The media and political experts frequently make use of the phrase “bread-and-butter issue” to describe issues that directly affect the financial security of Americans, where “bread” and “butter” are metaphors for Americans’ ability to put food on the dinner table. Such issues include unemployment, the cost of living, health care, aid to the poor, and entitlements (Social Security and Medicare). Bread-and-butter issues are often thought to be particularly useful for mobilizing the party faithful and attracting undecided voters who might be willing to select the candidate who best appeals to their pocketbook.
The Campaign of 1932 was a watershed in American policy, with Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) ushering in a new era in which the federal government assumed direct responsibility for the economic prosperity of the nation as well as the personal financial well-being of American families. Roosevelt’s policies focused on keeping unemployment and prices low through government intervention. In particular, FDR was an advocate of Keynesian economics as a means for blunting the effects of economic downturns. According to this philosophy, the government should tax in times of economic prosperity to generate sufficient revenue to spend its way out of future recessions. Specifically, the Roosevelt administration embraced the creation of a social safety net that included Social Security, government jobs programs, and the expanded use of government grants to state and local governments to stimulate economic growth. In the post-FDR era, the basic guiding philosophy underlying the New Deal was tacitly accepted by political elites in both parties, with the two Republican presidents who served after presidents Roosevelt and Truman had already established and sustained their New Deal and Fair Deal policies actually adhering to the basic structure instituted by their Democratic predecessors. Republican President Eisenhower made no effort to dismantle the New Deal and embarked on a major public works project of his own, creating a national interstate highway system. Republican President Nixon, who followed presidents Kennedy and Johnson, later implemented wage and price controls to strengthen a troubled economy, and he proposed a guaranteed minimum income, declaring at one point, “We are all Keynesians now.”
By the late 1970s, Republicans began to rethink Keynesianism. The Campaign of 1980 was notable in that the Republican Party primaries illustrated the fundamental disagreements within the party on the best approach to the economy. Ronald Reagan’s rejection of Keynes and his advocacy of Milton Friedman’s supply-side economics philosophy were a clear break from past party policies. Reagan argued that dramatic decreases in government spending, coupled with large tax decreases, would stimulate the economy and thus generating more tax revenue while also saving the government money over the long run. Republican primary opponent George H. W. Bush, an economics major while at Yale, derided Reagan’s policies as “voodoo economics.” Over time, presidential candidates on both sides of the political aisle advocated tax cuts of some sort, with the primary emphasis on the middle class (with Mondale’s Campaign of 1984 serving as a notable exception).
During the Campaign of 2000, Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush made middle-class tax cuts a centerpiece of his campaign, and Democratic nominee Al Gore followed suit. Once elected, Bush significantly pared down the federal income tax rate, with the largest gains being recognized by the most affluent. Bush argued, in the spirit of Reagan, that such tax breaks would serve as an economic stimulus, with the wealthy using their windfall to make purchases that would create jobs for all Americans. The Bush tax cuts changed the parties’ approaches to the tax issue for later elections. From the Campaign of 2004 onward, Democrats promised to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Republicans, on the other hand, have argued that eliminating the Bush tax cuts (or other tax subsidies, both corporate and individual) would constitute a tax increase, which they strenuously opposed. The Campaign of 2012 was a continuation of this debate. Democratic incumbent Barack Obama argued that the rising federal debt necessitated frugality, suggesting that the country could ill afford to offer tax breaks to those who could most afford to pay. The Republican Party, on the other hand, united around a federal debt reduction proposal by Wisconsin representative Paul Ryan that, among other things, offered the wealthy additional tax reductions on the premise that this would spur investment and economic growth. When Mitt Romney became the GOP nominee, he selected Ryan as his running mate, and he defended the Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans on the grounds that these individuals were “job creators.”
Also notable during the Campaign of 2000 was a proposal by Bush to partially privatize Social Security. Gore defended the existing system, arguing that he would put Social Security in a “lock box” to protect it for future generations. Bush’s privatization proposal failed to garner public support, and he quickly abandoned it. The conventional political wisdom has been that Americans, while concerned about the long-term viability of Social Security, are generally supportive of the system. Social Security is often termed the “third rail” of American politics, which implies that attempts to reform the system are politically risky. Yet in the Campaign of 2012, both parties were forced by circumstances produced by the economic turmoil that began in 2008 to navigate the third rail. Ryan had proposed reforms in both Social Security and Medicare, with the latter being replaced by a system of fixed-rate vouchers. Democrats resisted attempts to reform both programs, despite growing questions about their continued viability, particularly with the retirement of the baby boomers, which was predicted to severely tax the resources of both programs. Romney and Ryan backed off of the voucher system, suggesting that it would be phased in and would apply to younger Americans but not those set to receive benefits in the near future. The GOP candidates also expressed a commitment to repealing the Affordable Care Act (also known as “Obamacare”), passed during Obama’s first term, while the Democrats expressed continued support for Obamacare.
What is now called the Great Recession effectively dominated the last act of the Campaign of 2008, reverberating throughout the Campaign of 2012. However, by the Campaign of 2016 economic indicators were encouraging. As a result, tax cuts have not played a central role in the campaign, nor has the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, although Republican candidates still advocate its abolition. Even Social Security reform has lost its sense of urgency, as candidates discussed less-radical reforms to keep the system intact for future generations. Democrats support increasing the minimum wage and are likely to continue to do so in future campaigns.
Bread-and-butter issues have been particularly visible in presidential elections that have occurred during periods of economic downturn or eras of high inflation. The Campaigns of 1896, 1932, 1976, 1980, 1992, and 2008 are all examples of elections where bread-and-butter issues dominated political discourse.
See also Red Meat Issue
Eulau, Heinz, and Michael Lewis-Beck, eds. Economic Conditions and Electoral Outcomes: The United States and Western Europe. New York: Algora Publishing, 1985.
Hillygus, D. Sunshine, and Todd G. Shields. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2008.
Kiewiet, D. Roderick. Microeconomics and Micropolitics: Electoral Effects of Economic Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.
Mackuen, Michael B., Rober S. Erikson, and James A. Stimson. The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Norpoth, Helmut, Jean-Dominique Lafay, and Michael S. Lewis-Beck, eds. Economics and Politics: The Calculus of Support. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991.
Tufte, Edward R. Political Control of the Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980.