Presidential Election Of 1928

The Complete Reversal Of American Politics: Republicans In The South, Democrats In Large Populated Northeastern, Midwestern And Western States!

Ronald Leave a comment

The defeat of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu on Saturday marks the complete reversal of American politics from the years 1877 to the present.

After the Reconstruction of the South ended, with Union Army troops leaving, twelve years after the Civil War, the South became an area totally dominated by Democrats, resentful of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War defeat, and the passage of Amendments 13, 14, and 15, ending slavery, making blacks citizens, and giving the men the right to vote.

The South went into massive resistance, creating Jim Crow segregation to replace slavery, and until the election of Herbert Hoover in 1928 and Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, it was always a solid Democratic South with no black voting, due to discriminatory state laws that were ignored by generations of the federal government. Hoover won much of the South due to his Catholic opponent, Alfred E. Smith, in 1928, and Eisenhower won over Adlai Stevenson twice in the 1950s due to his personal popularity and World War II D Day reputation.

But only when the Civil Rights Movement was in full swing, starting in the 1950s, and reaching its peak with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 under Lyndon B. Johnson, did we see the beginning of a mass exodus of office holders and ordinary white population, to the Republican Party, starting with Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina in 1964, switching parties to back Republican Senator Barry Goldwater against President Lyndon B. Johnson.

As the Democrats started to lose power in the South, the nomination of Southern governors Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and the rise of “New South” Governors like them and others in the Democratic Party, slowed up the switch to the GOP.

But the election of Barack Obama, considered anathema in the South, has now led to the entire wiping out of Southern Democrats in Congress, except for black and Jewish members of the House in districts gerrymandered that give the Republicans more total Congressional and state legislative seats in the South. Only a few other white non jewish members of the House remain, and they are endangered in the political climate of the South in 2014.

Only Virginia has both its Senators and Governor (Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Terry McAuliffe) as Democrats, and only Florida has one other Democratic Senator, Bill Nelson at this point, as we enter 2015.

And both Virginia and Florida have Republican dominated legislatures, as well as the other states that made up the Confederate States of America.

And, of course, Florida includes the heavily Northern South Florida, and Virginia has the heavily Northern North Virginia, influenced by being part of the DC suburbs, and otherwise, these three Senators and one Governor would not be in public office.

So the complete reversal of a century and a half ago has occurred, and is unlikely to be changed for a generation or more, at the least.

This means that the South will remain as it is now for a generation or more, and that the issue of race nearly a century and a half ago, again stands out as the key difference that separates that section from the rest of the country.

Meanwhile, the heavily populated areas of the nation in the Northeast, Midwest and West are more Democratic than ever, and are unlikely to change either over time, creating political deadlock long term over the future, stifling change and creating constant political conflict and deadlock!

Disturbing Statistics On The Midterm Elections Of 2014: The Battle Cry For Progressives And Democrats!

Ronald 3 Comments

Despite the economic improvements under Barack Obama and the obstructionism of the Republican Party for four years, the GOP won control of both houses of Congress, and reelected many Tea Party Governors, who by all sane judgements, should have been defeated.

Beyond that, 30 state legislatures now are controlled by the Republican Party; two thirds of state legislators nationally are Republicans; 31 states have Republican Governors; and the Republicans have a greater number of seats in the House of Representatives than they have had since 1928, when Herbert Hoover was elected, soon to be followed by the Great Depression.

And the percentage of voters participating was the lowest in any midterm election since 1942, in the midst of World War II, only about a third of the voting electorate.

This midterm was dominated by people over 45, and particularly over 65, who were heavily white and registered Republican, while traditional Democratic voting groups–African Americans, Latinos, women, those under 45, and those supportive of labor rights and the environment—stayed home in large numbers, not realizing the importance of voting.

If left to their own desires, the Republican Party, the Tea Party Movement, and the conservative think tanks and talk show hosts, would now set about to impeach President Obama (even though there is no chance of his removal by a two thirds vote of the US Senate); repeal ObamaCare; repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; privatize Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; prevent any action on climate change; further destroy the labor unions that remain viable; continue to promote voter suppression which assisted the GOP victory; continue to allow the Koch Brothers and other reactionary billionaire and millionaire domination of campaign expenditures; fight to undermine feminism and civil rights enforcement; work against immigration reform; reverse the movement toward gay marriage and gay and lesbian equality under the law; and become engaged in multiple overseas wars that benefit powerful corporations and defense industries.

Here we are in the second decade of the 21st century, and we are more like the Gilded Age and the 1920s domestically, but with the addition of the war industries that have our young men and women, many of them from poor families, who are utilized as cannon fodder for war profits, and then mistreated as veterans in years after their war service!

Is this the kind of America that the majority of this nation want? If it is, they will get what they deserve. But there is a sneaking suspicion that this will, hopefully, motivate the vast two thirds of the population who did not vote, to rise up and participate in insuring, for the short run, resistance to the GOP agenda, and longer term, to insure a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President are elected in 2016!

The Political Earthquake Shakes America: What It Portends For The Future!

Ronald 18 Comments

This author and blogger was literally stunned by the political earthquake that hit American politics yesterday!

The sixth year of a President is not a good year in history, as has been proven many times.

On the average, the President’s party loses 26 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate in the second term midterm.

This time, the Democrats lost at least 14 seats in the House and at least 7 in the Senate.

The Republicans gained what looks like the biggest majority in the House since 1928, when Herbert Hoover was elected President, and the next year, the Great Depression hit America!

The Republicans won control of the Senate, with at least 52 seats, and possibly two more, in Alaska and Louisiana.

The Democrats lost Senate seats in the “red” states, and also lost Governorships in “blue” states, including Maryland, Massachusetts, and Illinois.

The issue is whether the Republicans are willing to move forward on legislation that Barack Obama can sign into law.

If they are willing to stop their obstructionism, some progress can be made, but the President should NOT give up all his principles, as that would make his Presidency become one of caving in to right wing demands.

We are going to have a tough two years, but the Democrats, and their progressive and liberal allies, cannot act as if they are Republicans, and must, instead, fight for their principles, and see yesterday’s defeat as more of a midterm normal development, that is extremely likely to be reversed in the Senate in two years, and with the Democrats still favored to win the Electoral College in 2016, and therefore, win the White House!

90 Years Ago Today, The First Conservative President Of The 20th Century, Calvin Coolidge, Became President!

Ronald Leave a comment

On August 2, 1923, the short, tragic, scandal ridden Presidency of Warren G. Harding came to an end with the death of Harding in San Francisco, and Calvin Coolidge, his Vice President, became the sixth Vice President to succeed to the Presidency, due to the death of the incumbent.

Coolidge went on to an easy victory over John W. Davis and Robert La Follette, Sr. in the Presidential Election of 1924, and then chose not to run in 1928, therefore avoiding the oncoming Great Depression faced by his successor, Herbert Hoover.

The five and a half years of Coolidge’s Presidency, the first conservative President of the 20th century (with Ronald Reagan being the second one), has been judged by most scholars as mediocre at best, including scholars Donald McCoy, Robert Sobel, Robert Ferrell, and David Greenberg.

But just this year, Amity Shlaes has published a massive biography of Coolidge, attempting to redeem him as a reform oriented President, who has been overlooked and misjudged by historians.

What seems clear for sure is that Coolidge was a different President in his first year, much more activist and outgoing, than in his full term, and it seems as if the death of his son Calvin, Jr, of a blood infection from a leg blister while playing tennis, a truly tragic event, created a sense of depression and sadness in Coolidge, which he never really overcame, and within four years of his leaving the Presidency, he died at the young age of 60, probably of a broken heart.

Coolidge certainly deserves more historical analysis, but to make him out to be a reform oriented President seems a bit of a stretch, but the old quest for further interpretation of any President, his life, and his impact on the nation will always continue, and might be spurred further by Shlaes’s book and the 90th anniversary of Coolidge becoming President!

Presidents Who Could Have Had Third Terms In Office

Ronald 3 Comments

Anyone who studies American history knows that our only President who had more than two terms (eight years) in office was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who actually was elected four times, and served a total of 12 years and 39 days before dying in office in 1945.

But there were others who could have had more than eight years in office, were it not because of their own decision not to seek another term, or due to constitutional limitations via the 22nd Amendment!

These potential cases of Presidents who could have had more than eight years in office include:

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837), who would have won a third term had he chosen to run, but instead his Vice President, Martin Van Buren, ran and won the Presidency.

Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909), who served seven and a half years after succeeding William McKinley six months into his second term, and then chose not to run in 1908, backing William Howard Taft who won, and then challenging Taft in 1912, on a third party line (Progressive Party), but lost to him. Despite the loss, TR won six states and 88 electoral votes, the best third party performance in American history.

Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929), who served five and a half years in the Presidency, after succeeding Warren G. Harding after two and a half years in office, and decided not to run in 1928, and instead, we saw Herbert Hoover win the Presidency.

These three Presidents mentioned above were popular enough to have won another term, and in each case, would have ended up serving more than eight years in office, as FDR did!

And then there are four Presidents since the 22nd Amendment limitation of two terms or ten years in office if succeeding to the Presidency with less than two years left of the term when they became President, all of whom could have been elected to another term, had there been no such limit!

Dwight D. Eisenhower could have won and run a third term in 1960, as could Ronald Reagan in 1988, and Bill Clinton in 2000, while Lyndon B. Johnson, had he not dropped out in 1968, likely would have beaten Richard Nixon, since his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, came close to doing so, and did not have the fact of being President to help him win the election!

It is interesting that in all cases mentioned except three—Eisenhower, Johnson, and Clinton–the party of the President who did not run for reelection won the election. Eisenhower saw Richard Nixon lose a close election, despite much evidence of a fixed result for John F. Kennedy in 1960, and Johnson saw Humphrey lose to Nixon in another close election, where LBJ would likely have turned the tide! And Al Gore lost in 2000, despite a popular vote majority, due to the intervention of the Supreme Court in 2000, giving the Presidency to George W. Bush!

So instead of one President with 12 years and 39 days in the Presidency, we could have had, additionally, Andrew Jackson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton with 12 years in office; Theodore Roosevelt with 11 and a half years in office; and Calvin Coolidge with nine and a half years in office and Lyndon B. Johnson with nine years and two months in office!

And Martin Van Buren, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush might never have been President if the Presidents before had sought or been able to seek a third term in the Presidency!

PS Another thought that has come to me, belatedly, is that Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897), the only President with two nonconsecutive terms, actually won the popular vote in 1888, but lost in the Electoral College. Had the result been different, Cleveland, in theory, might have run in 1892, anyway, and could have been a three term President, and Benjamin Harrison would never have been President!

Rick Santorum And Rural America Vs Mitt Romney And Suburban America

Ronald Leave a comment

Tonight’s results in Michigan and Arizona preserved Mitt Romney’s lead, and edge in the battle for the Republican Presidential nomination.

But Romney did not knock Santorum out of the box, as the saying goes. Super Tuesday next week has the potential to assist Santorum in his battle promoting social conservatism.

And the new realization is that Santorum appeals to rural areas, which tend to wish for the past of America, when cities and suburbs were not so highly developed and influential.

Rick Santorum proved in the Michigan Primary that he could win the land and the rural areas, while Romney won the suburbs, although most urban areas are heavily Democratic.

It brings back memories of the struggle between urban and rural America that became most evident in the Presidential Election of 1896 (William McKinley vs. William Jennings Bryan) and the Presidential Election of 1928 (Al Smith vs, Herbert Hoover).

It is also the battle nationally, as the “heartland” is heavily rural and Republican, and the coastlines, highly urbanized and suburban areas, are Democratic.

This election is really a battle to move into the future, or to move backwards to the nostalgia of the past, and the future is the only sensible choice!

Ten Other Presidential Elections That Transformed American History For Better Or Worse

Ronald Leave a comment

In addition to what are considered the ten most important Presidential elections in American history, there are also ten other elections that transformed our history, as history would have been different had the results been the opposite of what they were.

In chronological order, these elections are as follows.

Presidential Election of 1844—If James K. Polk had not won over Henry Clay, the likelihood of gaining the Pacific Northwest by treaty with Great Britain, and gaining the Southwest by war with Mexico, together the greatest land expansion since the Louisiana Purchase under Thomas Jefferson, would have been far less likely. But also the Civil War might have been delayed without the battle over freedom or slavery in the Mexican Cession territories gained from the war.

Presidential Election of 1864—An election often ignored, if Abraham Lincoln had not won over General George McClellan, who he had fired from Union Army military leadership, the Civil War, in its late stages, might have ended differently in some form, hard to determine.

Presidential Election of 1876—If the Electoral Commission and Compromise of 1877, giving Rutherford B. Hayes victory over Samuel Tilden, had not occurred, after a disputed election result in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, there might have been civil war erupting all over again.

Presidential Election Of 1896—If William McKinley had not defeated William Jennings Bryan, there might have been no Spanish American War, no Filipino Insurrection, and no gaining of overseas colonies, as Bryan opposed the idea.

Presidential Election Of 1916—If Woodrow Wilson had not squeaked out a victory over Charles Evans Hughes, he had readied plans to hand over the Presidency to Hughes early, with the Secretary of State resigning, Hughes being named Secretary of State, the Vice President resigning, and then Wilson resigning. Wilson left behind a hand written memorandum to this effect, concerned about the transition of power as the dangers of World War I came closer to the possibility of American participation.

Presidential Election Of 1928—If Herbert Hoover had lost to Alfred E. Smith, the likelihood of a very different reaction to the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 might have led Smith to being the equivalent of Hoover’s successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and his New Deal.

Presidential Election of 1968—If Hubert Humphrey had defeated Richard Nixon, it is likely that the Vietnam War would have ended earlier, and that there would not have been a Watergate scandal, and instead a continuation of the Great Society begun by Lyndon B. Johnson.

Presidential Election of 1976—If Gerald Ford had defeated Jimmy Carter, it is likely that after 12 years of Republican control and growing economic and foreign policy challenges, that the Democrats would have retaken the White House in 1980, and there would have been no Ronald Reagan Presidency.

Presidential Election Of 1992–If George H. W. Bush had not had to deal with an economic recession and the third party challenge of Ross Perot, the second highest popular percentage third party effort in US history, it is very likely that Bill Clinton would never have been President.

Presidential Election of 2000—If the popular vote recount in Florida had been continued, and the Supreme Court had not intervened to declare the election over, then Al Gore would have become President instead of George W. Bush, and there might not have been a September 11 terrorist attack, the resulting war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely not a tremendous growth in the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion

How much history would have been different if only the results of these elections had been other than what they were!

The Republicans On The Road To Self Destruction Over Religion!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Republican Party, in theory, has a fantastic opportunity to win the 2012 Presidential Election, considering the bad economic situation we are in, with no likelihood of the unemployment rate going down below 9 percent over the next year.

But in the midst of this hopeful sign for the party, it is religion that looks as if it will divide the GOP, and help to cause their defeat.

It is the same issue that we had with Al Smith in 1928 and John F. Kennedy in 1960, because of their Catholicism.

It is now the issue of the Mormon Church and the candidacy of Mitt Romney, and also, Jon Huntsman, both of whom have the best opportunity to overwhelm Barack Obama in next year’s election, were either of them to become the nominee of the party.

But with evangelical Christians in the South and border states having prejudice against not only Mormons, but also Catholics. Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, there is a real barrier to Romney or Huntsman being able to win enough support in the primaries and caucuses, many of the early states (Iowa and South Carolina as examples) dominated by the evangelicals.

And if either were to, somehow, win the nomination, there is a good chance that someone would form a third party and divide the Republican vote, helping Obama to return to office.

As if the Republican Party does not have enough trouble with its inability to attract African Americans, Hispanics and Latinos, gays, and educated women, they add the burden of using religion as a disqualifying factor that may destroy any chance of them regaining power in the White House!

Here We Go Again: New Hatred By Evangelical Christian Pastors!

Ronald Leave a comment

It is a sad reality that many Evangelical Christian pastors have made a career out of promoting divisiveness and hate, in the name of their conservative values and the almighty dollar!

How else to explain why many of these pastors have continued to promote hatred toward President Barack Obama, including that he is a Muslim, born in Kenya, a Socialist, and out to undermine American values?

How else to explain a so called “unifying” pastor, Joel Osteen, who runs the largest megachurch in America in Houston Texas, on nationwide TV on CNN advocating homophobia, knowing full well that it is a major crisis in America, particularly for young gay men and women who are committing suicide because of bullying, and has no problem continuing to quote the Bible on this matter, in a distorted way? And then to learn that Joel Osteen, who inherited his father’s leadership of their church, dropped out of college and has NO ministerial training at a seminary, so therefore is, technically, a phony minister, who is very wealthy because of the contributions of his congregants, and of course, like all religious leaders, avoids personal income taxes?

How else to explain another Evangelical Christian pastor at the Values Voters Summit In Washington, DC, supposedly asked to introduce Texas Governor Rick Perry, declaring that Mormons are not Christians, but instead are a “cult”, an attack directed against former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the frontrunner in the GOP Presidential race, and indirectly against the other Mormon in the race, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman?

It should not matter whether a candidate for President is a “good Christian”, as we have a belief in separation of church and state, and religion should no more be a barrier now than it was in 1960 when John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic to win the White House, after Al Smith, the earlier Catholic nominee in the 1928 Presidential Election, was soundly defeated because of his Catholicism. Of course, who were the leading critics of Smith and Kennedy? Evangelical Christians, who claim to be holier than thou!

It is clear that the same anti Mormon sentiments would be visited against a serious Jewish nominee in the future. These “good Christians” are excellent at promoting hate and division!

Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman should be judged for everything except their Mormon faith. Neither is out to promote or advocate their faith, anymore than Smith or Kennedy were, or a future Jewish nominee would! Why do Evangelical Christian pastors however feel they have the right to force their congregants to think their narrow minded way?

It is time for all of the non Mormon Presidential nominees to condemn this pastor and make it clear that religious bigotry of any kind is not acceptable, and will not be part of the GOP Presidential race from this day forward! But don’t bet on that happening!