Last month I wrote a piece on the ten most important US pres elections

[JohnKleeb]

So in history class my professor was discussing the signifance of the election of 1936 so I decided to list in my opinion the most important elections in US history, who was involved, the outcome, and why I feel they are significant. The following will be ranked in chorlogical order instead of actual ranking FYI.

1. 1792: George Washington (Federalist) Vs Well he was pretty much unopposed so Washington was unamiously elected our first president. The importance of this election really goes without saying. If Washington hadn't agreed to become president who knows what would have happened. Washington's setting of two terms became precedent for 150 years until Franklin D. Roosevelt broke that precedent.

2. 1800: Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) Vs John Adams (Federalist), Jefferson wins. The impact of this election for me is simple to explain. This election with Jefferson prevailing over Adams allowed for the first and most important peaceful transfer of power in our history. Jefferson's two terms got us the famous Louisana Purchase and the legacy of both that and the peaceful transfer of power is still with us to this day.

3. 1828: Andrew Jackson (Democrat) Vs John Quincy Adams (Democratic Republican) Jackson wins. The impact of this election is a little more complex than that of 1800 but it is equally as important. Jackson was the first president who was a "man of the people" to use a tired cliche but the truth of the matter is this election was the first one where non landowning white males got vote, sounds insignificant now but back then it was huge. As much as I criticize Jackson for his policy in regards to the American Indians I give him huge credit for being the driving force behind the American dream. The American dream and what it meant and still means was solidified under the presidency of Andrew Jackson.

4. 1860: Abraham Lincoln (Republican) Vs Stephen Douglas (Democrat) Vs John Bell (Constiution Union) Vs John Breckenridge (National Democrat). Lincoln Wins. This one really goes with out saying because right after Lincoln was elected southern states began seceding from the Union and in 1861 the year Lincoln was inagurated Fort Sumter in South Carolina was fired upon thus launching the US in to American Civil War. A bloody conflict that lasted four long years which literally did pit brother against brother.

5. 1876: Rutherford Hayes (Republican) Vs Samuel Tilden (Democrat). Tilden wins but Hayes becomes president. How fitting is this that it was one hundred years after Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Indepedence. All account show that the Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote and the electoral vote however Hayes won the election because of the Great Compromise made that year which is one that still haunted the United States into the 1960's and 1970's. Basically Democrats agreed to drop their complaint that the election was stolen from them in exchange that President Elect Hayes withdraw Union troops from the south. Reconstruction was thus over and the gains that Black southerners had made during the period after the civil war were lost and blacks in the American south weren't voting again until the late 1960's and early 1970's.

6. 1896: William McKinley (Republican) Vs William Jennings Bryan (Democrat, also endorsed by the Populists). McKinley wins. This election some historians have called the first modern campaign and for good reason. Newspapers and the media were in use to promote the election like never before. However, the most important thing about the election is what happened or what could have happened in Byran's case. McKinley's election and subsquent involvement in the Spanish American War is what was the start of America becoming a superpower. Karl Rove is said to be a big fan of Mark Hanna who interestingly enough served a similiar role to McKinley that Rove does to Bush. With the election of McKinley the US left its non involvement in foreign affairs forever. This is also an interesting election because Bryan was probably the first true people's candidate. Many things that Bryan and the Populists supported would be supported by the Progressives of the early 20th century and later by New Deal Liberals in the 30's. These things like 8 hour work days, the right to organize, etc are still found today. It was the then mayor of Cleveland, Ohio put it the first great clash between the moneyed interests and the common people.

7. 1912: Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) Vs Teddy Roosevelt (Bull Moose) Vs William Howard Taft (Republican). Wilson wins. As mentioned above the election of 1896 is what made America a superpower but the election of 1912 is what helped shape American foreign policy for mayn years after Woodrow Wilson died. Ironically President Wilson had planned on being a domestic president but with the war that broke out in Europe one year after he was inaguarated his Pro British sympathies caused the US to supply the British during the war. FInally in 1917 after winning reelection on the slogan "He Kept Us Out Of War" Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war against Germany after Germany resumed submarine warfare in the Atlantic. Wilson's fourteen points and the rejection of the senate of the Treaty of Versailes which is why the US was never a member of the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations today. Wilsonian foreign policy is perhaps the most commonly seen foreign policy in American politics today on both sides of the spectrum.

8. 1936: Franklin D. Roosevelt(Democrat) Vs Alf Landon (Republican): FDR wins and wins big. This is the election that provoked this article actually so while it was neither close nor was its impact shown immediately, the impact of this election was shown in later elections. This election established the New Deal coalition of Black Northerners, White Southerners, Urban ethnics, labor, Catholics, liberals, and farmers in to the Democratic base. Many of this base are still loyal to the Democratic party in large numbers but the impact of this election is still seen even sixty one years after Roosevelt's death and the breaking up of the New Deal coalition.

9. 1968: Richard Nixon (Republican) Vs Hubert Humphrey (Democrat) Vs George Wallace (American Indepedent). Nixon wins. 1968 was indeed the year of assassinations. Martin Luther King Jr and Robert F. Kennedy were both killed within two months of each other. The protests at the Democratic Convention in Chicago were some of the ugliest protests in American history. The war in Vietnam got worse and a once landslide elected president, Lyndon B. Johnson had to step down from office. Nixon's victory in large part by reaching out to parts of the New Deal coalition mostly blue collar workers and his moderate policies is what ultimately splintered the Democratic coalition that Roosevelt had built in 1936. The war in Vietnam did not end however Nixon did not destroy all that FDR and Johnson had created and in some ways added more to it because Nixon despite his image as a far right winger was moderate.

10. Ronald Reagan (Republican) Vs Jimmy Carter (Democrat) Vs John Anderson (Indepedent) Reagan wins. Until Ronald Reagan's election the United States had been electing moderates from both parties to the white house. Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon were both moderate republicans who did not destroy the New Deal or the Great Society as some had feared. Ronald Reagan with his win over Carter in 1980 became the first staunch conservative elected to the white house since Calvin Coolidge some 56 years before. Reagan's election is what finally killed the New Deal coalition. Despite his conservatism Reagan got much support from union workers, farmers, and others that had been part of what had kept the Democratic Party dominiant in Congress and in the white house. Reagan's presidency is what modern American conservativism examplfies. He destroyed much of the things that Roosevelt and Johnson had worked so hard for. For example I did research on Applachila last year and much of the anti poverty programs were destoryed by Reagan. Reagan's election whether you agree with conservatism or not made conservative republicanism appeal to many American voters even those who did not directly benefit from it. The impact of this election is that Conservative Republicans emerge as the leading force in the Republican party. While the Democratic Party still has Jackson-Jefferson dinners, the Republican party now has Reagan dinners which is especially amazing for a president who left office 18 years ago and died only a few years ago. Reagan's legacy in his own party is huge and it will be a long time before Republicans find another Reagan since after all Reagan was elected 120 years after the longtime Republican icon, Abraham Lincoln.

In conclusion what will happen in 2006 and 2008 remains a huge question mark for America's future. The impact of elections such as that in 1912 isn't always seen at the time because we can not predict the future or others like 1860 where the impact was immediate and noticable from the start. All elections have some impact on US history but we will probably not know for certain the true impact of these in life which is why I did not list any elections after my birth, I considered 2000 but I thought the others on the list were better because of their long term effects and I do not know what the impact of the 2000 election will be in twenty years. Elections are more than contests between people and ideologies. They decide our republic's desitny, who we are as Americans, what we believe, etc.

[fedupinBushcountry]

1. Kleeb

you don't consider 2004 an important election? It was for me. I remember '68 well, in those days we had to be 21, I was still to young (but those fighting in Vietnam were not, very unfair and wrong) to vote and we had the assaination of RFK, who I think would have won hands down.

[JohnKleeb]

2. Important yes but not top ten worthly

Did you read my conclusion below where I said why I didn't choose elections in my life time because I felt their long term significance hasn't been shown yet. I made my decisions based on their short term and long term impact. All elections are important obviously but some have an impact that we have yet to see.

[ProSense]

3. I have to agree with Fedup

The level of corruption, indirectly and directly (look at enron and the energy crisis/Bush policy), and the deceptions associated with Bush are historic. Remember Libby is the first senior-level WH aide indicted in more than 100 years. Another war based on a lie, unprecedented attacks on Consitutional rights and the rest, the 2004 election is definitely among the top ten elections ever! JMO.

[JohnKleeb]

4. I understand

but the thing is we don't know the long term signifance of the election. The short term is obvious, we see Scooter Libby indicted but what we don't see is a major shift in demographics, a party changing where they stand on an issue, or a huge conflict that has a huge impact on the nation. Look at what I said about 1936, it was a landslide and the impact really wasn't seen immediately but what it did was establish the New Deal coalition. No one thought that under President Wilson our foreign policy would be changed from isolationist to internationalist. 2004 and 2000 were no doubt important but look at some of the others to see their signifiances for our country. 1896 not only marked the beginning of America as a major world stage player but William Jennings Byran and the issues he and his supporters stood for became major parts of hte Democratic party platform later.

[ProSense]

8. I see your point,

but take the war by itself. I can't envision how a war that served as the catalyst for civil war in Iraq can have anything but long term impact on American politics and definitely America's role in the world.

[JohnKleeb]

11. I definely see your point too

I think the election's importance will be seen as it becomes clear what Iraq will become, will it become a theocracy like Iran? a secular democracy? a escular dicatorship like it was under Saddam and all the religious and ethnic factions held together much like Tito did in Yugoslavia, or will it splinter in to seperate Sunni, Shitte, Christian, and Kurd nations, or it could be something that we don't know yet.

[fedupinBushcountry]

5. Sorry I have to disagree

So much more so then say Reagan, we did not go into such a dive as we have with Bush in his first 4 years. Kleeb if you had grown up like I did in the 60's which was bad enough, you would have thought differently, 2004 was so important, Kerry knew that and he knew what was to come of 4 more years of Bush and he was so right.

[JohnKleeb]

6. Sure feel free to disagree

Reagan's election is important to me since he destroyed many of the New Deal programs that had been common place for the previous 48 years, the fact that he was an actual conservative republican instead of a moderate like Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford, Nixon was hated by the right in the Republican party for things like SALT, the EPA, and detente. It also made official the end of the New Deal coalition. Sad to say many blue collar workers backed Reagan after long having backed Democrats. 2004 is important do not get me wrong but I wouldn't put it on my top ten.

[fedupinBushcountry]

7. Well for sure

history will tell. But IMO it was so very important. I will ask my son the History teacher what he thinks, and let you know what he says.

[JohnKleeb]

9. Cool

It really was hard to list just ten since as I said they're all important but the ones I chose to me at least had the greatest short term and long term effect. Lincoln's election of course as we know was what caused secession and the civil war. It also made the South a Democratic stronghold for a century.

[fedupinBushcountry]

26. My son just looked

he agrees that Lincoln was the most important, but he doesn't consider Nixon as one or Reagan. JHO.

[JohnKleeb]

27. They're unranked

Glad he looked at it though. Lincoln's is definely the most and Lincoln's legacy is likely to be a subject of my next writing. I am stealing from Mario Cuomo I guess but Lincoln still does matter today. The president that I think represents what this country means honest.

[fedupinBushcountry]

28. Oh he knew

right away that you did it chronologically. He said it is very hard to put them in rank, but to him like you this country would have been very different if there was no Lincoln.

[JohnKleeb]

29. I think I am gonna buy Doris Kearns Goodwin book

Team of Rivals, I've heard it's great and Lincoln is just such a great figure. I read somewhere htat Kerry said Lincoln was his favorite president. I felt it was a sham when Reagan won that greatest American thng last year and Bush won greatest living and to be honest I felt it wsa silly and stupid that Clinton was 7.

[ProSense]

10. Frankly,

I think it will turn out to be among the top five most important elections ever! The neocons made their move and all hell broke loose. Corporate greed and corruption linked to campaigns came to a head.

[TayTay]

12. I think that 2004 will turnout to be a seminal election, just as 1964 was

The problem with history is that it almost looks flat when you look at it. But the body politic is actually a fluidic mass, always in motion, always changing and redefining it's own landscape. The critical elections are the ones in which we notice that new tributaries have been formed, old streams have dried up and the very waters of the major rivers have, in some way, changed. That is what happened in 2004. The very landscape is changing around us. We can't see the incremental change that has actually been going on for some time. But we know that it has changed.

That much doesn't have to wait for a history book's official stamp to be recognized. 2004 saw that the Republicans have constructed a sturdy house on the sands of a beach. We can see the fluidity of the situation around this house. While it stands and the weather is good and the winds are not blowing, the house looks great and strong and as if it can withstand anything. However, as it is built on the sands, it will, eventually fall, as all political structures fall in time. In 2004 we saw both the sturdy house and the approaching storm that will destroy this version of the house. (It will be rebuilt, it always is, but it won't be the same house again, nothing is ever exactly rebuilt as it was.)

This was a unique moment. There are not that many times when you can observe both the structure in place and the forces that will destroy it at the same time. We saw that in 2004. This was the pinnacle of Republican power. The media saw just this strength, they didn't see that gathering storms.

See this as an eternal pattern of buildup, brief endurance and destruction. No single election is about the particular year in which it happens. It is about the convergence of a lot of things that have been building up for years and years. (2004, in many ways has it's root in 1972, which despite being a landslide for Nixon, was a critical election. It generated all these waves that we are still dealing it.)

It really is like playing 10 chess games at once, each game linked into the other, each games outcome dependent an the game that went before. (That's why I like it. It's continuously interesting.)

[ProSense]

20. Great point!

This was a unique moment. There are not that many times when you can observe both the structure in place and the forces that will destroy it at the same time. We saw that in 2004. This was the pinnacle of Republican power. The media saw just this strength, they didn't see that gathering storms.

This has to be the most fascinating aspect of 2004. With all the hoopla in the run up to the war, the protests, even by members of Congress, were all but ignored by the MSM as if they were insignificant.

Then there is the corrupt mechanism, the powers structure and smear campaigns, that were the foundation for the Republicans house on the beach. Remember Abramoff rise began in the late 1980s and Rumsfeld and Cheney date back to the Nixon years.

What's amazing, and to your point, is the house began to crumble immediately after the election. I'm not sure if this was triggered in part by election fraud, but it almost seemed to be a turning point. As insignificant as election fraud coverage was, it was part of the reason the spotlight was turned on DeLay, Abramoff, Ney and Noe. Suddenly news about investigations appeared in the media, but the questions and allegations existed long before the election. The investigations were gathering steam, but not garnering the MSM attention. The massive corruption in Ohio involving Noe didn't happen overnight, neither did the activities of Abramoff or Ney.

The MSM lapse is responsible for an election followed by unprecedented collapse in Bush's approval and power structure. Despite the every day power grabs by this administration, the power structure is collapsing. They have been found out and their game plan exposed. Look at the threat by Gonzales to quit (go ahead). As you said, they built a powerful structure on sand. Their own bungling and exposure of their illegal activities is causing the sands to shift. I take Gonzales' threat as a serious sign that he and others are being back into a corner by opposition to their actions.

[k j]

23. Agreed, beautifully said, Tay Tay! n/t

[ray of light]

13. I don't want to hurt your feelings, John

but I think the 04 has an immediate long-term effect. Why? Because we are all trapped in an unteneble decision. Should this pResident and vpResident be impeached especially after the effects of the Clinton impeachment. People are hesitant about that. However, if we don't impeach then what standard are we setting for corruption, secrecy, and treason in the White House and it's administration.

I see this as the biggest long term effect. (Not to mention the war, budget, judicial system, and Presidential powers, etc...)

[JohnKleeb]

14. Nah it's ok

I don't doubt that 2004 was important but as far as the ten elections i mentioned I think their significance has been more important. Believe me when I wrote this list last month it was hard to choose just ten.

[ray of light]

15. Ok..here's the solution...just call it the top 11. There! I've helped you

[JohnKleeb]

17. Ha I just copied it from my word processor

It's unedited from April. I gotta admit though one of the reasons why I didn't really bring up 2004 though was because my history class only went up until the end of the Cold War. It's meant to be a relatively non-biased piece though as you see with my opinions on Reagan I do let my bias sink in. It's a shame really what happened in 1876 with Hayes agreeing to end reconstruction and thus end the gains that Black southerners had gained. It's sad to say but we had a period during reconstruction where we had more Black senators than we do in the Senate now. I really do feel that the nation's blatant bigotries and segeration may have been cured a lot sooner than the 60's if that compromise had never occured. Sorry for babbling on, I am a geekozoid and don't be sorry for disagreeing with me. I see things from the big picture when I write about history thus why I brought up Jackson's slaughter of the Indians but also how his presidency promoted the American Dream.

[beachmom]

16. I'm going to side with Kleeb here

I think it was good he just stuck to the 20th century and earlier. Right now we are PART of history, and really BOTH 2000 and 2004 are going to stick out long term. But since we don't have all the data yet -- what is the future of Iraq? how long will the struggle with Islamic extremists last? Will there be a reformation movement in Islam, or has the war in Iraq stopped that positive development from happening? What is the future role of the U.N. and relations between the U.S. and the EU? Will there be a new labor type movement in the U.S. against the globalization/Walmart phenomenon? Will China grow to be a major superpower against the U.S.? Will the U.S. military be damaged for some time as a result of the war in Iraq?

I could go on and on and on. For me, this is the most interesting time to live in. But I don't know what's going to happen. Although the Republican power is beginning to ebb, I still don't see a big Democratic movement yet. There are still so many cautious, timid people in the Democratic party and machine that fate has not yet been completely determined. The bloggers -- the big, the bad, and the ugly -- are the most interesting part, yet they still have very limited power. I'm on a wait and see wavelength myself.

[JohnKleeb]

18. You're asking the same questions about Iraq I have

So many questions really about what oculd happen to Iraq. There's also the question about what our relationship with Russia will be too.

[beachmom]

19. Wanna know how cynical and desperate I've become about Iraq?

I'm not sure if you heard there was a gay parade in Moscow, and the police cracked down on it, an obvious flagrant abuse of freedom of speech. We all know the way Putin has reigned in democracy, owning all the media, not allowing governors to be elected but appointing them instead, having opponents arrested, and so on.

I look at Russia, and think -- hey, maybe Iraq could be like that!! You know, a pseudo democracy, but not really a democracy, but with elections once in a while, and with an emphasis on security, law and order, etc. At this point, that's the MOST we could hope for in Iraq. Forget about liberal democracy there -- just let the people be able to go to work, come home, live a fairly boring life that includes electricity and clean water and schooling, but with some restrictions on their freedoms, because of all the crime, terrorism, and militia violence. THAT'S where I'm at with Iraq. Then maybe 50 years later, it can incrementally reform itself to have more freedoms (hmmm . . . kind of like Vietnam). (Although Vietnam will follow China -- they're stuck in that way).

[JohnKleeb]

21. I did hear about that

It's sad really because some of the other Eastern Bloc nations are EU members and are in the process of joining NATO and are prospering. Come to think of it now though have the Russian people ever had real Democracy? first the Czars, than the Communists, and then Yelsin and Putin. Iraq I honestly think will not become a secular democracy, I'd like to see it happen since after all those poor people have gone through it would be for the best but I also think the reality is far more grim. It could become like Russia and be a pseudo democracy but I think it could become Iran or could just splinter in to new nations much like Yugoslavia did after the end of the Cold War. Remember Iraq was made up in the post WWI plans of the British and French. I always have seen Iraq as a Middle Eastern Yugoslavia with religious groups and ethnics going at it and once held together by a dicator, in Yugoslavia it was Tito and in Iraq it was Saddam. Only difference is we never invaded Yugoslavia to topple Tito. Iraq has the Shittes and Sunnis fighting over old religious hatred and Yugoslavia had the Orthodox Serbs fighting the Croatian Catholics, I guess I could make a parrell with the Kurds being the equivalent of hte Muslims in Yugoslavia. It's hard to say what will happen but I know for sure the worst thing that could happen would be that Iraq will become the next Iran. Extremists like Ahmadijad really do embrace the enemy of my enemy is my friend concept.

[ProSense]

22. I think the

cost of the war alone is going to have signifcant impact on us. The war was responsible for the lack of troops to respond to Katrina. Like I said before, the war brought the struggle with Islamic extremists to Iraq and set civil war in motion. History doesn't have to tell us that.

Anyway, as far as Democratic movement, I don't expect significant coverage in the MSM, but there are signs:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2650262&mesg_id=2650262

[k j]

24. Thanks

for posting. Sorry I had to crash so early the other night, I'm a morning person! LOL
This is great reading, I'll print it out and save.

And, I dunno, but if 2004 goes on the list, Selection 2000 has to be there! ;-)

[JohnKleeb]

25. No ptoblrm

I am a night person myeslf. I may do a piece on the most recent elections or the the best presidents but that list is even harder to make than this one because my bias will get in the way even more so than before and most great presidents like Lincoln, both Roosevelts, etc have some not so pleasant qualities.