R&L 2008 Election Blog

The 2008 Election: 1952 All Over Again?

By Gary A. Donaldson

As elections approach, pundits want to compare this presidential campaign to that campaign, these candidates to those candidates, this situation to that. The 2008 campaign is, of course, no different.

It seems reasonable to peg this campaign to 1952. Perhaps the most important comparison, the one that is made most often, is that 2008 is the first campaign since 1952 in which no seated president or vice president made a run for the office. Neither candidate—Adlai E. Stevenson (then the Democratic governor of Illinois) nor Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower—had ever been in the Oval Office. Yes (for those trivia experts out there) old Alben Barkley, Harry Truman’s VP, was officially a candidate for about 20 days in July. But when the AFL-CIO said they would not support his candidacy (they said he was too old, at 74) he took his hat out of the ring.

Both elections (1952 and this one, 2008) followed extremely unpopular administrations. Truman had sunk to probably the lowest point of any president in American history. In March 1952 his approval ratings crashed to a dismal 23 percent. Most historians usually find this fascinating because today Truman is revered as a sort of presidential hero: the little guy who stood up to the Russian Bear, “The buck stops here” president who took the heat, “Give’em hell, Harry,” all of that. But while he was in office he was not popular. Most Americans saw him as an interim president—between FDR and what would come later (probably the Republicans). There was corruption in his administration. And, oh yes, there was that unpopular war in Korea.

It should not be surprising that George W. Bush, on his way out of Washington, has taken Truman’s legacy to heart. Bush’s approval ratings are not quite as low as Truman’s. A fair assessment for our current president runs at about 28 percent. More than once, Bush (and several around him) have cited Truman’s dazzling legacy as a reason for the president’s lack of concern for his own poor approval ratings. Ah, presidential legacy. What will historians say about me?

Both presidents found themselves enveloped in an unpopular Asian war. In the summer of 1950, communist North Korea invaded non-communist South Korea. With no input from any advisors on any level, Truman decided to intervene. In fact, he later said that he made the decision, alone, in the plane flight back to Washington from his home in Missouri just hours after being notified of the attack. It seemed to be the right thing to do, at least at first. It was officially a United Nations operation, albeit under U.S. command. And Truman tried to minimize the impact of the event by avoiding the nasty word “war” and calling it a “police action.” But by October the Chinese had entered, and there was no denying that it was a genuine war—with genuine casualties reported daily in the press. Despite the rhetoric that the United States needed to contain the spread of vile communism, by the time of the 1952 campaign the war had become a stalemate in a far off land and the nation had grown tired. To make matters worse for Democrats (who were shackled by the war) Eisenhower, in the last weeks before Election Day, announced “I will go to Korea.” To most Americans, the implication was clear: The great general would deal with this awful problem.

How does a newly-elected president stop an unpopular war? The nation might be asking that question after November 4, 2008. Ike went to Korea in late November 1952, just after the election, as promised. But as president-elect he could do nothing except boost the national morale. To most Americans, however, it seemed to be a signal that he would end the war. And he did that—probably as soon as he reasonably could, in about six months after his inauguration. There were those at the time (particularly those on the right in Ike’s own party) who insisted that the U.S. should have initiated a total war (a euphemism for nuclear weapons) and driven the communists off the Korean Peninsula and even out of China. And there are still those today who argue that the world’s problems with North Korea have developed from that premature armistice signed in July 1953 that ended the Korean War, but that allowed the Stalinist regime to continue above the 38th Parallel. Perhaps there are lessons here for the next president: One candidate wants to end an ill-conceived and unpopular war. The other would say that a premature end to the war would bring on additional problems for the future, and that the nation should carry the war to its final conclusions—despite the cost.

It was Eisenhower—the Republican, man with the military background, the man who orchestrated the liberation of Europe—who ended the nasty war in Korea, the war that the Democrats had started and could not end.

Gary A. Donaldson is professor of history at Xavier University of Louisiana and author, most recently, of The First Modern Campaign: Kennedy, Nixon, and the Election of 1960.

Hillary Isn’t The First Woman in Nomination at a Convention

By Nichola D. Gutgold

That Hillary Clinton’s name is being placed in nomination at the 2008 Democratic National Convention next week in Denver is the subject of much controversy. “Hillary Haters” are pointing to the ongoing Clinton drama. “Hillary Lovers” are rejoicing that Hillary Clinton is being recognized for her historic presidential bid. I propose a middle ground: While Hillary Clinton’s bid is historic in a multitude of ways—love her or hate her—there is actually precedence for her name to be placed in nomination.

At the Cow Palace in San Francisco on July 15, 1964, Margaret Chase Smith, the reserved Republican Maine Senator who made a bid for the presidency, was greeted with cheers from a reception of supporters who declared: “She is still in the race!” Vermont Senator George Aiken nominated her at the convention, and one admirer noted that “Every woman, Republican and Democrat, owes a debt of gratitude to Margaret Chase Smith because she has opened the door for a woman to serve in the Presidency.” By the end of the convention, Margaret Chase Smith came in second with twenty-seven delegates by the final vote. She offered advice to future candidates when she said, “If I were to run again, I would organize every state and go for the delegates at least two years in advance.”

Eight years later, New York Congresswoman, the “unbought and unbossed” Shirley Chisholm, received 151 of the delegates’ votes at the convention in Miami. She wanted to affect political change with the power of her delegates. At a speech she said: “I’m just so thankful that in spite of the differences of opinions, the differences of ideology, and even sometimes within the women’s movement the differences of approaches, that here we are today at a glorious gathering of women in Miami.”

Fast forward to 2008—and Hillary Clinton will have her name placed in nomination at the Democratic National Convention. This isn’t a sign of weakness on the part of Barack Obama, as some pundits have suggested. Instead, he is honoring her remarkable achievement, recognizing precedence for this, and paying proper tribute to it. In addition, the 18 million votes that Clinton received – more than any other woman vying for the White House – deserves recognition. Remember, she almost won. Almost winning is more than any other woman in American political history. Hillary Clinton is making history and she is supporting the presumptive nominee, Barack Obama. Larry Scanlon, political director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said: "She sought to be the first woman nominated for president. She came up a little short, but she made it easier for the next female candidate to get the brass ring. Many in the Democratic Party would like to celebrate that. I think that they should celebrate that.” Hillary Clinton is not stealing Barack Obama’s thunder, and she isn’t creating divisiveness within the Democratic party. A convention is a celebration and there is much to celebrate about Hillary Clinton’s historic and very successful bid for the presidency.

Indeed, as the first woman in American history to compete so closely for the nomination for president, Hillary Clinton has come closer to shattering the glass ceiling than any woman before her. After eight years in the White House as first lady and senator from New York, she was one of America’s top Democrats and one of the most famous women in the world. Whether you are a “Hillary Lover” or a “Hillary Hater” (we need new terms – how about “Hillary Hover” or “Hillary Later”?), it is undeniable that Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency has helped to move women and presidential politics forward. Marian Wright Edelman once remarked: “You cannot be what you cannot see.” Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s presidential bids brought to life the belief that in American you can be anything you want to be. A roll call for Senator Clinton at the convention is the final piece of the story that needs to be told at the convention for her achievement to be properly recognized.

Nichola D. Gutgold is author of Paving the Way for Madam President (Lexington Books, 2006,) and Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News (Lexington Books, 2008.) She is at work on a book about the presidential bid of Hillary Clinton.

Mythbusting: What to Look for in this Year's “Veepstakes"

By Jody C. Baumgartner

The "veepstakes" is a wildly popular presidential election year pastime of political gurus and observers. It's so much fun that speculation for 2008 actually began last year! Most predictions are fairly well informed, but one analyst has referred to it—not unfairly—as a "largely fact-free parlor game." So why do we need another voice weighing in? We don't, and, therefore I won't. I can, however, briefly outline the factors that go into selecting a running mate. The choice is more complex than most pundits suggest. Using statistical analyses of those who were and were not chosen for VP since 1960, I have identified those factors that seem to be important in the selection process, as well as those that can be relegated to the dustbin of "myth."

In the case of the latter, size of state and ideological balance may not be as important as they once were (recall Clinton's selection of Gore in 1992), although they cannot be dismissed. In addition, despite media hype about about adding gender, racial, ethnic, or religious balance to the ticket, none of these factors seem to significant either. While we have seen many former governors in the past few decades select a Washington insider to give the ticket "insider-outsider" balance, this factor is also statistically insignificant. Finally, the notion that a strong primary challenger is an obvious choice for VP needs to be qualified. Bitter rivals will not be selected, because a certain chemistry needs to exist between a president and a VP. Strong primary challengers that bow out and start backing the nominee early (George H.W. Bush, 1980; John Edwards, 2004) have a chance of being selected.

What does seem to matter, perhaps more than coming from a large state, is coming from a competitive state the ticket hopes to win. Other desirable characteristics are youth and military experience. One largely ignored factor is having been well vetted in the national media. Few presidential candidates want a repeat of the media brouhaha that followed the surprise discovery in 1972 that George McGovern's choice (Thomas Eagleton), had been treated for mental illness. Finally, since the VP is the successor to the president in the event of a presidential vacancy, it is important to select someone who has a fair amount of experience in public office. There are other factors that go into selecting a vice presidential candidate, but these are difficult to generalize about. An uninspiring candidate (e.g., Bob Dole, John Kerry) might look to a more energetic running mate (Jack Kemp, John Edwards) to add vitality to the ticket. These factors, however, are specific to particular presidential candidates.

While the list of names that veepstakes participants were floating for Barack Obama and John McCain's running mates originally numbered well over four dozen apiece, as the end of July, the actual short lists have reportedly been whittled down to about six for each. While both candidates are being quite secretive, reports from the Obama camp suggest that his list includes Gov. Tim Kaine (VA), Sen. Evan Bayh (IN), Sen. Joe Biden (DE), Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (KS), and former senators John Edwards (NC) and Sam Nunn (GA). (I should note that John Edwards never had a serious chance at being selected as Obama's VP pick. In this country we rarely give people second chances at this level. After this weekend's admission of sexual indiscretion, Edwards’s chances went from almost to absolute zero.) Presumably, Hillary Clinton is also still being considered. McCain's search has supposedly been narrowed to Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN), former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, former governor Mitt Romney (MA), Gov. Sarah Palin (AK), Sen. Joseph Lieberman (CT), and former governor Tom Ridge (PA).

So who will be selected? Again, my predictions aren't needed. Many people, however, who are still playing the veepstakes game are basing predictions on characteristics that have been shown to be insignificant in the process—in other words, myths.

Jody C. Baumgartner is assistant professor of political science at East Carolina University and co-author, with Peter L. Francia, of Conventional Wisdom and American Elections: Exploding Myths, Exploring Misconceptions (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)