Kenneth Walsh has brought his series of articles on the consequential presidential elections in American history into the 20th century with this week's installment on the 1904 election in U.S. News & World Report.
But, while I don't dispute that Theodore Roosevelt — who was elected to a full four-year term in 1904 — "expanded the power of the presidency and demonstrated the power of the 'bully pulpit,'" I never really felt the election of 1904 had all that much to do with it.
Roosevelt became president less than a year after becoming vice president, when the incumbent, William McKinley, was assassinated.
And Roosevelt was president for more than three years before the 1904 election was held. During that time, Roosevelt came up with a compromise that ended a coal strike that could have severely disrupted the fuel supply for homes and apartments in just about every major city in 1902.
For turn-of-the-century America, that would be the equivalent of a politician resolving the problem of high gas prices today.
Roosevelt established himself as an activist president long before he appeared on a ballot to seek a full term on his own.
So, in my opinion, the election of 1904 more or less served as confirmation of public approval of Roosevelt's record as president.
And, to be fair, Walsh acknowledges that there is truth in that. "The campaign of 1904, when Roosevelt sought the presidency in his own right, was a referendum on him and his policies," Walsh writes.
As you can see from the graphic above, Roosevelt received 56% of the popular vote and just about every electoral vote outside the South (he was competitive in a few of the region's border states, but the Democratic Party still controlled the South at the turn of the century).
It's also worth pointing out that, while the Western states were reliably Republican in the last half of the 20th century, they were not that secure for the GOP in the first half of the 20th century. Neither McKinley in 1900 nor William Howard Taft in 1908 swept the Western states the way Roosevelt did in 1904.
It never seemed to me that Roosevelt's victory was ever in doubt.
Of course, it's not a requirement that an election be close for it to be considered consequential as well.
And sometimes a consequential decision enjoys wide support with the electorate. I guess I've always had the impression that a consequential election would be one in which the electorate is divided and a relative handful of voters makes a crucial decision that affects the masses — in ways that were anticipated as well as ways that were unforeseen.
Personally, I always felt that, while the 1904 election was consequential for the reasons Walsh cites, the more significant election in which Roosevelt was a candidate was the 1912 campaign.
In 1912, Roosevelt broke with the Republican Party and his hand-picked successor, Taft, and ran as the Progressive Party candidate. Democrat Woodrow Wilson took advantage of the Republicans' inability to unite and ended the GOP's 16-year hold on the White House.
And, with the exception of the two decades from 1932 to 1952, when Franklin D. Roosevelt and his last vice president, Harry Truman, occupied the White House, neither party has held presidential power for more than 12 years at a time since.
Walsh may yet write about the 1912 election in the next four weeks. But, if he doesn't, I recommend that you read what you can about it. I think it had a more significant impact on American history than the 1904 election did.
No comments:
Post a Comment