Shiraev Eric - Counting every vote: the most contentious elections in American history

COUNTING EVERY
VOTE

Related Titles from Potomac Books

Presidents Most Wanted: The Top 10 Book of Extraordinary Executives, Colorful Campaigns, and White House OdditiesNick Ragone

Personality, Character, and Leadership in the White House: Psychologists Assess the PresidentsSteven J. Rubenzer and Thomas R. Faschingbauer

The Cure for Our Broken Political Process: How We Can Get Our Politicians to Resolve the Issues Tearing Our Country ApartSol Erdman and Lawrence Susskind

The Most Contentious Elections in American History

Robert Dudley AND Eric Shiraev

Copyright 2008 by Robert Dudley and Eric Shiraev

Published in the United States by Potomac Books, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission from the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Dudley, Robert L.

Counting every vote: the most contentious elections in American history / Robert

Dudley and Eric Shiraev.1st ed.
p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-1-59797-224-6 (alk. paper)

1. PresidentsUnited StatesElectionHistory. 2. Contested electionsUnited StatesHistory. 3. United StatesPolitics and government. I. Shiraev, Eric, 1960II. Title.

JK524.D7783 2008

324.973dc22

2008024354

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standards Institute Z39-48 Standard.

Potomac Books, Inc.
22841 Quicksilver Drive
Dulles, Virginia 20166

First Edition

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

As a parlor game, speculating on how the nation, even the world, would have differed if only someone else had been elected president can be entertaining. Moreover, with the advantage of hindsight it can generate endless examples of how history might have been different. Illustrations of the spectacular alternative scenarios that come to mind might be:

If Al Gore were elected president in 2000, America would not have fought the war in Iraq.

If Hubert Humphrey were elected president in 1968, America would have been out of Vietnam in two years.

If Charles Hughes had defeated Woodrow Wilson in 1916, America would have joined the League of Nations and probably would have avoided the war with Japan twenty-five years later.

Of course, nothing is that simple if we avoid sheer speculation. For example, President Al Gore would have faced a confrontational Congress in 2001, which would have seriously limited his policy options. Under President Hubert Humphrey, the United States would have faced a hostile and unpredictable China, still inhospitable to the United States and reaching to restore its formerly friendly relations with Russia. President Charles Hughes, most probably, might have mishandled the war economy in 1917 by refusing to raise taxes and establish federal regulations to help American labor.

History judges achievement first. We conveniently say that history, and not our perceptions of it, is the final reviewer of each president and what he has contributedor notto America and the world. Moreover, we can also say that it is the general course of historyfate, as it wereand not necessarily the leaders individual personality that matters in global developments. For example, according to a well-accepted point of view, American presidents play only a limited role in history. This is due to the particular structure of the American political system. This arrangement generally prevents presidents from making decisions that are politically unpopular in the short run, even though those decisions have the potential to be significant over time.

We disagree with this point of view. Over the course of American history, presidents have made many great and dreadful decisions because of who they were. Presidents embark on some courses of actions and disavow others because of their individual traits and the unique historical circumstances in which they have served. Accounts of the decision-making process regarding the League of Nations in 1919, the decisions made about Vietnam in the Lyndon Johnson White House, the Watergate affair in the Nixon administration, the Iran Contra scandal in the Reagan White House, the decisions on the war in Iraq in 200l02, and many other history-making developments point to the vital importance of individual choices in a democratic state.

One does not have to subscribe to the Great Man theory of historyattributing everything to a great leaderto believe that it matters who the president is or that it matters what the president does. Every president brings something new to the institution of the presidency. Each president has been a leader whose behavior and policies have, for good or bad, transformed the country. Every president has also been a symbolic figure, an image of inspiration and pride to many people or the source of displeasure and despair for many others. Every president has left a mark on the history of this country. And every president, especially since the beginning of the twentieth century, has made a significant difference in the history of the world. Their powers are not absolute, nor are their choices unbounded, but the fact remains: presidents do matter.

The institution of the American presidency changes with each president. From the very beginning, the first four presidents shaped this institution because of the deliberate actions they took, the different roles they played, and the things they didnt do. George Washington wanted stability and continuation of the American political system. John Adams gave the system a test of partisanship and intolerance (consider the Alien and Sedition Acts, which in many ways limited political speech). Thomas Jefferson stimulated the body politic by encouraging broader public participation in government and a greater sense democracy. James Madison, through mistakes and inaction, tested the political system on its ability to survive. It survived.

Each president brought something new to the system, thus changing not only political institutions but also the lives of the citizens for generations to come. Each president was capable of projecting his own personality upon the most important decisions and policies of his time. James D. Barber distinguished two main personality features, two distinct sides in presidents that affected their historical impact. The first is the rational one. Here the president calculates possible outcomes and chooses the best option. From the emotional side, however, the president acts upon his likes or dislikes. In addition, some presidents develop an individual propensity for innovation and change: they want to be active innovators involved in new policies and initiatives. Others play the role of caretaker, refraining from taking chances and preserving what has already been established or approved. In terms of rationality, there are active and passive presidents. In terms of emotionality, there are positive and negative presidents. For example, John Kennedy was active and positive. Richard Nixon was active and negative. Or, they may appear this way.

Presidents display their character traits and idiosyncrasies within particular historical circumstances. President Woodrow Wilson in 1919 demonstrated significant negativity when he failed to secure in the Senate U.S. membership in the League of Nations. His antipathy of the Republican Senator Lodge was among the reasons why Wilson did not want to compromise. Wilson, though, was a diehard positive idealist: he was dreaming of a day when the world would be free of war and suffering. He believed that if he succeeded in the Senate with regard to the League of Nations, he could have opened the door to such a possibility.