From the narrow standpoint of election analysis, this is a really important part of why Dobbs is unique: It’s a seminal policy victory for the party that doesn’t hold the White House.
Usually, it’s the president’s party that pulls off the biggest policy change of a president’s first term — after all, it’s the party in power — and, in doing so, elicits a backlash from the electorate.
Brown v. Board
On the other end of the spectrum, the court’s ruling on Brown v. Board, which held that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, was also a common point of comparison:
Brown v. Board of Education, 1954. One could argue that the Republicans were not the Southern party and the Democrats were, but the trend of the Democrats was unmistakably toward civil rights (Truman integrating the armed forces; Humphrey’s civil rights plank at the 1948 convention). Also Eisenhower lobbied Warren against Brown (privately). — Kenneth McCue A possible case of the party out of power achieving a major policy goal might be the Brown v. Board case in 1954. But of course it is complicated, since the Democratic Party was still the bastion of the Solid South, so only part of the party was in favor of Brown. In any event, the Democrats did score solid gains in the 1954 elections, though Eisenhower would sweep to a strong win in 1956. — John Connolly, Sophia Smith Professor of Philosophy Emeritus, Smith College
The Brown decision has a more interesting — if still uncertain — case for being a victory for the party out of power. As our two commenters remind us, Democrats had already taken important steps toward embracing civil rights by this time, even though they were still the party of the Solid South (at least in congressional elections). Whether Dwight Eisenhower liked it or not (he didn’t), Earl Warren was appointed by the president.
On the other hand, Brown didn’t spark quite the same kind of broad public opposition as Dobbs, let alone Dred Scott. In a post-Brown poll, Gallup found that a modest majority (54 percent to 41 percent) approved of the decision. Republicans didn’t make opposition to Brown the center of the midterm campaign in 1954, as Democrats would like to do this time.
The End of Reconstruction
This one surprised me.
The best analogy I can think of is the 1876 election. As part of taking office, Rutherford Hayes agreed to remove troops from the South and end Reconstruction. It’s not a perfect parallel, as Democrats controlled the House after 1876, so Hayes didn’t have unified control of government. However, interestingly, in 1878 neither party made gains in Congress, but Democrats lost more seats than Republicans. — Jacob Smith, visiting assistant professor of political science, Kenyon College
Unlike Dred Scott and Brown v. Board, the end of Reconstruction was unequivocally a seminal policy victory for the party out of power. It’s an odd one — it was, after all, carried out by the president. But it certainly fits our key criteria. And as Mr. Smith notes, this was an interesting election in another respect: The party out of power actually lost seats in the 1878 midterm election.
What Can History Tell Us About the Roe Effect on the Midterms?
