1
Introduction
An important debate has evolved during the past few years over the historical significance of the political and policy developments during the 1980s. After events such as the election victories of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the Republican takeover of the Senate (1981–1986), and changes in the spending patterns of the federal budget, some political analysts began arguing that the political and policy developments in the 1980s represented a fundamental change in the U.S. system. They believe the 1980s have been a watershed period, similar to the 1930s, that will be seen as a turning point in the American political system.
The political analysts who support this viewpoint do not completely agree on the significance of the events of the 1980s. Their interpretations vary somewhat. But they do agree on the central point that the 1980s represented a fundamental historic change in U.S. politics and public policies.
Rowland Evans and Robert Novak were among the first political commentators to use the concept of the “Reagan revolution.” They stated in 1981:
While Nixon spoke in the contentious rhetoric of hyperbole, his policies as president were moderate if not downright liberal, careful not to disturb the national political consensus dating back to Franklin Roosevelt. In contrast, Reagan spoke in moderate language while pursuing policies whose only intent was to destroy that consensus. . . .
If measured in overall governmental change rather than the journalistic standard of legislative accomplishment, Reagan’s Hundred Days could be compared to Roosevelt’s. What was so quickly started then in regulatory relaxation, spending cuts and tax cut proposals was just the beginning. Removing the regulatory wedge was a continuing process; Stockman was making plans for further and deeper budget cuts in years ahead; Reagan saw tax rate reduction as a process that would not cease so long as he was president. Even the Moral Majority’s social issues would be pursued in due time.
This was the Reagan Revolution.1
In the mid-1980s, John Chubb and Paul Peterson presented the fundamental change thesis in The New Direction in American Politics. They stated:
The American political system, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, has been transformed to an extent unknown since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The terms of political debate, the course of domestic and foreign policy, and the dominant line of partisan cleavage have all been fundamentally changed. Only rarely in American history has the political system broken as sharply with governing customs to address festering national problems or to confront social and economic issues head-on.2
Similarly, in an article entitled “Why Reaganism Will Be With Us Into the 21st Century,” Martin Shefter and Benjamin Ginsberg concluded:
The half-dozen party systems that have governed the United States since Jefferson have been distinguished by more than their electoral bases. At least five characteristics distinguish a durable and stable regime in American national politics. . . .
The regime constructed by Ronald Reagan seems to meet all of these criteria and thus could last long after Reagan leaves office.3
In the late 1980s, Martin Anderson, who had been on Reagan’s White House staff, also concluded that the Reagan administration produced a fundamental change in the U.S. political system.
But there is mounting evidence that suggests that the main element of what became known as the Reagan revolution will continue. . . . But whether the new administration in January 1989 is Democrat or Republican, it will be largely irrelevant to the major policy changes that will likely dominate this republic for the next decade or so. What Reagan and his comrades have done is to shape America’s policy agenda well into the twenty-first century.4
In this analysis, I take issue with this point of view and argue that the Reagan revolution is an illusion.5 The U.S. political system did not experience a fundamental conservative change in the 1980s. In fact, the results of many of the major political, policy, and institutional developments of the 1980s (e.g., an enormous increase in the federal budget deficits, defense cuts in the late 1980s, and Democratic victories in 1980–88 House elections) were just the opposite of what should have occurred in a Reagan revolution.
The central thesis of the book is that in the 1980s the United States did not enter a new conservative and Republican era in politics and public policies, but remained in the New Deal–Great Society era. Major social, economic, and political developments of the 1930s and 1940s produced the New Deal–Great Society era. These developments changed U.S. government and politics significantly from the previous conservative and Republican era (1896–1932). This earlier period featured more laissez-faire capitalism, a relatively small federal government, and Republican dominance in a two-party system. Beginning with the New Deal, the nation developed a more mixed economy, the federal government became much larger and more influential than the state and local governments, and the Democrats replaced the Republicans as number one in the overall system. For the United States to have changed to a conservative and Republican era in the 1980s, these key features of the New Deal–Great Society era would need to have reverted to the conditions of the early 1900s. However, the New Deal–Great Society conditions remained in the 1980s as the country continued with a mixed economy, a dominant federal government, and a two-party system with the Democrats as the top party overall.
This chapter summarizes the fundamental change (i.e., Reagan revolution) thesis and then analyzes each part of it. The other chapters will expand on the points outlined in this introduction.
Reagan Revolution Thesis
Since 1932, according to this thesis, the United States experienced nearly fifty liberal years of public policy in a political system largely dominated by Democrats. However, by 1980 a massive conservative shift in public opinion had taken place in the country. This conservative shift in opinion produced Ronald Reagan’s landslide victories and the first Republican Senate majority in over twenty-five years. President Reagan became one of the most popular presidents in modern times and successfully used his popularity and the conservative shift in public opinion to dramatically change the political system. Supposedly, the conservative mood and Reagan’s leadership produced massive changes in public policies, party politics, and the political process. The policy changes led to a significant decline in the role of the federal government, which rivals the historic significance of the increase in the role of the federal government produced by the New Deal. The Republicans became the number one political party. And, fundamental changes occurred in the federal government and in the relationship between the federal government and state and local governments.
With the explanation of the thesis completed, the next step is to divide it into its basic components and indicate the weaknesses and problems with each of these components.
Fifty Liberal Years?
In order to create as much contrast as possible between the 1980s and the previous period, those supporting the fundamental change thesis usually portray the years between 1932 and 1980 as a period of enormous liberal gains. Supposedly, liberals dominated the federal government and won victory after victory in civil rights, social programs, environmental programs, and in many other policy areas. The size of the federal government, according to the thesis, continually increased during this period.
Although there is some truth to this historical analysis, it contains a number of questionable inferences. Liberals certainly did not dominate the federal government for fifty years. The coalition of conservative southern Democrats and conservative Republicans was a powerful force in Congress during most of this period. Before the mid-1960s, conservative and moderate southern Democrats controlled most of the powerful positions in Congress.
In the executive branch as well, it is ridiculous to talk of fifty liberal years. From 1948 to 1980, each party controlled the presidency for sixteen years. Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford were certainly not liberals. Even the Democratic presidents during this period came from the moderate or moderate-liberal sections of the Democratic party. Moreover, people in the bureaucracy could not be characterized as primarily liberal. The federal bureaucracy consisted of individuals with political points of view which covered the mainstream ideological spectrum from left to right. In addition, the Defense Department, which has been by far the largest part of the executive branch, was more often an ally of conservative rather than liberal groups.
Both liberal and conservative trends were present in the federal courts. These years saw Supreme Court eras as diverse as the Warren Court, the Burger Court, and the conservative Court of the early 1930s. The number of liberal and conservative judges in the lower federal courts increased or decreased as the parties exchanged the presidency.
Besides the three branches, liberal dominance never occurred among interest groups. The power of liberal groups was effectively countered by conservative groups, especially the numerous and powerful business lobbies.
Furthermore, the assumption of continual policy victories by liberals represents a faulty historical interpretation. Conservatives won in many important areas of public policy. For example, they won many battles on gun control. The Equal Rights Amendment never received the required amount of support from state legislatures. Liberals failed to enact a national health insurance program. The defense budget increased by billions and billions of dollars during this period.
Even most of the liberal victories came after many years of defeat. Black civil rights legislation and federal aid to education are good examples. Most of the major consumer and environmental legislation did not pass until the mid-1960s and the 1970s.
Consequently, the view of fifty liberal years presents an inaccurate interpretation of history. Rather than a period of liberal dominance, the period should be seen as one which produced a complex mix of conservative-to-liberal political leaders and conservative-to-liberal public policies.
Public Opinion
The media continually presented the message that American public opinion shifted to the right. Supposedly, the late 1970s and the 1980s were conservative periods which created conservative social, political, and economic attitudes.
An examination of the national polls and the public opinion literature, however, provides overwhelming evidence that this thesis is incorrect. The major conclusion which can be drawn from the data and analyses is that U.S. public opinion has remained stable over the last two decades. Substantial changes in public opinion have been rare in recent years. The majority of Americans continually support the liberal position on some issues and the conservative position on others. The general direction of the public on major issues has shown only limited change during the past fifteen years.
And within this overall stability, a long-term liberal trend can be observed in several social issues such as black civil rights, women’s rights, and birth control information. Moreover, an analysis of the data during the 1980s suggests a slight movement to the left rather than the right.
The shift in attitudes on defense spending was the major reason why public opinion moved more toward the liberal side in the 1980s. While public opinion remained stable on most issues, an enormous decline occurred in support for defense programs.
Survey research data in other policy areas offers no support for the conservative shift thesis. For example, national polls during the 1980s revealed strong support by Americans for most of the federal social programs.
Little appears to have changed on controversial social policy issues through the 1970s and 1980s. The image of the United States as a country in the midst of a Moral Majority social revolution was certainly false. Other than crime, the other social policy issues, such as school prayer and abortion, did not appear to be major concerns of most Americans. Other issues, especially economic issues, were usually rated as much more important by most Americans.
The majority of Americans continued to be on the liberal side on several of these social issues and on the conservative side on others. The majority of the public still opposed a constitutional amendment banning abortions and supported the ERA and stronger gun control laws. On the other hand, they favored prayers in public schools and the death penalty, while they opposed racial quota systems.
The overall attitude toward the role of the federal government in the economy remained stable. Americans continued to support government influence and regulation in some aspects of the economy, but opposed it in others. No strong conservative swing toward laissez-faire capitalism and away from the mixed economy position can be found in the public opinion data.
Most citizens remained supportive of the capitalistic system and opposed major changes in the economic structure. However, they wanted the federal government to still play a big role in improving the economy and providing a mechanism to ease some of the harsh results which might be produced by a completely unregulated economic system.
Public support for environmental programs remained high and even increased in the 1980s. Only a small percentage of the public supported the Reagan administration’s attempt to cut back on the environmental laws.
Reagan’s Popularity
Besides the myth of a conservative opinion change on policies, many political commentators created the myth that Reagan was a highly popular president. However, an examination of poll data shows that Reagan’s popularity ratings were not higher than other recent presidents. His ratings were considerably lower than Eisenhower’s and Kennedy’s and about the same overall as the other presidents in the 1953–88 period. President Bush’s standing in the polls has been much higher than Reagan’s for comparable periods in their administrations.
Conservative Voting in the Elections
Supposedly, a conservative surge in public opinion led to Reagan’s and Bush’s victories and conservative gains in congressional elections. But again, the evidence does not support this hypothesis.
Most survey research data and election studies indicate that Reagan did not win because of support for his conservative ideology. Instead of a conservative ideological vote for Reagan, the 1980 presidential election was primarily an anti-Carter vote. While Carter’s poll ratings were moderate-to-good early in his term, his public support dropped into the poor range in the months before the election. Most of the voters casting their ballots for Reagan voted for someone to replace an unpopular president. The election was not an overwhelming endorsement of Reagan’s conservative programs.
Economic factors influenced voters in the 1984 presidential election more than any other variable. The difference in support between Reagan and Mondale developed largely from people who were satisfied with the economy.
Not only were there no indications that conservative ideological trends caused the landslide victories, but perceptions of Reagan’s conservative ideology actually hurt his electoral chances. Since the vote for Reagan in 1980 was largely an anti-Carter vote and no conservative shift occurred in public opinion, more moderate Republican candidates (e.g., Gerald Ford, George Bush, or Howard Baker) probably would have been able to beat Carter by an even higher percentage.
Similarly in 1984, Reagan won despite his position on many issues. Polls showed strong opposition to several of Reagan’s major policies. The economic recovery, however, hit at the right time for the administration and canceled many of the adverse effects produced by the conservative policies.
Survey research findings indicated a similar pattern in the 1988 presidential election. Bush was elected primarily because of favorable economic conditions and not because of voter support for conservative policies.
Besides presidential elections, results from congressional elections refuted the conservative shift thesis. An analysis ...
