Democrats could really benefit from forming an alliance between moral advocates and profit seekers—much like their Republican counterparts already do.
Let’s unpack this. Back in the 20th century, there was a heated discussion in the U.S. about laws that limited commercial activities on Sundays. Many people supported these laws for moral reasons, believing that stepping away from secular work that day was a way to show reverence to God, and they felt church attendance was essential.
At the same time, there were those who viewed drinking alcohol as a crime that led to numerous societal issues, like domestic violence. The Baptists, often associated with public morality, were strong proponents of closing businesses on Sundays.
Enter the bootlegger—a seller ready to cash in if Sunday alcohol sales were banned. The alliance between Baptists and Bootleggers played a crucial role in enforcing Sunday closures nationwide.
Economist Bruce Yandle pointed out in 1983 that these kinds of alliances are significant drivers behind regulatory decisions. Some people act out of moral convictions, while others pursue their financial interests, often needing each other to move the regulatory landscape in their favor.
However, the impact of these Baptist-Bootlegger alliances extends far beyond regulatory frameworks. They shape modern political dynamics.
Take the issue of the ozone layer. You might not hear much about it anymore, thanks to the Montreal Protocol, which effectively addressed the problem. This initiative was led with surprising fervor by President Ronald Reagan, who isn’t usually viewed as particularly environmentally conscious.
The success of the Montreal Protocol hinged on the activism of groups warning that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) posed serious threats to public health. But it also involved the enthusiasm of companies like DuPont, which saw financial opportunities in phasing out CFCs.
During my time as an administrator in the Information and Regulation Office under President Barack Obama, I witnessed many of these alliances firsthand. Environmentalists, the Baptists in this scenario, were keen on regulations for clean air based on ethical grounds. Meanwhile, natural gas companies, acting as bootleggers, supported similar regulations to gain an edge over coal producers.
You could even say this was an alliance of green—environmentalists—and green—money.
Another example can be found in the push for food labeling regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Some environmentalists advocated for labeling, aiming to distinguish their products from organic options, thus enjoying economic benefits. After several setbacks, this Baptist-Bootlegger alliance triumphed in 2016 when Congress approved the labeling requirements.
The simplest form of coalition between Baptists and Bootleggers occurs when intense moral beliefs align with self-interest. Yet, there’s more complexity at play.
Some individuals may insist on or oppose immigration, abortion, or positive behaviors from a moral standpoint. Others might not be as invested in these moral issues but see political gain by aligning with them for donations and votes. They often appear to champion these causes, yet their primary motivation remains political self-interest.
Some of the recent successes for Republicans can be traced back to a strong alliance between Baptists and Bootleggers. Many Americans, driven by moral values of freedom, tend to distrust high taxes. Baptists find allies in bootleggers who share their values while focusing on economic reasons.
Consider also the movements toward deregulation and reducing what’s coined the “deep state.” Here, Baptists highlight moral values tied to freedom and entrepreneurship, while bootleggers realize that less regulation translates to higher profits.
In recent years, the Democrats have leaned heavily on their moral advocates, yet have not cultivated the same level of interest from profit-driven groups.
On cultural matters, like issues surrounding transgender rights or diversity initiatives, they tend to draw a moral line that often divides the country. Baptist Democrats face strong opposition from their Republican counterparts, making it challenging to find support among bootleggers for culturally left-leaning causes.
Looking back, the success of Democrats in the past can partly be attributed to this dynamic. For example, President Lyndon Johnson’s battle against racism found unexpected support from numerous Southern businesses that recognized that being inclusive could expand their customer base.
Bill Clinton exemplified the Baptist-Bootlegger alliance brilliantly. His backing of the earned income tax credit was valuable morally, as it supported low-income workers, and also gained favor among many businesses benefiting from it.
When Obama was in office, he understood this interplay well. He ensured that fuel economy standards were embraced by auto manufacturers and secured backing for affordable healthcare legislation from not just moral supporters but also major insurers and pharmaceutical companies looking to boost demand through expanded coverage.
Now, as modern Democrats chart their policy objectives for the next few years, they have an abundance of moral advocates on hand. The pressing question remains: Who stands as their bootlegger?
