James Taranto: The New York Times's (and The Wall Street Journal's) presidential endorsement goofs
Ho hum, last week the New York Times endorsed Barack Obama for president. Accompanying the endorsement, however, was an online feature of interest to anyone fascinated by the history of presidents or newspapers: "New York Times Endorsement Through the Ages," a compilation of every Times general-election presidential endorsement starting in 1860.
The Times has been a Democratic paper for longer than we had realized. Although the paper's first six endorsements all went to Republicans, between 1884 and 1936 it gave the nod to every Democratic nominee except the populist William Jennings Bryan. Bryan was nominated three times, occasioning two Republican endorsements, for McKinley in 1900 and Taft in 1908. In 1896 the Times endorsed John Palmer, a Democrat who favored the gold standard and ran under the banner of the National Democratic Party. Palmer got just under 1% nationwide and a whopping 1.33% in New York state, which is why you've probably never heard of him.
The Times endorsed Republican Wendell Willkie in 1940, in part out of discomfort at the thought of giving Franklin D. Roosevelt an unprecedented third term. The Times also faulted FDR for "fostering the idea that there exists a great fund of wealth which has only to be divided more equitably in order to make everyone prosperous" and "permitting important members of his Administration to preach the doctrines of class jealousy and class hatred." Ah, the good old days.
The paper switched back to FDR in the wartime election of 1944, supporting him over Republican Thomas Dewey. It endorsed Dewey over Truman in 1948, then Eisenhower in both 1952 and 1956. In 1960, John F. Kennedy got the nod--and so did every subsequent Democrat, 13 in a row and counting.
A political endorsement is, to some extent, an act of prognostication, and as we read through the old editorials we were amused at some of the predictions that turned out to be quite wrong:
In endorsing Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the Times noted that the Senate was certain to remain under Democratic control, and thus predicted that his tenure would not be all that consequential:
"There will be no hostile legislation at Washington--no 'overt acts' of aggression which will call for a declaration of independence on the part of the Southern States. Things will go on very much as they have hitherto--except that we shall have honesty and manliness instead of meanness and corruption in the Executive departments, and a decent regard for the opinions of mankind in the tone and talk of the Government on the subject of Slavery."
Other than the Civil War, the prediction was accurate....
Read entire article at WSJ
The Times has been a Democratic paper for longer than we had realized. Although the paper's first six endorsements all went to Republicans, between 1884 and 1936 it gave the nod to every Democratic nominee except the populist William Jennings Bryan. Bryan was nominated three times, occasioning two Republican endorsements, for McKinley in 1900 and Taft in 1908. In 1896 the Times endorsed John Palmer, a Democrat who favored the gold standard and ran under the banner of the National Democratic Party. Palmer got just under 1% nationwide and a whopping 1.33% in New York state, which is why you've probably never heard of him.
The Times endorsed Republican Wendell Willkie in 1940, in part out of discomfort at the thought of giving Franklin D. Roosevelt an unprecedented third term. The Times also faulted FDR for "fostering the idea that there exists a great fund of wealth which has only to be divided more equitably in order to make everyone prosperous" and "permitting important members of his Administration to preach the doctrines of class jealousy and class hatred." Ah, the good old days.
The paper switched back to FDR in the wartime election of 1944, supporting him over Republican Thomas Dewey. It endorsed Dewey over Truman in 1948, then Eisenhower in both 1952 and 1956. In 1960, John F. Kennedy got the nod--and so did every subsequent Democrat, 13 in a row and counting.
A political endorsement is, to some extent, an act of prognostication, and as we read through the old editorials we were amused at some of the predictions that turned out to be quite wrong:
In endorsing Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the Times noted that the Senate was certain to remain under Democratic control, and thus predicted that his tenure would not be all that consequential:
"There will be no hostile legislation at Washington--no 'overt acts' of aggression which will call for a declaration of independence on the part of the Southern States. Things will go on very much as they have hitherto--except that we shall have honesty and manliness instead of meanness and corruption in the Executive departments, and a decent regard for the opinions of mankind in the tone and talk of the Government on the subject of Slavery."
Other than the Civil War, the prediction was accurate....