Experience Vs. Change: Lessons From 1912

The New Republic: Roosevelt-Taft Errors Should Prompt Dems To Pick The People’s Candidate

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Eric Rauchway.

---

With Barack Obama winning 11 contests since Super Tuesday, and appearing well on his way to winning a clear majority of elected delegates, it looks unlikely that Hillary Clinton could win the Democratic nomination without depending on the unelected party stalwarts ("superdelegates") to push her over the top. History provides us with a test case of this scenario, in which a major party faced a choice between the managerial (but perhaps less than visionary) heir to a successful previous administration, and an inspiring, popular speaker. The inspirational candidate had the edge going into the convention and enjoyed the approval of voters, but the nomination went instead to the party insider. The leaders of the Democratic Party in 2008 should learn from the errors the leaders of the Republican Party made in 1912.

Then as now, most Americans wanted change from Republican governance. With the exception of the two Grover Cleveland interregna, Republicans had held the presidency since before the Civil War. They had passed policies favored by corporate management and allowed industry executives into the highest councils of the party. Even a great many voters who preferred Republicans to Democrats believed their party had betrayed them, allowing the banking and business centers of the East to take advantage of farmers and homesteaders on the frontier. They wanted more popular participation in elections and in policymaking, more progressive taxation, and less corporate control of policy.

Recognizing this demand for change, the former president Theodore Roosevelt challenged the incumbent, William Howard Taft, for the Republican nomination, running an insurgent campaign to take back the GOP for the people. Taft's strategy to stop Roosevelt's momentum bears striking resemblance to those employed by Clinton in her race against Obama. Taft tried to reckon with the Roosevelt insurgency by claiming America had no real need for change, and suggested demands for reform were unpatriotic: He did not understand "the continued iteration and reiteration of the proposition, 'Let the people rule,' " saying, "I do not hesitate to say that the history of the last 135 years shows that the people have ruled ... [U]nder our present constitution and our present laws we have had a really popular government." Taft also criticized the rules that made Roosevelt's challenge possible, saying they were "unfair," especially the open primaries. Neither of these tactics particularly endeared him to an electorate excited by the twin prospects of a real shift in American politics and the opportunity to vote directly for it themselves. Realizing this, Taft tried to co-opt Roosevelt's appeal, asking plaintively "whether I am not entitled to the same name of progressive."

Perhaps slightly unfairly, the electorate appeared to think the answer to this question was, "No." To claim the "progressive" name, Taft could point to a vigorous record of antitrust prosecution, as well as constitutional amendments to permit an income tax and the direct election of U.S. senators that were passed on his watch. But he had urged neither with particular energy, and until he was threatened with Roosevelt's return to politics, seemed content to present himself as a devoted public servant of the status quo.

Unable to deny the progressive impulse or the democratized primaries their legitimacy, and equally unable to benefit from them himself, Taft wondered if Roosevelt and his followers suffered messianic delusions, asking, "Can he usher in the millennium?" Such drama poorly suited the normally grave Taft, who lost one primary after another. Under the pressure, Taft wept in an interview when he thought of his rejection by his former friend - and his party's voters.

Of the delegates chosen by voters, Roosevelt had an overwhelming majority: 278 to Taft's 48. But in the convention, a candidate would need 540 delegates to claim the nomination, and hundreds of delegates would be awarded by the Republican National Committee, a majority of whose members were Taft men. They put him over the top. Roosevelt and his supporters bolted the party and formed the Progressive party. In the general election, Taft came in a pathetic third behind Roosevelt and the victorious Woodrow Wilson.

Should Obama win a majority of delegates chosen by voters, the Democrats will head into their convention facing much the same choice as the Republicans of 1912: Either they can use party machinery to crown Clinton, or they can use the evident wishes of their constituents as a fine excuse to set aside prior pledges, and instead elevate the popular favorite and the candidate of the change Americans claim to crave.

A Clinton nomination would be unlikely to literally split the Democratic Party, as it did the Republicans in 1912. But it would echo the unpopularity of the Taft selection and reflect the party's determination to ignore the obvious electoral signal. Roosevelt's popular run for the nomination was not only the product of his monstrous ego, but a symptom of the deep desire within his party for change, and the Republicans suffered for deflecting that desire by choosing Taft. Eschewing the more popular Obama for the relatively unexciting Clinton would deliver a similarly dispiriting blow to the Democrats this year.

As James Chace and others have argued, a Roosevelt run and win almost certainly would have been better for the Republican Party in the long run as well: The inspiring Roosevelt, with a track record of reform, persuasively represented the cross-party appeal of Republican progressivism in a way that the competent Taft, with a track record of conservatism, never could. Likewise, the inspiring Obama - who has a more substantive track record than his opponents and flippant commentators appear to believe - would represent liberalism more persuasively and appealingly in a general election than the trimming Clinton, while simultaneously offering the promise of a post-partisan appeal to independent voters.

The lessons of history cannot bind us so tightly that we ignore obvious differences between the past and present: While Clinton may have thus far followed the Taft script surprisingly closely, Obama has avoided anything like Roosevelt's talking points; the Bull Moose called his former friend a "puzzlewit" and a "fathead," and the avoidance of low tactics (so far, at least) accounts for a large part of Obama's charm. He seems now to have Roosevelt's major virtues - courage, speaking talent, a progressive record - without his characteristic vices. And as with Roosevelt, it seems clear that if Obama does indeed win a majority of popularly chosen delegates, the party will be best served - both at the polls and in policy formation going forward - by letting the loyalties of pledged partisans yield to the choice of actual voters.

[element51]

It would probably be a good idea for the dems to take heed of this article and they may well do so. However, times have changed since the early 1900''s. It realy doesn''t make much difference who gets the dem nomination because the RNC will turn that candidate into hamburger before the election. It will be interesting to see what kind of mud they come up with but you can rest assured that it will be good. The republicians are so good at this type of thing that if Jesus himself was running as a democrat they would have him tared, feathered and ridden out of town of a rail before the election. Although I am a democrat I am preparing myself for a McCain win and another 4 years of more or less what we have now. Hopefully John will exceed my expections and move us in a better direction. One can always hope.

[element51]

Sorry....should be "expectations".

[jjarden]

Folks...IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHO BECOMES PRESIDENT...THEY WILL NOT SAVE YOU OR THE COUNTRY...GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS...THE COUNTRY IS DECLINING RAPIDLY AND IS A DOOMED EMPIRE. YOUR VOTE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE FUTURE OF THE US...IT IS ALREADY ON ITS DOWNWARD SLOPE...READ AND LEARN.

[element51]

jjarden....I understand just how you feel. Sometimes I start to feel the same way. When you look at the mess out there it is very hard not to become discouraged. But I still have hope, maybe not much, but still hope. I wish there was something I could say to make you feel a little more optomistic but I don''t know what it would be. All we can do is hope that the next bunch we put in power will do a better job than the bunch that is there now.

[jjarden]

element51...Thanks...You sound like a very nice person...However, I''m a Cynic Philosopher, kind of like a Modern-Day Diogenes, and I go by the following quote by the Roman Philosopher Seneca..."You cease to be afraid, when you cease to Hope."

[cyberus-2009]

-----
Folks...IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHO BECOMES PRESIDENT...
(rest of rant snipped)
Posted by jjarden at 02:15 PM : Mar 04, 2008
-----

Actually there is a grain of truth here .. a congressional majority has more power than a president, a single majority committee leader can prevent a bill from ever REACHING the floor let alone the president.
IMHO people need to start looking at who and how congress is being operated a little closer an a little less at the Presidential hype.

[taddles-2009]

"Although I am a democrat I am preparing myself for a McCain win and another 4 years of more or less what we have now.

Posted by element51 at 02:09 PM : Mar 04, 2008"

McCain''s baggage is real and heavy, the Dems will have plenty of ammo. Flip flopping on everything, his rabid support of a failed war, his marital infidelities, his involvement with lobbyists, his involvement with the savings and loan scandal, leaving his wife while she was in the hospital with cancer. The man can''t even hold to the rules of his own law for f**k''s sake.

McCain wants to be president to show his father that he isn''t the abysmal failure his father always thought he was. The trick for the Dems isn''t going to be what part of McCains record to attack, it''s gonna be how to focus those attacks on just a handful of the stupid things McCain has done in his career so as to not overload the voters.

[tomtomasters]

This article comparison is a bunch of hogwash comparing Hillary to Taft. First of all Taft was President and Hillary has never been President or is the incumbant. She would become the first woman President, something the male warmongers have never allowed to be the voice of America. In fact America really is about slavery to women because they are denied more rights than Black Americans. They had the civil war to free Black Americans, but they continue to this day the slavery of women by not allowing a Woman to be President. America is a shame to itself and the world, for war crimes, murder, the inability to Impeach Presidents for war crimes, and now they want to elect a Black President who supports Bush, is against Impeachment, and could never be impeached because of the racial overtones of prejudice. What an American FARCE.

[sharncedar]

THE COUNTRY IS DECLINING RAPIDLY AND IS A DOOMED EMPIRE.
Posted by jjarden at 02:15 PM : Mar 04, 2008

We will win. We will rise again. Americans are the stupidest, ugliest, meanest people I''ve ever known, but they are my people, and I will defend them to the death. We will never succumb, do you understand? While one American is alive, we will never stop believing, we will never stop fighting for freedom. Americans are plain stupid, they are greedy, they are mostly worthless, but under pressure they will rise and become great. We will never accept rule by Europeans or Chinese or dirt Latino filth, you are insane to continue to mock us, this snake can bite, Dont Tread On Me.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Dont Tread On Me." Posted by SharnCedar

Who is "treading on you?" the Chinese have accepted the principles of capitalism that we have been pressing for them to do for decades now, The Euro is worth more than the US dollar solely because of gross mismanagement by this, and previous administrations, the Latinos are invited here by the elitists who enjoy the just-above-slave wages the Latino migrant workers will accept.

If anyone is mocking, it is the American elite, who use such intolerant people as yourself to maintain a divided opposition, so that they can continue the American aristocracy.

[mcvet]

"Although I am a democrat I am preparing myself for a McCain win and another 4 years of more or less what we have now.

Posted by element51 at 02:09 PM : Mar 04, 2008"

Oh PLEASE! When this fight is over, and it will be over. ALL those MILLIONS of Democrats and Independents will turn their attention to the real problems and the real REASON for those problems. John Kennedy couldn''t run for President of this nation with George Bush tied around his neck... and rest assured the Democrats WILL tie Bush around Mr. McCain''s neck EVERY DAY of EVERY WEEK until November. Sieg Heil Bush

[mcvet]

Folks...IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHO BECOMES PRESIDENT...THEY WILL NOT SAVE YOU OR THE COUNTRY...GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS...THE COUNTRY IS DECLINING RAPIDLY AND IS A DOOMED EMPIRE. YOUR VOTE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE FUTURE OF THE US...IT IS ALREADY ON ITS DOWNWARD SLOPE...READ AND LEARN.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by jjarden at 02:15 PM : Mar 04, 2008
+ report abuse

You know history shows another time when people said that same thing. The Democrats had a canidate who was a cripple and he faced FAR worse than what the Fascist have left this time. He not only turned the nation around but developed an economic policy that got this nation through a World War AND built the greatest economic power on the planet. We can do it IF we shake off the Fascist and their constant "We Can''t" attitude. Sieg Heil Bush.

[pdchapin]

Hillary can''t win in November. Too many people dislike her already. But they know her so her numbers wouldn''t change much during the campaign because everybody knows her and already has an opinion. I figure a Dukakis type lose if she''s nominated.

Obama is a blank slate for most people so the Republican smear campaign can write just about anything on it they want. It doesn''t have to be true, or even believed. They only have to make people slightly uncomfortable and they''ll go with grandfatherly McCain. I''m thinking a Mondale size lose with him carrying DC plus Illinois. He''s basically only holding his own against McCain now and the attacks haven''t even started yet. What Hillery has done some far are love taps compared to what''s ahead.

The only chances the Democrats have are a) McCain shows is infamous temper in public - it reportedly scares even his own staff - or b) people begin to wonder about McCain''s age and stamina. I saw him give a speech once where he didn''t walk to the podium as much as do the old-man shuffle. I don''t think either of these scenerios likely.

As a Democrat I''m still trying to figure out how, in a year that should be an easy win, we managed to find two weak candidates. Maybe the super delegates can tie up the convention and we can get somebody else. Otherwise we''re screwed.

[mbcsmith]

Folks...IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHO BECOMES PRESIDENT...THEY WILL NOT SAVE YOU OR THE COUNTRY...GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS...THE COUNTRY IS DECLINING RAPIDLY AND IS A DOOMED EMPIRE. YOUR VOTE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE FUTURE OF THE US...IT IS ALREADY ON ITS DOWNWARD SLOPE...READ AND LEARN.

Posted by Hugo Chavez at 02:15 PM : Mar 04, 2008
+ report abuse

[red1530]

There is one big difference between 1912 and 2008, there was a strong third party candidate.

[cmp271]

The year may have changed, people have not!!!

The Democrats will erroneously nominate Clinton. The same thing could happen again. The people want to be listened to, and never are. The political machine only listens to those with money and power, not the average joe and jill who donate their hard earned money to either candidate.

As for the money being spent...there are other things this money could be used for. It shows how much income Americans really have. Too bad it has all gone in the pockets of the cnadidates friends who make the commercials and the newspaper owners, and the media. Does any of it ever end up helping those who need it most?? We need schools in our poor rural areas, a couple million or two spent on hate ads would be better off spent on our failing education buildings. How much has been donated and spent frivilously? Shame on all the candidates!! This nonsense has gone on for over a year now, think of all that money!!!