"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.