Some Random Thoughts On Our Quadrennial Sweepstakes

Clinton I. Winslow
Professor Emeritus of Political Science

     As one surveys the presidential elections of the twentieth century, one recognizes that the two major parties are not without their challengers. Some are personal; many represent local or ideological differences. Some aim seriously at capturing political office; some seen intended only to effect changes in public policy. Success in the first of these aims has not been conspicuous, in the second difficult to measure. The writer's personal observance began in the election of 1912. Along with millions of other Americans-mostly men-he joined the ranks of the "Bull Moose" party and whooped it up for Teddy, the rough-riding ex-President, now intent upon putting his 1908 successor and personal selection out of the White House. In that objective he succeeded. But the presidency eluded him. Despite his widespread popularity, his seven and a-half years of relative success as a president and a "liberal" program, the Taft-created Republican organization on one side and the combination of Bryant's western influence, the interest of the Northeast in Wilson and the support of the Solid South were too much. One might almost conclude that third- party movements are foredoomed to failure.

     Twelve years later, another third party was the challenger. Robert LaFollette, who had been in the Roosevelt campaign, attempted to revive the movement of 1912. Having watched the 1916 Charles Hughes organization absorb the Roosevelt backers and the Republican Party of 1920 win with Harding, the Northwest backed LaFollette and Wheeler for national leadership. They attracted much support from the Central Northwest, Wisconsin, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Iowa, Nebraska, Montana. The press presented calculations showing how the election would go to the House of Representatives where states with equally- divided party representation would bring the presidency to anyone, allowing the Senate to elect a Vice-President, who just might be Charles Bryan, brother of the famous William J.! An editorial jibe is still remembered. The parties had symbols: an eagle for the Republicans, a cock for the Democrats. The Progressives chose the Liberty Bell prompting the remark, "Remember the Liberty Bell is cracked!" The Progressives of 1924 were much less successful than the Bull Moose Rooseveltians of 1912. Unlike the situation in the earlier campaign, the 1924 challenger was largely regional, the national mood was not responsive to "reform," and LaFollette and Wheeler lacked the appeal of Theodore Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson.

     Save for the Socialist Party and several others of limited appeal, there was no other important "third party" until 1948. The Democratic Party showed signs of coming apart at the seams. Henry Wallace on the left and Strom Thurmond on the Right tried unsuccessfully to wrest control from Harry Truman. They failed. For that matter, Tom Dewey, cock-sure of winning awoke on the morning after the election to discover that Harry could use his White House balcony until 1953. While Thurmond's Dixiecrats made much less of a splash than they thought they could, the 1948 election indicated that the Solid South was no longer quite so solid-no longer was it to be "Safe for Democracy."

     While repeat performances in presidential elections are rare, still the George Wallace challenge in 1968 was not. wholly unlike the 1948 right-wing attempt. Both were aimed to retain the old ways, to challenge centralizing processes, to preserve the South as a bastion of conservatism. The results in both cases hardly suggests that the promoters were riding the wave of the future. And yet, the prevailing mood of 1980 seems to be moving to the "right" rather than the "left."

     A second feature of our quadrennial race for the White House which has long interested the writer is the use of slogans. The people who run campaigns seem determined to reduce the candidate to a phrase and the central issue of the campaign to a not-too-exact expression. At least as far back as Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay, support for or against a policy, or political backing for or against a party or presidential argument have been couched in such language as might have come from Madison Avenue and sometimes actually did. The campaigns within the writer's span of awareness offer many examples, varying both in acuteness and in popular appeal. Before presenting some of the crop of slogans in the last sixty-eight years, it may be well to suggest that just as "Brevity is the soul of wit," conciseness is important in political slogans. The exact meaning may not be precise, but it must be capable of interpretation into preciseness. And if the slogan is to be effective, the interpretation must seem of importance to the reader or listener. Slogans shouldn't attempt to cover too much ground-they are not meant to be subjects for debate. They are to be splashed on billboards, printed on campaign buttons, emblazoned on placards for political campaign gatherings and stout parades. They are more emotional in their appeal than rational, more for shouting than for thinking.

     In the 1912 election campaign, many of the slogans were purely personal. After the manner of 1860's "Honest Abe" and the "Railsplitter," the Progressive Party made use of "TR," "Rough Rider," "Dee-lighted," "My Hat Is in the Ring,""1 Feel Like a Bull Moose." This "Square Deal" could be interpreted in terms of wages or farm prices or almost any area of grievance. The Democratic Party's "Win With Wilson" could hardly be competitive.

     One of the more successful slogans of all time may have been the 1916,"He kept us out of war!" Democratic appeal at the colleges and universities across the land, "We Won't Fight" petitions were signed by thousands upon thousands of students. The pacifist mood was rampant. To be sure, the slogan made no promise and even disregarded our recent military excursions into Mexico. But the writer has always believed that Wilson won the election on the "peace" issue-the slogan helped. Just possibly, the contrast with the wishy-washy Republican slogan of "Choose Hughes" increased Wilson's chances.

     "Back to Normandy" was the Republican cry of the 1920 presidential campaign. What did it mean? Anything you wanted it to. Discontinuance of war-time restrictions, the end of government by executive order, the end of censor- ship, the release of young men from the draft, the re- establishment of "free enterprise," return to Washington's "no entangling alliances," all these and more might be read in to the three words. It didn't require a Teddy Roosevelt or an Abraham Lincoln to win in 1920.

     If slogans were to win elections, Wendell Willkie would have won easily in 1940. In no other case within memory were more slogans produced, printed on buttons, badges, billboards and broadcast to the nation. Unfortunately, the quality of most of them as vote-getters was rather low. It is doubtful that "We Don't Want Eleanor Either," "Papa, I Want to Be a Captain Too," "No Royal Family," counted heavily at the polls. "No Third Turn" may have had the strongest appeal. But the economic upturn-produced by war sales to Europe rather than by the New Deal laws overcame personal attacks upon the President.

     Over the years, candidates change, election campaigns change-and yet things remain so often the same. In 1912 there was no air travel; campaign speeches were made from the rear platforms of the train bearing the candidate's entourage. Now, a candidate speaks in Miami, Chicago and San Francisco between breakfast and dinner with several airport stops in between. There was no radio, or "raddio" as Al Smith called it, so that a candidate's promises might more readily be adjusted to the locale. The coming of television has pushed campaign expenses sky-high and the candidates come into our living rooms and are exposed for better or worse, with an their imperfections on their heads. Nevertheless, candidates find it necessary to make personal appearances-witness a recent exit from the Rose Garden. Nothing seems to have replaced "pressing the flesh" as a means of making friends and influencing voters.

     After observing seventeen presidential elections, one should have a judgment as to their efficiency in the democratic process. I am convinced that the two leading parties frequently nominate someone other than the best available person. And the electoral procedure has not always selected the best of the available nominees. Should we abandon the national conventions and substitute a uniform presidential primary? Should we abolish the electoral college, replacing it with an automatic translation of the popular vote-perhaps by Congressional District-into electoral votes into presidential and vice-presidential candidates? Can we, somehow, secure wider popular participation in voting so that, for good or ill, the election results may be closer to majority rule?

Fall 1980