Kathleen M. Dalton: A 'bully' Roosevelt fought for the little man
[Kathleen M. Dalton is the author of "Theodore Roosevelt: A Strenuous Life" (Alfred A. Knopf, 2002).]
Election years remind us that Americans vote for a president not knowing for sure what kind of person they are hiring to run the country. Even the vetting of long campaign seasons with their grueling questioning and debates about issues leaves us with questions unanswered.
In the courtship phase, voters hear presidential hopefuls profess lofty goals, and we often know where the candidates stand on key issues, but once presidents are in office, voters' influence evaporates into polling data, and presidents exercise vast powers, especially in foreign policy, as they respond to unexpected crises. Once elected, presidents are not easily reined in by Congress or voters, nor are they bound by their campaign promises.
Woodrow Wilson's 1916 supporters chanted, "He kept us out of war." In 1917, he led them into the war. FDR called for a balanced budget in the 1932 race and then turned to big deficit-spending to restart the economy during the Great Depression. In 1968, Richard Nixon piously talked law-and-order and praised traditional family values.
Later, as a president who lied compulsively, he told his aides to burglarize, cheat, and bribe. Campaign promises have never been good guides to presidential performance. At best, campaigns can help us get to know where candidates stand on some issues and give us some sense of who they are as people.
So how can voters measure the true caliber of a candidate? For starters, voters should distrust hype and pundits. Reporting the campaign as a cross between a horse race and a celebrity smack-down pulls voter attention away from issues and cheapens the process. Our past experiences with presidents who succeeded may illuminate how voters sometimes have looked deep into a candidate's heart and voted for the candidate who did not get good press. In 1948, for example, the media had pegged Thomas Dewey as the sure winner. But the voters trusted Truman. Similarly, in 1912, the New York Times called Bull Moose candidate Theodore Roosevelt a communist, and other newspapers spread rumors of his alleged drunkenness.
Would any American voter cast a ballot for a drunk whom the Times called a communist? Voters showed their independence and listened to what Roosevelt said about the need for unemployment and health insurance, old-age pensions, and safe workplaces. When a would-be assassin shot TR in the chest and almost killed him, the candidate insisted on giving his scheduled public speech despite his wound; he talked to his audiences about his determination to fight to the death. Voters recalled his years of bold presidential leadership from 1901 to 1909.
When the 1912 votes were counted, TR outpolled Republican incumbent William Howard Taft and ran the most successful third-party campaign ever. Democrat Woodrow Wilson went to the White House, but voters had not been cowed by rumors or mudslinging. TR had seen female activists as a rising political force and made an alliance with them. Later politicians copied him. TR remained an important political voice and possible contender for the presidency until his death. Pretty good for an accused communist!
As the examples of Truman and TR show, the process of choosing a candidate is not always a story of voters led like sheep. Instead, voters work hard to find out who is the real deal. Voters want a campaign to reveal the true character of the candidate, to show us who has the stamina and wisdom for the job.
What kind of candidate makes the best president? History provides abundant evidence that America's most successful presidents have been resilient spirits who fought for what the people needed....
Read entire article at http://fredericksburg.com
Election years remind us that Americans vote for a president not knowing for sure what kind of person they are hiring to run the country. Even the vetting of long campaign seasons with their grueling questioning and debates about issues leaves us with questions unanswered.
In the courtship phase, voters hear presidential hopefuls profess lofty goals, and we often know where the candidates stand on key issues, but once presidents are in office, voters' influence evaporates into polling data, and presidents exercise vast powers, especially in foreign policy, as they respond to unexpected crises. Once elected, presidents are not easily reined in by Congress or voters, nor are they bound by their campaign promises.
Woodrow Wilson's 1916 supporters chanted, "He kept us out of war." In 1917, he led them into the war. FDR called for a balanced budget in the 1932 race and then turned to big deficit-spending to restart the economy during the Great Depression. In 1968, Richard Nixon piously talked law-and-order and praised traditional family values.
Later, as a president who lied compulsively, he told his aides to burglarize, cheat, and bribe. Campaign promises have never been good guides to presidential performance. At best, campaigns can help us get to know where candidates stand on some issues and give us some sense of who they are as people.
So how can voters measure the true caliber of a candidate? For starters, voters should distrust hype and pundits. Reporting the campaign as a cross between a horse race and a celebrity smack-down pulls voter attention away from issues and cheapens the process. Our past experiences with presidents who succeeded may illuminate how voters sometimes have looked deep into a candidate's heart and voted for the candidate who did not get good press. In 1948, for example, the media had pegged Thomas Dewey as the sure winner. But the voters trusted Truman. Similarly, in 1912, the New York Times called Bull Moose candidate Theodore Roosevelt a communist, and other newspapers spread rumors of his alleged drunkenness.
Would any American voter cast a ballot for a drunk whom the Times called a communist? Voters showed their independence and listened to what Roosevelt said about the need for unemployment and health insurance, old-age pensions, and safe workplaces. When a would-be assassin shot TR in the chest and almost killed him, the candidate insisted on giving his scheduled public speech despite his wound; he talked to his audiences about his determination to fight to the death. Voters recalled his years of bold presidential leadership from 1901 to 1909.
When the 1912 votes were counted, TR outpolled Republican incumbent William Howard Taft and ran the most successful third-party campaign ever. Democrat Woodrow Wilson went to the White House, but voters had not been cowed by rumors or mudslinging. TR had seen female activists as a rising political force and made an alliance with them. Later politicians copied him. TR remained an important political voice and possible contender for the presidency until his death. Pretty good for an accused communist!
As the examples of Truman and TR show, the process of choosing a candidate is not always a story of voters led like sheep. Instead, voters work hard to find out who is the real deal. Voters want a campaign to reveal the true character of the candidate, to show us who has the stamina and wisdom for the job.
What kind of candidate makes the best president? History provides abundant evidence that America's most successful presidents have been resilient spirits who fought for what the people needed....