Author: glassnotion

This week I watched the vice-presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz. On social media, many called it the first “normal” debate or something similar. What does “back to normal” mean? 2012 and 2008 had fairly  “normal” elections, in terms of debates, media coverage, and civility. So what I think most people think when they mention “normality”, are the days before the super polarization that we see today. 

The place where this new “not normal” began is in 2000. Coming into that election, the Democrats hoped to extend their stay in the White House after eight years of Bill Clinton. The obvious choice to succeed him was his V.P., Al Gore. Running against Gore was the son of the man Clinton defeated in 92’, George W. Bush, governor of Texas. That night was probably the most climatic night in American history as no one knew what was going on. All eyes were on the Sunshine State of Florida. One moment it looked like Bush would win, but then the media rescinded their call of Florida for the Republicans and Gore his concession. What followed was an extensive legal and media fight over the recounting of ballots in Florida, which became one of the most controversial decisions issued by the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court stopped the recount, stating that the recounting went against the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Bush would be the 42nd president.

I’m not proposing the thesis that the 2000 presidential election of Bush v. Gore, and the subsequent court fight, is the reason the United States is the way it is today. If you talked to anyone who was alive before 2000, they would likely attest that without the internet and 24-hour news coverage, there was still polarization on public issues, albeit on a smaller or less intense scale. This is probably best demonstrated by Newt Gingrich, who led the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. The 2000 election can be seen, in my view, as a marker on the map of American political history, a fracture in the fabric of our political atmosphere. 2000 was not a complete change but a beginning of a new chapter in American politics.

What changed from the 1990s to today? Well, first there is less bipartisanship among the average voters. From 2020, the Washington Post reported a decrease in ticket-splitting in House races. This is when voters vote for multiple parties on the same ballot such as voting for Harris for President and a Republican for Senate or the House, “… only 16 House districts saw split results in 2020 — 10 fewer than split their vote in 2012, the year with the next-fewest such districts.” (Bump, 2021) This pattern is not contained to the House. If we look at the current make-up of the Senate compared to the Congress that was in session 1999-2001, the one that served just prior to the 2000 presidential election, we saw nineteen states in which there was a member from both the Republican and Democratic parties compared to the current Congress which only has 4. This is a trend that looks to decrease next month when Democrats might lose seats in West Virginia and Montana, leaving only two states with both parties represented in the Senate. On the national level, elections have become closer, which is not surprising to most, but from 1948 to 2000 the average national popular vote margin between the Democratic and Republican candidates was 9.915% but from 2000 to 2020 that margin has shrunk to only 3.375%. To be fair, 1992 and 1996 would probably have been closer if it were not for third-party candidate Ross Perot. In the media, this is demonstrated by the concept of red for Republicans and blue for Democrats because of its use in the overwhelming amount of media coverage in 2000. Before that election, it “wasn’t cemented on the national psyche until the year 2000.” (Enda, 2013). If the 2000 presidential election tells us anything based on this information, there was definitely something or multiple variables that changed our political world in the 1990s and the 2000s that we should not overlook today.

References:

Bump, P. (2021, February 19). 2020 saw the least split-ticket House voting in decades. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com

Bush v. Gore | Miller Center. (2020). Miller Center. Retrieved from https://millercenter.org/contested-presidential-elections/bush-v-gore

Enda, J. (2013, November 17). When Republicans were blue and Democrats were red. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com

Members of the U.S. Congress. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/members

Presidential Election Margin of Victory | The American Presidency Project. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/presidential-election-mandates

Most might not know the name of Rutherford B. Hayes or remember anything special about him and his presidency, but his election to the presidency might show us that our current political atmosphere is not as special as we might think. 

The election I’m talking about is the election of 1876. What was so interesting about this election is not the campaign but what followed. The parties were the same as they are today but  the base was a bit different than what we see today from the Democrats and Republicans. Democrats had their support in the former confederacy and from immigrants across the nation while Republcian’s strength was found in the north and out west. The Republicans nominated Governor of Ohio Rutherford B. Hayes to succeed 18th president Ulysses S. Grant, while the Democrats nominated the northerner New York Governor Samuel J. Tilden. Here is where things got weird. First off, no one really knew who won. Some papers just sided with the candidate they supported and declared them the winner like “The National Republican” that declared Hayes the winner and others like “The Louisiana Democrat” ran headlines that said that Tilden won and the Republican rule was over. While in the electoral college, things would become messy to say the least. In Oregon, one of the electors for Hayes was replaced due to the fact he was a postmaster and being a “federal office holder” disqualified you from being an elector. He was replaced by a Tilden elector by the Governor. While in Louisiana, South Carolina and Florida “White thugs had stuffed or stolen ballot boxes, intimidated black voters, and printed Democratic ballots with the Republican symbol to trick illiterate voters.” (Ross, 2016).  As a compromise between the Democrats who controlled the House and the Republicans in the Senate, both parties agreed to a plan to have a bipartisan commission with five Republicans, three senators and two representatives, and five Democrats, two senators and three representatives. The commission would also include Supreme Court Justices, three appointed by Republicans, two by Lincoln and one by Grant, and one appointed by the Democrat James Buchanan. However, Justice Stephen Johnson Field was a Democrat so the leaning composition was really two and two. There would also be an independent Supreme Court justice appointed by Lincoln but he resigned to be a senator and was replaced by Joseph P. Bradley, appointed by Grant,  who was considered to be the most moderate of the Republican appointed justices on the bench. In the end, the vote was unsurprising with Hayes winning 8-7, and Hayes was inaugurated. However, things were not done just yet and the Democrats had a last card up their sleeves. They threatened to filibuster the commission until inauguration causing it to be thrown in the House where they had the majority. To avoid this constitutional shenanigans “…four Southern Democrats met with five Ohio Republicans… in return for the presidency, to allow “local self-­ government” in the South.” He would pursue a policy of noninterference in Southern affairs, order federal troops to stop protecting the remaining Republican governments…” (Ross, 2016). This deal would be called the “Compromise of 1876” and was viewed as the end of Reconstruction. 

Sure, compared to the last century of politics, our two and half decades since 2000 might seem like a hot mess, but compared to 1876 things are pretty normal or even business as usual. We saw recently (in 2000) ballots being thrown out and their validity debated and many people remember the “hanging chad” debacle. Or, not new, is ‘not news’ agencies calling elections for people who did not win,we still see people today saying Trump won in 2020. This happened in Oregon when they replaced the Hayes voter too. Recently in Nebraska, we see  they almost changed the system of voting from a congressional system to a winner take all. I can say this about learning about past elections, living through this and talking to family, things will never be normal because U.S. politics is just not that normal.

References

E.W. Halsey. (1876, November 15). The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, November 15, 1876, Image 2. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82003389/1876-11-15/ed-1/seq-2/

Sanderford, A. (2024, September 24). State Sen. Mike McDonnell deflates GOP hopes for Nebraska winner-take-all in 2024. Nebraska Examiner. https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/09/23/state-sen-mike-mcdonnell-deflates-gop-hopes-for-nebraska-winner-take-all-in-2024/

Ross, M. A. (2016). Rutherford B. Hayes. In K. Gormley (Ed.), The Presidents and the Constitution: A Living History (pp. 253–265). NYU Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1803zfw

W.J. Murtagh. (1876, November 9). National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, November 09, 1876, Image 1. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86053573/1876-11-09/ed-1/seq-1/

When learning about the Civil War, whether in class or somewhere else, I feel like most of us just skip to the beginning, that being either the attack on Fort Sumter or the Battle of Manassas. However, there is always what comes before the beginning that pushes a country that is recently divided into something more serious. There are some interesting connections between the United States now and in 1860, especially given how much of the U.S. population believes that a second civil war is a possibility. That is why we should look back at this election and the political atmosphere that existed then.

The 1860 presidential election was really the beginning of a new political landscape in the U.S., the start of a new two party system. The Democrats were the established party at the time, controlling the White House with incumbent president James Buchanan and before him Franklin Pierce, their strength located in the South from slave states and immigrants. Following this, the new face on the political stage was the Republican party, fresh from their first election with a presidential candidate in 1856, John C. Fremont. The Republicans had less of an established background compared to the Democrats and needed to rely on former party groups such as Whigs, the party that challenged the Democrats from the 1830s to the 1850s, but ultimately folded due to infighting over slavery. There were also the “Know Nothings” or the American Party whose appeal rested on anti-immigrant policies and on “Free Soil” party members who opposed expansion of slavery in the west. Things would get more interesting at the Democratic convention in Charleston. The party would fracture when trying to nominate Stephen Douglas, and would fail to add a federal slave code for territories plank to their campaign. The Democrats would try to reconvene in Baltimore unsuccessfully, tearing the party in two, the Democrats running Stephen Douglas in the north and southern Democrats supporting the Vice-President, John C. Breckenridge.

 The Republicans would also be split between moderates who supported Abraham Lincoln and the more left leaning William H. Seward. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans were able to stay united and nominate Lincoln. But I’m not finished yet! There was a fourth candidate, John Bell, a moderate running on the “Constitutional Union” supporting preservation of the union and swaying Southerners who disagreed with Republicans but didn’t want to leave the Union either.

As with current politics, it seems almost anything could set our world on fire even if we don’t want to increase hostility and distrust. This is where we meet our link from the fragmented election to the spark of the Civil War or at least we can get some perspective on our current situation. The “Wide Awakes” was a Republican political group of young men who would march in cities and states for Lincoln and Republican candidates. I know what you’re thinking, they don’t sound too bad but the problem was they did it in a very militaristic style. This frightened many Southerners which fed their fears of losing a grip on power and this fear would also help to transform the election into a powder keg. We can also see how the “Orange Marches” in Northern Ireland caused and continue to cause division. Fear sometimes seems to push groups into paramilitary activity which in turn, causes more fear, leading to a deadly spiral of fear and hate.

I don’t think most of us realize the importance of this election to the Civil War. It was the accumulation of decades of political fighting and maneuvering that created a perfect storm of emotion. The result was the bloodiest war in American history. What we should remember today, is that we need to be very careful when we provoke the other side during election time, or trying to buy into their fears. Marching and mass mobilization and acting like a paramilitary organization like the Proud Boys and or the OrangeMen in Northern Ireland might do more harm than good. Instead of helping their cause, it hurts them.

Reference list:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25622297

https://millercenter.org/president/lincoln/campaigns-and-elections

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-66102199

One of the greatest travesties of the last century was the sinking of the Titanic. It might be one of the most preventable tragedies. When the ship sank in the Atlantic, it only carried enough lifeboats for a third of the passengers leaving them to survive in the freezing Atlantic with nothing more than a lifejacket and dramatically presented in the award winning film “Titanic.” How does this relate to elections? Well, let’s talk about an election that sank the entire era of political goodwill and a major party in the process, the election of 1824.

Let’s start with the basics: the parties and the candidates. The election of 1824 was quite unique. There was only one major party, “Democratic-Republicans” as we call them today. As a result, the previous election in 1820 was uncontested and Monroe won every electoral vote. This period before the 1824 election is known as the “Era-of-Good Feelings” because of this non-competitive atmosphere. In 1824 there were four candidates of note. William Crawford, the very articulate former Treasury Secretary, preferred by Thomas Jefferson and probably front runner if not for suffering a stroke the summer before. There was Henry Clay, the savvy long-time Speaker of the House, who knew D.C. like the back of his hand. Next, John Quincy Adams, the Secretary of State, the son of president and founding father John Adams, not as charismatic as others but a skilled diplomat and mastermind of the Monroe doctrine. Lastly, there was the ”Hero of New Orleans,” former general, controversial figure, and, at that time,  Senator Andrew Jackson.

The good part is the election itself. No one candidate won on election night in 1824. The Electoral College vote was so split no one candidate received an outright majority. The closest anyone got was Jackson with 99 electoral votes and who won the popular vote. Many Americans would have no idea what should happen in that case or even if there was a way to handle it. In the case of a tie in the Electoral College the decision goes to the House of Representatives and as with everything in the U.S. government, that process is not what it seems. Instead of each member getting a vote, there is one vote for each state. Another thing that might not be obvious is that the House was not to vote on all four candidates but only the top three leaving Clay out. This led to a great irony: the Speaker at that time was the same Clay. Guess what Adams does? He cut a deal with Jackson for Adams to receive the most votes. In what is now known as the “corrupt bargain,” Clay traded the votes for the prestigious Secretary of State position in Adams’ cabinet causing Jackson and his supporters to scream in fury over the apparent cheating. The bargain might have made Adams president but it allowed Jackson to sweep into power in 1828 and win a second term as well.

Is the commonly recounted story a lie? Yes, Adams won, but maybe it wasn’t a corrupt bargain at all. Maybe it was just a democracy at work. The Miller Center at UVA (Hogan, 2024) suggests that instead, Clay supported Adams because of “Jackson’s qualifications [president]…[and] commitment to the “American System.” Similarly, I want to come clean about the Titanic. It’s true there weren’t enough lifeboats. However, even if the Titanic had enough lifeboats it probably wouldn’t have mattered in the end. The last lifeboat was released at 2:05am, 15 minutes before the sinking (Diekmann, 2024). 

Maybe we sometimes want to convince ourselves that there is a juicy conspiracy where there is just an election and processes of the government making a decision. This tells us that we shouldn’t get too carried away or convinced by conspiracies like with couches and pets in Ohio. They might be more interesting or make us feel justified in our preferences. However, most things have a more reasonable (and maybe boring) explanation. Let’s try to assume and hope that most people are trying to do the best they can and have faith that democracy will still function this time as it did then. 

References:

This source is from Margaret A. Hogan, no date found,  last retrieved 9/13/2024.

https://millercenter.org/contested-presidential-elections/corrupt-bargain

This source is from William Nester, no date found,  last retrieved 9/13/2024.

https://www-jstor-org.grinnell.idm.oclc.org/stable/pdf/j.ctt1ddr80h.11.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%

This source is from Caitlynn Dieckmann, no date found, last retrieved 9/13/2024.

https://urj.uccs.edu/index.php/urj/article/view/491/243