We certainly have made a lot of progress since then . . . oh wait, no we haven’t.

As for what defeated the Happy Warrior in 1928, the answer is simple: Prosperity did it. His campaign was not aimed at discrediting the prosperity of the Twenties—rather, he was going to grow and expand it to those who might be missing out, for instances, the farmers. It has been noted often that the Democrat platform differed little from the Republican. The Democrats even accepted the protective tariff!

Smith’s opposition to Prohibition hurt him badly. As Governor of New York, beginning around 1926, he led the charge against Prohibition. For all practical purposes, New York State stopped enforcing it. This gained him considerable national attention, and it went over well in certain urban parts of the East. Nonetheless, the majority of Americans were still firmly committed to its support. This included Eleanor Roosevelt, who on Inauguration Day 1929, when on the radio to ask the public’s support for Hoover’s prohibition efforts.

As for his Catholicism, the Catholic Church in the 1920s did much to damage itself with the public at large, particularly with liberal groups. On January 6 of the election year of 1928, Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical, “Mortalium animos,” that isolated Catholics by discouraging their association with members of other faiths. It was a blow at ecumenicalism. It was met with outrage in the Protestant community. Earlier, on December 23, 1920, Pope Benedict XV had issued a decree in aimed Catholic involvement with the Y.M.C.A., which was described as corrupting the faith of youth. This was at a time when the Y.M.C.A. was a popular and respected institution.

Earlier in the decade, the Church spoke out against Prohibition, which hurt its standing with those many Americans who supported it. Cardinal O’Connell of Boston said in early 1926, “…[C]ompulsory prohibition in general is flatly opposed to holy scripture and to Catholic tradition.” Naturally, this was not well received by many Americans who sincerely supported the Prohibition cause. It is worth noting that early on individuals within the Catholic Church had supported anti-liquor cause. An excellent example is Archbishop Ireland, who had helped to organize the Anti-Saloon League in the late XIXth Century and served as its vice president.

The Church also opposed the Child Labor Amendment on the grounds that it was an invasion of the parents’ rights. The amendment was supported by Presidents Harding and Coolidge. Progressives must have been particularly troubled by Smith’s opposition. Also, Catholics expressed opposition to proposed legislation, supported by President Coolidge, to create a Department of Education.

Church organizations, particularly the Knights of Columbus, worked to pressure the United States into war with Mexico, the government of which was then attacking the Church’s status in that country. There were also charges that the Knights were providing funds to support revolt within Mexico. Coolidge gave his ambassador to Mexico, Dwight Morrow, this instruction: “Keep us out of war.”

Al Smith, of course, had his own problems as a candidate. For instance, he would not, at the urging of his staff, adjust his style of campaigning for a national audience. When addressing Oklahoma farmers, he dressed and talked just as if he were in New York City. This sat him apart from a large number of Americans of his day and also emphasized his Tammany connection, which was an Albatross about his neck. He also would not commit to McNary-Haugenism, for he, like Coolidge, recognized it had serious flaws. That did not help him much with the disgruntle farmers, who were supposed to come to his support.. More importantly, the idea that western farmers were in rebellion was a false one. There is no question but that the majority of farmers voted for Hoover. In fact, Hoover ran stronger in Kansas than Coolidge.

Back again to the Catholic question, I would submit that if Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana, had run for President on the Democratic ticket in 1928, he would have done much better than Smith. Walsh, who had headed the Tea Pot Dome investigation and chaired the 1924 Democratic Convention, was a Catholic–but also a strong supporter of Prohibition. He was viewed as a Westerner and old-line Democrat. Walsh would most likely have carried the South.

In the end, it all comes down the fact that 1928 was simply not a Democratic year.