Democrats need alliances between Baptists and bootleggers. So do Republicans, but right now, they have plenty of those alliances, which is a key reason, and maybe the key reason, that they are riding so high.
Let me explain. In the twentieth century, the U.S. had fierce debates about laws restricting commercial activity on Sundays — above all banning the sale and purchase of alcohol. Many Americans favored those laws on moral grounds. They thought that ceasing secular work on Sunday was a way of honoring God. They believed that people should be in church on that day.
Some Americans also thought that drinking alcohol was a sin, and that it led to a host of other sins (including domestic violence). Invoking public morality, Baptists were prominent supporters of Sunday closing laws.
Then there were the bootleggers — sellers of alcohol who stood to make massive profits if Sunday alcohol sales were made unlawful, effectively giving them a monopoly on such sales. The alliance between the Baptists and the bootleggers helped lead to Sunday closing laws all over the country.
In 1983, the economist Bruce Yandle argued that Baptist-bootlegger-style alliances are often crucial to regulatory action. Yandle urged that some people are motivated by a moral concern, while others seek to promote their economic self-interest. Often they need each other. When Baptists (understood as the moralists) and bootleggers (understood as the economic interests in the background) form an alliance, they can move the regulatory state in their preferred directions.
But we can go much further than Yandle did. Baptist-bootlegger alliances extend far beyond regulation. They move modern political life.
Remember the controversy over the destruction of the ozone layer? You don’t hear a whole lot about it today. The reason is the Montreal Protocol, which largely solved the problem. It was signed with the enthusiastic leadership of President Ronald Reagan, not ordinarily known as a fierce environmentalist.
The existence of the Montreal Protocol owes a lot to the Baptists, in the form of environmental groups warning that CFCs, or chlorofluorocarbons, threatened to deplete the ozone layer and thus to endanger public health. But the Montreal Protocol would not have been possible without the enthusiasm of the bootleggers as well, in the form of DuPont and other companies that pioneered CFC-free alternatives. They saw terrific profit opportunities if these chemicals were phased out.
When I was administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President Barack Obama, I saw plenty of Baptist-bootlegger alliances. Environmentalists were the Baptists, seeking aggressive air pollution regulations on moral grounds. Natural gas companies were the bootleggers, supportive of many of those same regulations to give them a competitive advantage against coal companies.
We should even think of these as alliances between green, meaning environmentalists, and green, meaning the color of money.
Here’s another example: Some environmentalists have favored mandatory labels on food containing genetically modified organisms. They were joined by organic food companies, whose products do not contain such organisms, and which hoped that such labels would give them an economic advantage. After a series of frustrating failures, this particular Baptist-bootlegger alliance ultimately succeeded in 2016 when Congress enacted a labeling requirement.
The simplest coalitions between Baptists and bootleggers arise when some people have intense moral concerns and others are motivated by pure self-interest. But there are more complicated variations.
Some people want to stop or allow abortion, affirmative action, or immigration on moral grounds. Other people do not much care about the moral issues; they just want to be elected. They seize on abortion, affirmative action, or immigration out of political self-interest. They might see a terrific opportunity, because they want to get two things: campaign donations and votes. They are political entrepreneurs, sounding like Baptists but not necessarily giving a fig.
Some of the biggest successes of contemporary Republicans are a product of close alliances between Baptists and bootleggers. Emphasizing the moral value of liberty, many Americans are keenly skeptical of high tax rates. These Baptists are joined by bootleggers who share that value, but who are mostly focused on economic considerations.
Or consider efforts to promote deregulation and downsize the “deep state.” The Baptists point to widespread moral values associated with freedom, federalism, and entrepreneurship. For their part, the bootleggers know that if they can scale back regulation, they have a lot to gain.
In recent years, Democrats have been heavy on Baptists, but light on bootleggers.
On cultural issues — consider transgender issues, affirmative action, or Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs — they have invoked moral commitments that divide Americans. Baptist Democrats are effectively countered by Baptist Republicans. And with respect to the cultural issues favored by the left, it is not so easy to find a ton of support from the nation’s bootleggers.
With Baptists and bootleggers in mind, we can see why Democrats did better in the past. President Lyndon Johnson’s attack on racial discrimination was strongly if quietly supported by many businesses, even in the South, which knew that if they were opened to people of color, they would be serving more customers and so make more money.
President Bill Clinton was the modern master of the Baptist-bootlegger alliance. As just one example, consider his support for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has strong moral justifications (it helps the working poor) and is also appreciated by many businesses (because the government helps pay for their workers).
As I saw up close, President Obama knew all about Baptists and bootleggers. He worked hard to ensure that his fuel economy standards would be supported by the nation’s automobile companies. He worked even harder to get support for the Affordable Care Act not only from people who supported it on moral grounds but also from major insurers (which liked the law’s expansion in coverage, alongside its subsidies for low-income people) and from pharmaceutical companies (which knew that expanded coverage would increase the demand for prescription drugs).
Right now, contemporary Democrats are in the midst of identifying their policy priorities for coming years. They have a host of Baptists. They should be focusing intensely on this question: Who are their bootleggers?
Cass R. Sunstein is the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School and author of “On Liberalism: In Defense of Freedom,” forthcoming in September.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
