I’m going to break this into a two-parter, and start from
1904, with Teddy Roosevelt being, arguably and with the partial exception of
Abraham Lincoln, the first modern president. Plus, the first party primaries
came into existence early in the 20th century, so that’s another good reason to
make this a break point.
I’m not going to reference every campaign, just the worse
ones, along with some interesting ones. We’ll use a five-star system, with five
stars representing a theoretically great campaign (think 1860) and one being
totally horrific. Of course, none of the campaigns here will get five stars.
Let’s start with 1908, a non-epic showdown between one
candidate somewhat forced on his party by his eminently popular predecessor
(William Howard Taft, with TR behind the strings) vs. the man who would become
just the second three-time loser as a major presidential nominee (William
Jennings Bryan following in the wings of Henry Clay). It had a presumed progressive
later exposed as somewhat of a fake (Taft) vs. a faux populist already exposed
as one to more knowledgeable voters (Bryan). I give this race two stars for its
relative blandness.
Next, we go to 1920, truly a doorknob-awful election. It
pitted a man who knew he wasn’t qualified for the White House, in Warren G.
Harding, vs. a man saddled with Woodrow Wilson, Ohio Gov. James Cox. Cox sadly
never had a chance, with Harding ringing up the largest popular vote percentage
until LBJ in 1964. Even the strong performance of Socialist Eugene Debs,
running from prison, couldn’t boost this above one star, or even one-half star.
The 1924 campaign approaches 1912 in blandness or goes
beyond. “Silent Cal” Coolidge faced relative unknown Congressman John W. Davis
in what has been called the high tide of conservativism. “Battling Bob”
LaFollette gave progressivism a voice, keeping this at two stars, but no more.
The Democrats’ own conservative angle helped set up the Great Depression.
For more campaign ratings, look below the fold.
The 1928 campaign gets three stars, and a mention, because
it showed the degree of anti-Catholic bigotry due to Al Smith’s run.
Next, we jump to 1956, which gets two stars from me simply
for offering blandness from a repeat match of 1952.
Now, on to 1968. While Barry Goldwater may have offered “a
choice, not an echo,” four years earlier, no such thing was true in 1968 on the
Vietnam War. Hubert Humphrey, self-emasculated of his true liberalism years
earlier, remained shackled to LBJ’s Vietnam policy. Dick Nixon offered a secret
plan for “victory with honor.” And George Wallace’s Veep wanted to nuke North
Vietnam back to the Stone Age. Despite interesting chess game dynamics, this
falls to 1.5 stars.
1984 has a bit of a parallel to 1956, in that some saw
Mondale as a sacrificial lamb, like Stevenson. Given that he couldn’t see old
New Deal liberalism better, this is a two-star.
1988 gets two stars because Mike Dukakis couldn’t sell his
version of neoliberalism any better than Mondale trying to sell the aging New
Deal.
Onward to the George W. Bush era.
The 2000 campaign between him and Al Gore gets two stars for
the campaign itself. Gore found himself worried about being shackled to the
moral legacy of Bill Clinton, while Bush benefited from the soft bigotry of low
expectations. It falls to one star with the exposure of the creakiness of the
American electoral system. It falls to one-half star with the infamous Supreme
Court ruling.
And, 2004? It gets 1.5 stars, for the flooding of campaign
money into the race, the microtargeting of issue ads, and John Kerry making
himself into a warmonger, which spilled into 2012.
2008? Two
starts, for two words: “Sara Palin.”
And 2012? It belongs on this list. I’m not going to give you
a rating yet, but it belongs here.
As for great campaigns, on issues, personalities, or both, it's arguably that only 1948 truly approaches any 19th century campaign, notably 1860, followed by 1824 and 1844.
No comments:
Post a Comment