Unusual Presidential Elections

[dazzleman]

It always mystified me that Massachusetts, the only state to vote for McGovern in 1972, voted twice for Ronald Reagan.

Granted, it was generally the weakest state that he carried, receiving just under 41% of the vote in the 3-way 1980 race, and 51% of the vote in 1984.

But it still makes me wonder.  Is it because the Massachusetts liberalism was centered on anti-war views, and that once that issue was removed there was less incentive to vote Democratic?  Any ideas?

[dazzleman]

If the right combination of states had shifted from Nixon over to Humphrey (possibly Alaska, Missouri, New Jersey, Illinois, or some combination) Humphrey would have won.  I have not done a detailed analysis, but it probably would have taken 200,000 votes, or maybe a little more, for this to happen.

The presence of Wallace also raised the possibility that nobody would get a majority in the electoral college, in which case the election would have gone to the House of Representatives.  The House would probably have elected Humphrey, since Democrats were in the majority.

LBJ tried to throw the election to Humphrey by announcing a bombing halt of North Vietnam several days before the election, and implying that he was on the verge of a real breakthrough for peace.  Of course, this was not the case, but the idea was to time it so as to raise hopes with the voters just as they were going to the polls, and also so that they would have already voted before they figure out it was bogus.  It almost worked.

If North Vietnam had really been ready to collapse in 1968, Johnson blew it with the bombing halt, taking pressure off them while they were at their weakest.  Ironically, a similar thing happened with Nixon in 1972, when he eased bombing of North Vietnam before the election as a result of "progress" in the peace talks.

I think actually that Humphrey would have won if the election had been held a couple of days earlier.  By election day, it was becoming clearer that Johnson's move was a cynical ploy, and the South Vietnamese government had already declined to support the position that Johnson was taking, thereby undermining his credibility.  Nixon supposedly had a hand in this, as he had known for some time in advance that Johnson would try such a move.

What I would find interesting about that election is an analysis of those counties in the south that had voted for LBJ in 1964 and Wallace in 1968.  How widespread was this shift, and what caused it?

[dazzleman]

The shift in the upper south was what I was thinking about.

States such as Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina, that had voted pretty strongly for LBJ in 1964 shifted over to Nixon in 1968.

It appears that in these states, certain voters who had supported LBJ and the Democrats in 1968 switched to Wallace in 1968, allowing Nixon to narrowly carry these states in a 3-way race.

I would find a switch from LBJ to Nixon easier to understand in light of the failures and problems of the Johnson administration in the 1964-68 period, but a shift to Wallace from Johnson seems like a more radical change in attitude.  After all, we're not talking about people who voted for Goldwater in 1964 voting for Wallace in 1968.

Maybe it was a backlash against the urban riots of the mid and late 1960s, or the already apparent abuses and failures of the Great Society programs.

[dazzleman]

Why did Regan win in 1980? Carter couldnt have be as bad as they say.

Carter was absolutely dreadful, although not all the problems he faced were of his making.

During Carter's presidency, the country endured double digit inflation, acute shortages of gasoline, the taking of American hostages in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Carter projected weakness and uncertainty in dealing with these problems.  Certainly, he inherited stagflation from his predecessors, a condition with roots going all the way back to the Johnson administration, and clearly contributed to by Nixon's manipulative economic policies and the power of OPEC to severely increase the price of oil.  So the economic problems of Carter's term were not all his fault, although it could be said that he didn't deal with them all that well.

On foreign policy, he began his term by saying, at the height of the Cold War, and at the US' weakest point in the Cold War, that we should get over our inordinate fear of communism.  Soviet adventurism accelerated during his term in office, raising great alarm about the security of the US, culminating in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Carter was generally tougher on our friends than enemies when it came to his vauted human rights policy, something that may have contributed to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran.  This event had catastrophic political consequences for Carter, with the taking of the hostage by the militant Islamic government that replaced the Shah.  Carter effectively ceded all initiative in the hostage crisis to the Iranians, making himself a virtual hostage in the White House until they were released, which they were just as he left office.

For somebody who was not around at that time, it's hard to explain the mood of gloom and anxiety that pervaded the country under Carter.  People voted for Reagan because he gave them some hope, any hope, for something better.  And that's usually what elections are about -- who gives people a more optimistic view of the future.  And Carter lost that, hands down.

[dazzleman]

The strategy of bankrupting the Soviet Union was actually Reagan's.  His successful plan was to force them to respond to the US weapon's buildup, and therefore destroy their economy.

Carter did unwittingly contribute to the unraveling of the Soviet Union through his human rights policy.  He helped to spread the seed of separatism through the Muslim republics, and created fear about their own internal stability among the paranoid Soviet leadership.  Since these were conquered people who had not joined the union voluntarily at any point, they had good reason to fear.

The Helsinki Accords, which many conservatives including Ronald Reagan derided, also played a role in the unraveling of the Soviet empire.  The official placement of human rights in a document that the Soviets signed, whatever their cynical intentions were about honoring their agreement, led to a sprouting of independence movements in the captive nations, such as Solidarity in Poland.

President Ford, not Carter, signed the Helsinki Accords, but Carter made use of the Helsinki Accords to pressure the Soviets about human rights.

So I think that Carter needs to be given some credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union.  He also helped stabilize the middle east to a degree by negotiating the peace treaty between Eqypt and Israel.  He had solid accomplishments, but I think that a lot of instincts for dealing with the nation's problems were not the correct ones.  Nothing is all black or all white.

[dazzleman]

Hear, hear. Just out of curiosity, can anyone be said to have joined the Soviet Union voluntarily??

I don't think so.  The Baltic states were occupied militarily, as were the caucasus states and the muslim republics.  I think it was basically Russia forcibly conquering those other "republics."

[dazzleman]

Speaking of unusual elections, what is everybody's take on the 1948 election?

Not only was Truman not particularly popular going into the election, but his base was split not once but twice.  First, Henry Wallace, the former Roosevelt VP who would have been president had he not been forced off the 1944 ticket, ran against Truman as a progressive, on a platform urging accomdation with the Soviet Union rather than Truman's containment and cold war policies.

Then, the Dixiecrats broke with Truman over his support for civil rights for blacks.  At that time, it was considered impossible for a Democrat to win the presidency without the "solid south," a similar position to what the Republicans are in today.

And yet Truman won anyway.  I guess it helped that Wallace won no electoral votes, but he probably cost Truman New York state anyway.  And Strom Thurmond won several southern states as the Dixiecrat candidate.

This election did have the effect of actually hastening civil rights reforms, because once the Democrats saw that they could actually win without the whole south, they became more courageous about advocating equal rights for blacks.

I have always been a fan of Truman because he had the 'nads to revolutionize US foreign policy and he set up a national security structure that exists to this day.  He showed tremendous courage in urging permanent world involvement to a nation used to minding its own business unless attacked, and took the first step to save the world from Soviet tyranny.  I also admired his desire to move the country in the direction of fair treatment of blacks.

Does anybody have any thoughts on how Truman pulled off this victory against such great odds?

[dazzleman]

A while back, I read an analysis that stated that Truman's support of civil rights actually benefited him politically despite his loss of several states in the south to Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats.  I wish I could remember where I saw it and dig it up again.

I agree that there was a lot of demagoguery in what Truman said.  I also think that he was basically an economic illiterate.  His main economic proposals seem to have been wage and price control, high tax rates on higher income earners, rent control, government subsidized housing, .... you get the picture.

Luckily, Congress didn't pass most of his economic proposals, so the country prospered economically despite his left-leaning direction in economic affairs.

What really stands out about his presidency is his leadership in foreign affairs.  He went far beyond where Roosevelt had contemplated in confronting the Soviet Union and keeping the US engaged in world affairs after the war.

[dazzleman]

Yes, Korea was the forerunner to Vietnam, and although it wasn't as long as Vietnam (3 years of combat vs. 8 years in Vietnam), the casualties were comparable.

It was frustrating for the American people because it was a "limited" war, when Americans are more suited to all-out war like World War II.

The foreshadowed the period of getting involved in wars in which we fought only to avoid defeat, not to attain victory.  Americans don't do too well with that concept.

Truman was right in concept in Korea, but a good deal of it may have been mishandled in my opinion.  However, the importance of details fades with time, and the big picture is what counts.

[dazzleman]

I seem to remember that some ambassador gave the Koreans the wrong signal, so they thought they could invade without getting the western powers against them.

Yes, it was Sec. of State Dean Acheson, who gave a speech in January 1950 in which he omitted Korea from the areas he mentioned as vital to American security.  Some have said that this gave the North Koreans, with Russian support, the green light to invade South Korea without fearing American intervention.  It turned out to be a miscalculation on their part, but maybe it could have been prevented if the US had made it clear that it would defend Korea.  But maybe not.

[dazzleman]

Maybe, maybe not.  It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but we'll never know how much they wre affected by Acheson's omission.

I read an interesting passage once that said that while South Vietnam was collapsing in 1974-75, the North Koreans wanted to take advantage of the situation and invade South Korea, but that the Chinese told them to wait (apparently forever).  Of course, by this time the Chinese had begun their relationship with the United States, and considered the Soviet Union their greatest threat, and didn't want to deal a big setback to the United States.

[dazzleman]

I'm not sure it would have been seen that way in the US.  I don't think the US was in the mood at that time to engage in another war to protect other people from communism so soon after Vietnam.  Also remember that the Korean War became increasingly unpopular as it dragged on, and it was a huge relief when it ended - in a draw - in 1953.  So I really don't think the US could have produced a great victory over Communism under those circumstances.

We did a slight boost at the time from the Mayaguez incident in May 1975.  Cambodian communists stormed an American ship and took the crew hostage, and the US responded with military force to free the ship.  This was strongly popular with the American people at the time, but then it was only a 3-day operation.  I think it did show the world the the US would not be totally passive, even in the wake of the Vietnam debacle.

[dazzleman]

Vietnam is not the same thing as Afghanistan.  You may have fallen for the propaganda that the US was looking to impose a government in South Vietnam that nobody wanted.

But there were many people who feared living under the communists, and wanted to fight them.  The whole thing never came together, and it turned out to be a mistake, but it is not equivalent to the Soviet Union seeking to impose a repressive government of its liking on Afghanistan.

[dazzleman]

The mistake was in getting so deeply involved.  The North Vietnamese were supported by foreign powers (Soviet Union and China) but they did all their own fighting.  The question should have been, if the North Vietnamese can do their own fighting, with support from their friends, why can't the South Vietnamese do the same?

Part of the problem was the liberal 1960s mentality of creating dependency.  We effectively did the same thing to the South Vietnamese that we did at home to the poor, telling them that the answer to their problems was to accept help from the US government.  It failed in both cases.

Another problem for the South Vietnamese government was that its top echelon was comprise of people who had been loyal to the French, so it allowed the communists to pose as the only true Vietnamese nationalists.

I think a better course of action would have been to offer the South Vietnamese full assistance short of troops, and if they weren't able to hack it against the North Vietnamese alone, then it just wasn't meant to be, and the war would have been lost anyway, as it was.

[dazzleman]

Despite all that I said, I still think it was a terrible human tragedy that the North Vietnamese communists ending up taking over the whole country.

That's why I can never agree with the self-righteous anti-war people who said the war was morally wrong.  A mistake, yes, but it can never be wrong to fight evil -- the question is in how you go about it.  Many of the anti-war people were on the other side, and not only in Vietnam, and I find that unforgivable -- to live in a free society, reap all the benefits of a free society, and effectively support a totalitarian system for others.

[dazzleman]

[
Well, if you had destroyed the country, then you might have won. But I shudder at thinking at what kind of a blood bath that would have been. Within the context of civilized behaviour you couldn't have won it.

I don't know about Communists being worse than fascists. What about Hitler? Also, you have to remember that most dictators are pretty much alike, few are ideologcally Communist.

You really can't compare the South Vietnamese government to a fascist dictatorship.  This is a government that had to endure continuous infiltration and invasion by a hostile power, disloyalty by some portion of its own population, and despite that ran a society that was relatively free and threatened no other country.

There were no boat people fleeing from South Vietnam while the US-backed government was in power, despite the terrible war.  There were no large-scale "re-education" (read:concentration) camps sponsored by the South Vietnamese government, and that government did not kill people by the scores of thousands, as the communists did.  So there is no moral equivalency between the US-backed regime, whatever its imperfections, and the vile communist regime in the north.

The mistake we made was limiting the war to the south.  You must take the war to the enemy; that is a major dictate of war.  Had we brought the war to the north, through invasion and heavy bombing, they may have called off their aggression.  As it was, when Nixon resumed bombing of the north in 1972 in reaction to their massive conventional invasion of the south, it got them to the peace table, although by that time, there was little left to negotiate, as the US had removed nearly all its forces from South Vietnam, and had conceded on its demand that North Vietnam withdraw its forces from South Vietnam.  So it really down to a deal that we would stop the bombing if they returned the POWs and agreed to a "ceasefire" that they had no intention of carrying out, while leaving 300,000 troops in South Vietnam to continue their aggression at the most opportune time.

As I said, I think it would have been better had we never gotten so involved in Vietnam, and had made the south do their own fighting or perish earlier.  But that is hindsight.   I can't accept the idea that there is a moral equivalency between an incompetent and mildly repressive government, operating under unimaginable difficulties, and a brutal totalitarian communist dicatatorship that was willing to murder hundreds of thousands of its own people.