Dem
47
GOP
53
Here is the question we put before readers two weeks ago:
M.W. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, asks: Politicians and journalists are fond of telling us that THIS ELECTION is the most important election of our lifetime. What would you say is the least important presidential election in the last hundred or so years, and why?
And here some of the answers we got in response:
M.M. in San Diego, CA: Least important election is an excellent question, but for me it's unanswerable. The past century has been tumultuous, and as the U.S. became more dominant in world affairs, there was always some critical issue brewing each election cycle. I'm stumped and look forward to reading everyone else's assessments!
G.K. in Blue Island, IL: For "the least important presidential election in the last hundred or so years" I'm going to lean into the "or so" and nominate the 1924 Calvin Coolidge-John W. Davis election. The U.S. economy was doing well, there were no major military conflicts or domestic upheavals to speak of, and neither of the nominees had a particularly dynamic personality. Davis, in fact, was a compromise candidate after 100+ ballots went nowhere at the Democratic convention (in short, he was "least objectionable"). Neither candidate enjoyed campaigning; Coolidge had a reputation for standoffishness and Davis had a reputation for being awkward when it came to crowds. With neither candidate drawing a huge distinction between themselves or their opponent, the American public might be forgiven for issuing a collective "meh!" and voting for the incumbent by default, which they overwhelmingly did.
J.W. in Bluffton, OH: My choice for the least important election in the last hundred years or so is Coolidge vs. Davis in 1924. John W. Davis was a conservative Democrat, and it is hard to see how a Davis presidency would have differed from the Coolidge presidency.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY: 1940, Franklin D. Roosevelt vs. Wendell Willkie. Both were interventionists (notwithstanding Willkie's October efforts to court isolationists a bit), and both supported arming Britain and keeping the peacetime draft. I doubt Willkie would have conducted the U.S. war effort materially differently that Roosevelt, though his not having FDR's experience and ability might have hindered him to one extent or another. He would have been more pro-business domestically, but still got the CIO endorsement, which helped him win Michigan. I suspect the biggest difference is that he would not have survived his term, as he died in October 1944, a month before that year's election and 6 months before Roosevelt.
C.J. in Redondo Beach, CA: Tough question, but I'd probably go with FDR vs. Thomas E. Dewey in 1944. World War II was nearly over and Dewey was an internationalist like FDR (and Truman), so a lot of stuff on the world stage would have likely ended up similarly. At home, Democrats still owned Congress, so Dewey would have been hamstrung in how much New Deal legislation he could kill.
S.I. in Minneapolis, MN: My vote for the least consequential presidential election in the last 100 years would be the 1956 contest between Dwight D. Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson—essentially a rerun of the 1952 election, but with the Korean conflict in the rearview mirror. The two candidates were not that far apart on most of the major issues of the day, be it civil rights, the atomic bomb, or the Red Scare. The only major consequence (had Stevenson won) would have been the 1960 election—an incumbent Stevenson would certainly have run for re-election, likely causing John F. Kennedy (and others) to wait until 1964.
D.R. in Yellow Springs, OH: I'd nominate the 1956 presidential election as among the least important of the last 100 years or so.
Like 1952, you have Dwight D. Eisenhower vs. Adlai Stevenson—both competent, intelligent and decent people. But 1956 is less consequential than 1952 for two reasons: By 1956, Eisenhower had experience in elected office that he lacked in 1952, and in 1956, Stevenson didn't have a segregationist running mate. Had Stevenson won in 1952 and died in office, it's safe to say that John Sparkman would have at least dragged his feet on integrating schools after Brown v. Board of Education, and might well have engaged in massive resistance. Even if Stevenson lived, having a segregationist as president of the Senate would have had serious consequences, even if Sparkman didn't dare promote segregation openly. In the 1956 election, Stevenson's running mate was the liberal Sen. Estes Kefauver.
It's tempting to say 2012 was least important, because again the major candidates were both competent, intelligent and decent people, and the same could be said for their running mates. But then imagine what would have happened if Mitt Romney had defeated Barack Obama that year. The angry racist element in American politics would have calmed down considerably. That would have prevented the political rise of Donald Trump. Instead, the 2016 election would have most likely been Romney vs. Hillary Clinton. Either one of them would have competently managed the COVID-19 pandemic.
C.B. in Hamden CT: I'm opting for 1976. Jimmy Carter was not an effective president, but the problems he encountered, domestically and with Iran, would likely have been dealt with by Gerald Ford in much the same way.
That said, while the 4 years of the presidency might not have been that different, it tees up a fascinating counter-factual for the 1980s: With Carter out of the picture, and Ford and the GOP taking the blame for the late 1970s, the charismatic president from the extreme wing of his party who dominated the 1980s might have been Ted Kennedy rather than Ronald Reagan. If so, our lives today would be very different!
A.G. in Plano, TX: It is difficult to describe any presidential election as "unimportant," as every one of them, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries, have had long lasting impacts (yes, even you, Gerald Ford). But probably the most inconsequential presidential election of the last 100 years, inasmuch as it really changed nothing, was 1984. Reagan was wildly popular and the Democrats had nothing, so the entire election seemed like a formality because the Constitution required it. But even that election had consequences felt today, in that Reagan was truly the real first "cult of personality" president the Republicans had. This led to Republicans today thinking power and leadership is their birthright.
J.G. in Farmington, CT: Clinton-Dole 1996.
The economy was humming along, the Cold War was over, the country wasn't involved in any major wars—military exhibition games in Africa and the Balkans notwithstanding—and neither the Republicans nor the Third Way Democrats in charge of Congress and the White House had anything better to do in the succeeding 4 years than to litigate a shady land deal and an affair with an intern. It seems almost quaint now, how much ink and attention was spilled on things that didn't matter. The culture wars continued their inexorable march toward equality, fueled by activists and actors, with conservative elements of society fighting costly and alienating rearguard actions in the press and courts and Congress. And it culminated in the first election that the American public judged to be so inconsequential that it resulted in more or less an exact tie.
But don't worry, the 1996 election gave rise to a whole crop of Democratic power brokers who still thought it was 1996 in 2008 and 2016. People like the Clintons, of course, but also Clinton-adjacents like Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers and John Podesta and Mark Penn and so many others who set the party on its path to ruin. People who thought, and continued to think, that the appearance of victory was victory; that the news cycle was something to be contested; that dunking on your opponents was more important than substantive policy gains. An entire generation of Democratic Party leaders in the Aaron-Sorkin-script mold, winning the votes of college-educated white people and not too many others.
Here is the question for next week:
(V) & (Z), et al., ask: We got several suggestions along these lines, including from readers B.C. in Walpole, ME; A.G. in Scranton, PA; and S.L. in Glendora, CA, which we will unify into two questions, one for this week, one for next week. For this week: The scuttlebutt is that Donald Trump got the idea for re-opening Alcatraz due to having seen Escape from Alcatraz on TV. What movie do you REALLY hope does not get broadcast in South Florida while Trump is in residence at Mar-a-Lago, and why?
Submit your answers to [email protected], preferably with subject line "Hooray for Hollywood?, Part I"!