Republican President Herbert Hoover and the shaken Congress responded by enacting a striking array of emergency economic measures that constituted a tentative start on the New Deal FDR would kick into high gear in 1933.Īmong the laws passed in 1931-32 were a significant tax increase (perhaps doubtful policy at such a moment, but dramatic) the first Glass-Steagall Act, beginning banking reform the Reconstruction Finance and Home Loan Bank acts to stimulate lending the Norris-LaGuardia Act, an early step supporting unions, and more.
In the 1930 midterm vote, previously dominant Republicans lost 50 seats in the House and five in the Senate, producing a virtual tie in both chambers. Many immigrant groups have suffered discrimination, but this law outlawed all Chinese immigration, a unique injustice that lasted well over half a century.ħ2nd Congress, 1931-32: A horrifying economic collapse in 1929-30 heralded the Great Depression and brought a political earthquake even before Roosevelt's election in November 1932. But Arthur and the Congress seized the moment to enact one of the most important political reform measures ever, the Pendleton Act, essentially creating the merit-based federal civil service and ending the political patronage "spoils system" that had long fueled dishonesty and retarded efficient administration.Īnother momentous piece of legislation, as shameful as the Pendleton Act was worthy, was the Chinese Exclusion Act. Arthur, a notoriously corrupt New York spoilsman who had been put on the ticket to build an alliance with East Coast political machines. Newly elected President James Garfield was fatally shot by an insane office-seeker after a few months in office, bringing to the White House Chester A. Here's a quick, post-Civil War survey:Ĥ7th Congress, 1881-83: Divisions were deep and bitter in Gilded Age America, and Congress was seemingly gridlocked, tied 37-37 in the Senate, with Republicans holding a modest 146-134 advantage in the House.
The somewhat surprising answer is yes, but keep in mind that big things are not always good things. Have earlier, narrowly divided congresses ever accomplished big things? Still, ours is not America's first period of close political competition. But even they would have looked inept trying to pass a supersized partisan agenda with today's slender majorities. Joe Biden is no Lyndon Johnson, much less an FDR. I marveled at the days when Franklin Roosevelt passed the heart of the New Deal, including Social Security, in 1935, backed by a dominating 322-102 Democratic majority in the House of Representatives - compared to the thin 222-213 advantage Biden's allies enjoy there today.Īnd I noted that when Lyndon Johnson enacted Medicare in 1965, the Senate contained 68 Democrats, compared with today's 50 (plus tie breaker Kamala Harris). My point back in June was that for some decades American voters have seldom given either party the kind of crushing congressional majorities it takes to enact transformative change. Now that the tale has been told and "less" has indeed transpired - with the Democrats' centralization of voting rules in ruins on the same rocky Senate shore as their kitchen-sink social-spending plan - it might be useful to reflect a bit further on what history suggests actually can be achieved during an era of indecision, and how it's been managed in the past.
I cautioned: "Don't be surprised if less actually happens. Seven months ago, as President Joe Biden embarked on what was being called "a long slog of legislating" to push a bold, uncompromising progressive agenda through a wary Congress, I wrote a column dubbing our political era "the age of indecision."
0 kommentar(er)
