Under both Republicans and Democrats, the federal government has become gargantuan over the last 10 decades. This is seen in the promises and proposals the Republicans and Democrats have made in their 2024 party platforms.
Both political parties and their presidential leaders cannot imagine a political landscape in which governments do not “run the country,” which means running our lives.
Shortly after this article is published, we will know the outcome of the 2024 presidential campaign. But whether the winner is one or the other of the two major political party candidates, one thing is certain: the intrusive and heavy hand of government will continue to have sway over our lives after the victor is sworn in as the next president of the United States in January 2025.Both political parties and their presidential leaders cannot imagine a political landscape in which governments do not “run the country,” which means running our lives.
[Click to Tweet]
For a point of comparison, let us look at what the Republican and Democrat Party platforms promised 100 years ago during the 1924 presidential race between Calvin Coolidge (Republican) and John W. Davis (Democratic), along with that of Robert La Follette (Progressive).
The Republican and Democratic Party platforms of 1924
The Republican platform called for continuing a “policy of strict economy” that, under the Warren G. Harding and Coolidge administrations (Harding died in office in 1923, and Coolidge became president), had cut taxes, lowered government spending by 40 percent over the preceding four years, and reduced the national debt by $2.5 billion ($45.5 billion in 2024 dollars), along with running a budget surplus. More of the same was promised if Coolidge was continued in the White House.
In foreign affairs, it was expected that other countries would pay back their wartime debts to the U.S. Treasury. While wishing well to the rest of the world and desirous for global peace through armament-reduction agreements, it was insisted that the United States should not be involved in foreign entanglements that might commit America to military engagements around the globe.
There were some major sore points from a free-market perspective, including the Republican dogmatic insistence on a regime of high American tariff barriers to keep foreign goods out of the United States, in conjunction with other income transfers to agricultural interests. There was a pitch for a strong American-owned merchant marine. In addition, there were proposed government interventions in labor markets for fewer work hours and higher wages. But the platform insisted that American industry should not suffer from government competition or nationalization of public utilities. However, Republicans were very determined to have strongly enforced immigration laws
The Democrat platform of 1924 railed against various instances of high-profile federal government corruption, privilege-giving, and vote buying under Republican rule, especially when Harding was in the White House. The Republicans were said to be concerned with “material things,” while the Democrats, on the other hand, were “concerned chiefly with human rights.” They wanted “honest government,” with more child-labor legislation, stronger antitrust regulation, special farm loan banks, a more “rational” tariff system on imported goods, and greater “tax fairness” through a more progressive income tax to eliminate the “light” tax burden on the “multimillionaires at the expense of other taxpayers.”
While the Republicans called for antilynching laws to protect Black Americans in the South and for a better sense and spirit of respect for equal rights before the law among racial groups in the United States, the Democrats did not make a peep about the southern segregation laws or the violence against southern blacks.
The Democrats also wanted more government control over natural resources in the name of “conservation.” In addition, they wanted to bolster a merchant marine fleet, and, if necessary, through government ownership and operation of such vessels. The Democrats wanted, at the same time, more federal assistance and aid to public schools around the country. They also insisted on vigorous enforcement of the immigration laws, especially against potential migrants from Asia.
Both parties favored the continuation and stricter enforcement of the Prohibition amendment to the Constitution against the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, along with no change with the already existing “war” on narcotics.
The Progressive Party was basically “left” of the Democrats. They wanted tax reductions for everyone except the “multimillionaires,” who were, clearly, not paying their fair share. They wanted federal regulation of railway freight rates to benefit the “distressed” farmers and legislation to guarantee farm incomes. They wanted legal protection and enforcement of labor-union collective bargaining in agriculture and industry and higher pay for postal workers. The Progressives also wanted government ownership of the railways where “necessary,” along with government ownership of the waterways and natural resources.
Growing interventionism, but no massive welfare state
Reading through this brief and abridged summary of the political party platforms of 1924, one can see that all the seeds of increased government control and intervention are already present, with more promised by all three competing parties. The Republicans had cut taxes, reduced government spending, and lowered the national debt. In addition, during the depression of 1920–1921, the Harding administration had basically followed a let-alone policy, allowing markets to correct and rebalance through price-and-wage flexibility and production readjustments to the post–World War I economic circumstances.
But both Republicans and Democrats had their special-interest groups to which they catered and from whom they expected electoral support through campaign contributions and votes on election day.
Be seeing you
MCViewPoint 