Three points to set up this question.

1. There were a lot of elements of FDR’s coalition and he was a complicated guy. But I think it’s fair to say that he agreed more often with the “non-southern”, less-racist, more-socialist parts of his coalition. (Feel free to challenge this part) (Obviously the people in power from both groups did not necessarily represent all their constituent, nor would everyone fit nicely into one group or the other).

2. It also seems like there is a consensus among historians that this part of his coalition often had to “compromise” with the southern coalition.

3. However, it seems like the Democrats completely crushed the Republicans in the house, senate, and presidential elections from 1930–1938, with the exception of the 1930 senate election.

So my question is this: Obviously hindsight is 2020, the New Deal coalition had lots of “moving parts,” public relations was much fuzzier back then, and I haven’t dug into the numbers. But would it have made sense, given what FDR and friends knew at the time (say between 1930 and 1938), at some point to tell the South to f*** off and implement more radical legislation?

(I’m mostly thinking of the more well-known racist elements of the new deal like sharecropper and tenant protections under the AAA; the exclusion of certain workers from the NLRA and the FLSA; and the way the FHA and HOLC were run).

Topics: politics, economics, history, marketing, United States, racism