U.S. presidential election, 1920

[A18]

No hindsight.

The election of 1920 was a referendum on the Wilson administration and the League of Nations.

Warren Harding promised voters a "Return to Normalcy." The Republican platform called for a protective tariff, stricter immigration requirements, annual registration of aliens, and "equal pay for equal service" for women. It condemned the Wilson administration for unpreparedness in war and peace, and opposed U.S. entry into the League on Wilson's terms.

James Cox wholeheartedly supported U.S. entry into the League of Nations, and called for a federal effort to eradicate illiteracy in the United States. The Democratic platform supported maintenance of the tariff for revenue only, and advocated tax reform.

[PBrunsel]

Harding, seeing how I would have been an isolationst dry like most of Iowa.

[jokerman]

Cox

[Virginian87]

Cox.  As a supporter of Wilson, I would have been for the League charter but with some modifications so that Congress would not give up too much autonomy.  Unfortunately, Wilson would have none of that and his stubborness with Lodge and the Republicans led to his downfall and Democratic defeat in 1920, among other things.

[A18]

As a supporter of Wilson

Do you support suppressing free speech?

[Virginian87]

As a supporter of Wilson

Do you support suppressing free speech?

No, but I will admit that the measures taken during World War I to suppress the opposition were a huge blunder on Wilson's part.  Actually, another reason the League covenant did not pass was due to a liberal falling-out with Wilson during the war because of these measures.  The collapse of the Wilsonian liberal-progressive coalition was a costly blunder, and helped Republicans take back the Senate in the 1918 midterms. 

Then again, there have been problems like that in every war, i.e. Lincoln's military trials of civilians in the Civil War, FDR's Japanese internment camps, and the Kent State shootings in 1972.  Some would go so far as to classify the Patriot Act in there as well (though I'm not sure I would say that).

So, speaking of suppressing free speech, are you in favor of an anti-flag burning amendment?

[A18]

Then again, there have been problems like that in every war, i.e. Lincoln's military trials of civilians in the Civil War, FDR's Japanese internment camps, and the Kent State shootings in 1972.  Some would go so far as to classify the Patriot Act in there as well (though I'm not sure I would say that).

Lincoln I'll agree on. The rest have nothing to do with suppressing speech.

So, speaking of suppressing free speech, are you in favor of an anti-flag burning amendment?

No.

[© tweed]

Harding.  He was a good man.

[MasterJedi]

Harding, after the Leage of Nations and Wilson I'd want to get someone new and not from the same party in.

[Virginian87]

Then again, there have been problems like that in every war, i.e. Lincoln's military trials of civilians in the Civil War, FDR's Japanese internment camps, and the Kent State shootings in 1972.  Some would go so far as to classify the Patriot Act in there as well (though I'm not sure I would say that).

Lincoln I'll agree on. The rest have nothing to do with suppressing speech.

You're taking the statement too literally.  When I gave those other examples, I meant examples of other violations of domestic human rights the U.S. has committed in wartime, not just free speech.  And Kent State did have to do with free speech, under the freedom to assemble and protest. 

Anyway, let's not hijack the thread.

[Yates]

Harding.  He was a good man.

He cheated on his wife on numerous occasions.

However, because of his policies, I would have voted for him.

[A18]

Then again, there have been problems like that in every war, i.e. Lincoln's military trials of civilians in the Civil War, FDR's Japanese internment camps, and the Kent State shootings in 1972.  Some would go so far as to classify the Patriot Act in there as well (though I'm not sure I would say that).

Lincoln I'll agree on. The rest have nothing to do with suppressing speech.

You're taking the statement too literally.  When I gave those other examples, I meant examples of other violations of domestic human rights the U.S. has committed in wartime, not just free speech.  And Kent State did have to do with free speech, under the freedom to assemble and protest. 

Anyway, let's not hijack the thread.

We're talking about censorship, not some internment camps that lasted a few years. Both were bad, but the two are not comparable.

The federal government had nothing to do with the Kent State shootings, and clearly they did not have a constitutional right to strike there if the university didn't want them to. Was it public or private?

[Emsworth]

I would have voted for Cox. Both sides had agendas involving excessive federal involvement (the equal pay plank on the other side, and the illiteracy plank on the other). I would not have been too happy about the League of Nations, but Cox's opposition to protectionism would have won my vote.

With hindisight--had I known that Harding would die and allow one of the best presidents in American history to succeed him--I would have voted for the Republican.

[A18]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The equal pay plank was this: "The principle of equal pay for equal service should be applied throughout all branches of the Federal government in which women are employed."

[Schmitz in 1972]

I would vote for Harding, if for no other reason than that he opposed the League of Nations

[AkSaber]

Probably Harding

[Bono]

Harding of course. The first election to break the period of sucky candidates.