The truth is, since 1900 Democratic presidents have dominated on every economic front.

Let’s do a quick rundown of the presidential scorecard. The dissection of more than a hundred years of White House economic polciy reveals some startling if not unexpected numbers:

  • Since 1900, Democrats saw a 12.3% return on the S&P 500 to the Republicans’ 8%
  • Since 1930, Democrats created 5.4% GDP growth. Republicans rang in with only 1.6% (source: Business Wire, August 16, 2007)

Now for some facts from the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Monthly and Princeton University In April 2005, Michael Kinsley did a quick rundown of spending, deficit, GDP and unemployment for the Los Angeles Times. Kinsley started with the 1960 Economic Report and used 45 years of economic history to debunk the Republicans’ claim to smaller government:

Consider federal spending (a.k.a. “big government”). It has gone up an average f about $50 billion a year under presidents of both parties. But that breaks down as $35 billion a year under Democratis presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. If you assume that it takes a year for a president’s policies to take effect, Democrats have raised spending by $40 billion a year and Republicans by $55 billion. (source)

Then, in May 2005, Kevin Drum followed up on Kinsley’s math in the Washington Monthly. Drum’s conclusion was essential “spike the ball.” It’s done. Game, set, match. He wrote:

The results are simple: Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you will get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There’s just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations. (source)

Macroeconomic Performance Under
Democratic and Republican Presidents, 1948-2005

Democrats are also indisputably better for social justice. Two words for you: income inequality.

Under Democrats, income inequality declines. Under Republicans, it grows. Back in 2004, Bartles wrote, “My projections suggest that income inequality…would actually have declined slightly over the past 30 years had the patterns of income growth actually observed during Democratic administrations been in effect throughout that period; conversely, continuous application of the patterns of income growth actually observed during periods of Republican control would have produced an even greater divergence in the economic fortunes of rich and poor.” (source) Republican policies would create what Bartles calls a “Platinum-Gilded Age.” (source: Larry Bartels, Unequal Democracy, p. 31)

This is an excerpt from 40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation by James Carville and Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza.