The Life Cycle ... in Reverse!

One of my favorite ditties goes a little like this:

"The life cycle is all backwards. You should die first, and get it out of the way. Then you live for 20 years in an old-age home and get kicked out when you are too young. You get a gold watch and then you go to work. You work for 40 years until you are young enough to enjoy your retirement. You go to college and party until you are ready for high school. Then you go to grade school, you become a little kid, you play, you have no responsibilities, you become a baby, and you go back into the womb. You spend the last 9 months floating, and you finish off as a gleam in somebody's eye."

"Open" Presidential Elections -- Part II

Following up from the last question in my prior post, how critical (really) are "open" elections--where neither the sitting President nor the sitting Vice President runs as a candidate?

Another way to look at this issue to examine the effects of the only 4 "open" elections since 1900:

• In 1908, William Howard Taft, the sitting Secretary of War, defeated William Jennings Bryan, a former Representative from Nebraska. Since Taft was former President Theodore Roosevelt's hand-picked successor, his election did not lead to any immediate changes in policy. However, his later turning against Roosevelt's prior initiatives led to the former President running as a third party against his old friend in 1912, splitting the vote and effectively allowing Woodrow Wilson, the sitting Governor of New Jersey, to quash Taft's re-election bid.

• In 1920, Warren Harding, a sitting Senator from Ohio, defeated James Cox, the sitting Governor of Ohio, in an all-Buckeye election that made Harding one of only two legislators since 1900 to be elected President (the other was Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960). Given the immense unpopularity of his predecessor's involving the U.S. in World War I, Harding stormed into office on a promise of "return to normalcy." However, he is generally considered one of the most ineffective Presidents, and he died of a heart attack half-way into his term.

• In 1928, Herbert Hoover, the sitting Secretary of Commerce, defeated Al Smith, the former Governor of New York. A former businessman with little charisma or political skills, his single term was defined primarily by the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the advent of The Great Depression, and public backlash against Prohibition.

• In 1952, Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of NATO, defeated Adlai Stevenson, the former Governor of Illinois. Eisenhower served two terms as President, but his election marked a number of significant milestones: he helped Republicans re-gain the White House after 20 years of Democratic control; he was the first general to be elected President since Ulysses S. Grant in 1868 (and the only one since); and he was the first President subject to the term limits imposed by the 22nd Amendment. He served a full two terms providing steady leadership, and is generally well-regarded by historians (despite a temporary reputational setback during the liberal activism of the 1960's and 1970's).

So, let's see ... since 1900 we've had 4 "open" elections, which have led to: the dismantling of Theodore Roosevelt's environmental policies and the eventual election of the man who pulled the U.S. into WWI; the election of a man generally regarded as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history; and the election of a man who oversaw one of the greatest economic collapses in U.S. history. Granted, Eisenhower's victory in 1952 and his two-term Presidency were probably the exact right solution for a nation weary of WWII, the Korean War, and the Cold War. However, that still leaves "open" elections with a dismal 25% success rating.

I guess only time will tell how the 2008 "open" election will ultimately affect this country, but if recent history is any indication the outlook is not too promising.

"Open" Presidential Elections

Much has been made of the fact that the 2008 U.S. Presidential election will be the first one in recent memory to be completely "open"--meaning that a sitting President or Vice President will not be one of the candidates. So it naturally begs some questions ...

How rare are "open" elections?

Since 1900, there have been 27 Presidential elections, and only 4 have been "open." The 2008 election (the 5th of 28) will be the first one in 56 years, since Dwight D. Eisenhower defeated Adlai Stevenson in the 1952 "open" election.

What causes an "open" election?

The 2008 election will be "open" because the sitting President (George W. Bush) is precluded from running for a third term by the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the sitting Vice President (Dick Cheney) is sticking to his vow from early in his first term that he would not seek the Presidency. The prior 4 "open" elections were caused by a variety of issues:

• In 1952, President Harry S. Truman withdrew his re-election bid after losing the New Hampshire primary (he was eligible for a third term because he was grandfathered into the 22nd Amendment), and the Democratic Party considered the Vice President (Alben Barkley) too old at the age of 74.


• In 1928, President Calvin Coolidge decided to retire and not seek re-election, and the Vice President (Charles Dawes) had a long-standing feud with Coolidge which caused the President to block his bid for the Republican nomination.


• In 1920, President Woodrow Wilson was unable to seek re-election due to being incapacitated by a stroke, but it is not entirely clear why his two-term Vice President (Thomas Marshall) did not seek the Presidency himself. Perhaps it was since the Wilson Presidency had become immensely unpopular over the United States' involvement in World War I.


• In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt decided to retire, and the Vice President (Charles Fairbanks) was surprisingly overlooked by Roosevelt, who instead supported his friend and Secretary of War, William Howard Taft, as his successor Republican nominee.
  

How critical are "open" elections anyway?

It has been suggested that incumbent Presidents and Vice Presidents have unfair advantages heading into election years, so that "open" elections tend to "level the playing field" a bit. I guess one way to gauge whether an "open" election is critical at all would be to look at all of the elections that have NOT been "open."

In the 23 Presidential elections since 1900 where a sitting President or Vice President has been a candidate, the incumbents have won 15 times, which seems to suggest an impressive 65% winning percentage and a definite advantage. However, this is a little misleading, since 13 of those victories were re-election bids by sitting Presidents (and 3 of those were by Franklin D. Roosevelt alone and led to the passage of the 22nd Amendment). While this does suggest that unseating an incumbent President is difficult, it does not necessarily follow that ALL incumbents have unfair advantages in an election that is not "open."

Since 1900, there have been 5 elections in which the incumbent candidate was the sitting Vice President, and only 2 have been able to gain the Presidency: in 1924, Vice President Calvin Coolidge succeeded President Warren Harding; and in 1988, Vice President George H.W. Bush succeeded President Ronald Reagan. Otherwise, incumbent Vice Presidents actually have a not-so-great 40% winning percentage and therefore not really a distinct advantage.

So, what's the lesson learned here? I guess we can see that there's a BIG difference between a non-"open" election where the incumbent candidate is a sitting President and a non-"open" election where the incumbent candidate is a sitting Vice President. Therefore, the issue is not really whether an election is "open" or "not open" but rather whether an election includes a re-election bid or not, since it seems like the incumbent President (and not the incumbent Vice President) may have distinct advantages in election years.

Clinton in 2008: "Executives" v. "Legislators" in U.S. Presidential Elections

As we gear up for the party primaries heading into the 2008 elections--the first fully contested Presidential election in recent memory--I'm struck by how many U.S. Senators are jumping into the campaign fray on both sides of the aisle. Especially since all of the buzz surrounds the possibility of Sen. Hillary Clinton potentially becoming the first female U.S. President, it got me thinking about whether--gender, experience, political issues, and her husband's prior record aside--the U.S. is ready to elect a legislator to its highest executive office.

After all, the executive branch--by definition--is one based on decision-making, accountability, and the ability to execute ... in other words: leadership. On the other hand, the legislative branch--by definition and organizational structure--is one based on consensus-building, politicking, and the ability to legislate ... in other words: compromise.

Would American voters elect a legislator to its highest executive office?

Reviewing all of the Presidential elections since 1900 provides some interesting insights:

• Since 1900, there have been 27 U.S. Presidential elections.


• Of the 27 winners, only 2 were legislators (Warren Harding won the 1920 election as a sitting Senator from Ohio, and John F. Kennedy won the 1960 election as a sitting Senator from Massachusetts). The rest were executives of some sort: 13 sitting Presidents, 3 sitting/former Vice Presidents, 6 sitting/former Governors, and 3 others (William Taft won the 1908 election as the sitting Secretary of War, Herbert Hoover won the 1928 election as the sitting Secretary of Commerce, and Dwight D. Eisenhower won the 1952 election as the sitting Supreme Commander of NATO).
  


• Of the 27 losers (major parties), only 6 were legislators. However, 4 of those 6 losses came in the 11 elections since Kennedy's win in 1960: Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 election as a sitting Senator from Arizona, George McGovern lost the 1972 election as a sitting Senator from South Dakota, Bob Dole lost the 1996 election as a former Senator from Kansas, and John Kerry lost the 2004 election as a sitting Senator from Massachusetts.
  

I'm not sure why it's so difficult for a legislator to become U.S. President. I would like to believe that the system works so well and American voters are so savvy that they recognize true leadership and always match the best candidate for the job. I've heard theories that focus on the track records of various candidates: executives tend to have records of bold decision-making while legislators have records of waffling and compromise. I've also heard theories related to career cost-benefit analysis: once you've been a Governor, Vice President, or President, there's nowhere else to go so you'll fight like hell to get the job, whereas a legislator (especially a U.S. Senator) could have employment for life so why take the risks of potentially getting a job with a term limit?

As for the recent trend of the major parties running more legislators (in a losing cause), perhaps the advent of television and the Internet since Kennedy's 1960 victory have contributed to Senators being able to command a national following with relatively little effort? I don't know.

However, here's an interesting observation that bodes well for Sen. Clinton: most of the talk surrounding her has focused more on two intangibles (her gender and her husband) than on pure experience, capabilities, or political issues, but the exact same was true of the only 2 legislators to win Presidential elections since 1900. Warren Harding has drawn continual criticism for winning elections based on his "Presidential" looks (he hardly even campaigned for his successful Presidential bid), and John F. Kennedy was more popular for his youth, good looks, and pedigree than for anything else.

Regardless of whether American voters are ready to elect a legislator to the country's top executive post, perhaps history, human nature, and the power of technology will run in favor Sen. Clinton next year? Only time will tell.

BASE Jumping with a Wingsuit

I know that many folks will call these guys crazy, but sometimes I'm just amazed at the extremes to which humans will push their physical, emotional, and psychological limits. Check out this cool video: