Communism' had been an electoral issue for the Right (however defined) in most countries from that point onwards and was frankly more of an electoral gift during the interwar years than during the Cold War. Most social democrats (and their New Deal capital D Democrat semi-equivalents) were as openly hostile to the Soviet Union as political conservatives; this had not been the case in the 20s and 30s.

What the Cold War certainly did do electorally was completely fyck over the various Western Communist parties and their various fellow travellers. The smaller ones mostly collapsed and the larger ones were frozen in electoral ghettos; permanently locked out of power and basically unable to attract new support save by birth.

Mostly the Cold War led to - or at least heavily encouraged - political stability; sometimes in an 'artificial' manner (as in the countries with large Communist parties: France and Italy for instance), but generally in a more 'natural' way.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course, and this is not a pattern confined to the United States. The Cold War, and the broader ideology of 'anti-Communism' grealty benefited right-wing political parties in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Germany (some of the more prominent examples), as the left (especially in the 1940's, 50's and 60's) could be portrayed rather easily as soft on communism.

Could they though? Let's look at Britain. Until 1955 the Labour Party was led by Clement Attlee who had led a government that had sent troops to fight Communists in Greece and Korea, had played a leading role in the establishment of NATO, had developed nuclear weaponry, had prioritised military spending over social spending, and had systematically expelled parliamentarians suspected of being fellow travellers. After 1955 it was led by Hugh Gaitskell who had built up profile within the Party largely because of his strong anticommunist views, who had been the Chancellor who had prioritised military spending over social spending, and who's closest advisor was a man who used the Durham Miners Gala as an annual anti-Soviet propaganda show. This was not a political party that could be credibly accused of being 'soft on communism'; indeed the only people who thought it was were gin-addled Daily Telegraph-reading colonels and the like, and such people were (it is fair to say) rarely known to be swing voters. Labour lost elections in the 50s because the Tories had been lucky enough to squeak into power just as the postwar economic boom got going, not because of the Cold War.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Cold War benefitted the GOP because the death of the Kennedy bros and Chapsquittic knocked out our strongest players. The Fall of apartheid in 1990, in both the US and Russia (Berlin Wall) and South Africa brought an end to GOP dominance with election of Bill Clinton and a new Capitalist China.

[Lurker]

Excellent posts by Sibboleth. I was going to make some of the same points as he made in the first one (though it would not have been nearly as well-written), but decided not to bother.

Incidentally, the same situation he describes in Britain, aplies in Norway as well, where Labour ran a strong (at times semi-McCarthyite) campaign against the communists. I would suspect the same goes for Social Democratic parties in much of Western Europe.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, when communism is perceived as the greatest threat to American security and hegemony, it follows that Americans as a whole would vote for the party that was tougher on communism.

McGovern didn't make us pals with China.

[Beet]

The defeat of the left in Germany, Italy and France in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and in some cases the 1970s was undoubtedly influenced by fear of communism/the Soviets. Remember what a scandal it was when Willy Brandt's government was accused of being soft on the USSR.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well in Italy and France the Left was dominated by... Communists. The situation in (West) Germany was, how shall we say, rather more complicated than you allow for. Besides it was the Cold War that allowed the SPD to monopolise the Left vote for the first time since the party split during the First World War...

[TTS1996]

Of course, and this is not a pattern confined to the United States. The Cold War, and the broader ideology of 'anti-Communism' grealty benefited right-wing political parties in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Germany (some of the more prominent examples), as the left (especially in the 1940's, 50's and 60's) could be portrayed rather easily as soft on communism.

Could they though? Let's look at Britain. Until 1955 the Labour Party was led by Clement Attlee who had led a government that had sent troops to fight Communists in Greece and Korea, had played a leading role in the establishment of NATO, had developed nuclear weaponry, had prioritised military spending over social spending, and had systematically expelled parliamentarians suspected of being fellow travellers. After 1955 it was led by Hugh Gaitskell who had built up profile within the Party largely because of his strong anticommunist views, who had been the Chancellor who had prioritised military spending over social spending, and who's closest advisor was a man who used the Durham Miners Gala as an annual anti-Soviet propaganda show. This was not a political party that could be credibly accused of being 'soft on communism'; indeed the only people who thought it was were gin-addled Daily Telegraph-reading colonels and the like, and such people were (it is fair to say) rarely known to be swing voters. Labour lost elections in the 50s because the Tories had been lucky enough to squeak into power just as the postwar economic boom got going, not because of the Cold War.

Two excellent examples, though I wouldn't say the party can be defined by its leaders so easily; least not by such a consensual leader like Attlee who is almost the opposite of a dominating "one-man-party" type - did the Tories not try to associate someone like Bevan with being soft on communism, as well as hyping him as the man really in charge of Attlee's Labour Party?

How far though in your opinion is what you say true of UK Labour in the 60s and 70s - the height of the Cold War - when the Militants and so on were starting to rise?

In Australia the Petrov Affair is in 1954, The Split is in 1954-5 and because of AV immediately benefits the right through DLP transfers if not through directly associating the ALP with Communism. Of course Menzies had already started playing the communist card with the 1950 ban and 1951 referendum (arguably you could say he started it ten years before that, but that was in response to the Nazi-Soviet pact)