I’ve been following the discussions in the “Contradictions” topic. It got me thinking about the presidential elections since the beginning of the second half of the 20th Century through today.

It appears in presidential elections ideology is not the primary motivation for candidate support. It appears to be leadership abilities or perceived leadership abilities that makes the difference in the voting booth.

Overview

In my view as a nation we are less politically polarized than the two major
parties (or the ideological partisans) would like us to think. For example, the historical record indicates the American citizenry is far more interested in leadership or perceived leadership in the Oval Office than they are ideology. My view is based on the following:

If there’s an office from which to run and succeed as a presidential candidate it’s to serve as a state governor before seeking the nation’s highest political office. Voters for the past 57 years (15 presidential election cycles) have preferred governors or former governors over legislators. The second most successful route has been holding national executive office as Vice-President. The least successful path has been to seek election as a US senator without prior executive experience.

The notable exception to this trend were the 1952 and 1956 presidential elections when a one-term governor from Illinois (Adlai Stevenson) challenged a former 5-star WWII general (Dwight Eisenhower) for the presidency. Adlai Stevenson was known more for his brilliant oratory and less for his executive skills. He ran against a man well-known for leadership through orchestrating the Allied victories over Axis powers in Europe during WWII.

Detail

The last two US presidents elected directly from the US Senate were
presidents Kennedy and Obama.

Presidents who dissatisfy the electorate’s desire for leadership are often summarily removed from office in their second run for the job.

Contrary to the romance of history, President Kennedy (who won election by the thinnest of margins) was not particularly popular during his abbreviated term. He was in Texas at the time of his untimely death to boost his falling popularity.

Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton & George W. Bush were governors prior to being elected president.

LBJ became president due to JFK’s death.

Richard Nixon, a former Vice-President, was elected primarily on an anti-war vote and also by a thin popular vote margin against a sitting Vice-president.

In the past 57 years of presidential politics (15 election cycles) there have been four elections decided by very thin popular vote margins (1960, 1968, 1976 and in one case (2000), the person receiving a plurality of the popular vote did not win the electoral vote tally.

The following were years of convincing popular vote (but not landslide) victories for the Democrats:

1992, 1996 & 2008

For the Republicans:

1988

The Republican candidates were victors in what might be described as landslide elections:

1952, 1956, 1972, 1980, 1984

For the Democrats:

1964

Interesting to note, in all 15 of these cycles, a governor or former
governor was elected president 7 times:

1976, 1980, 1984, 1992, 1996, 1980, 1984

Four times former governors were rejected by the voters:

1952 & 1956 - Adlai Stevenson served one-term as governor of Illinois and ran against a popular war hero

1976 (Jimmy Carter after a dismal four years as president)

1988 (Michael Dukakis, one of the weakest presidential candidates of the past 57 years)

In these 15 election cycles vice-presidents or former vice-presidents who had never served as a governor were elected to office:

1964, 1968, 1972, 1988

Only three times has a vice-present or former vice-president been rejected by
voters:

1960, 1968, 2000

In 1968 the contest was between two candidates who had both served as vice-president (Nixon and Humphrey) and in 2000 the sitting vice-president received a plurality of the popular vote but lost the electoral vote tally.

The vote outcomes are as follows for all 15 presidential campaign cycles since 1952

2 - Military war hero elected as president (1952 & 1956)
2 - Presidents elected from the US Senate (1960 & 2008)
7 - Governors or former governors elected to office (1976, 1980, 1984, 1992,
1996, 2000, 2004)
4 - Former or sitting vice-president elected to office (1964, 1968, 1972,
1988)

In the following elections, a sitting president (who chose to run for election or re-election) was elected or re-elected:

1956, 1964, 1972, 1984, 1996, 2004

Sitting presidents (who chose to run for election or re-election) who were defeated in a bid for a second-term:

1976 - The “Watergate election.” Gerald Ford had never faced a national election before.
1980 - Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan, also a former governor
1992 - George Bush lost to a former governor, Bill Clinton

We can talk ideology all we want, but it’s not ideology that gets a person elected as president.

To make the contrast a bit stark:

Of the past fifteen presidential elections:

9 - Elections were won by candidates with executive experience (Military leader and
governors or former governors)

4 - Former or sitting Vice-Presidents (executive branch experience)

2 - Sitting US Senators

Conclusion

The American citizenry most often prefer perceived leadership than ideology in choosing a president.

In the 2008 presidential election, both of the major party candidates were sitting US senators. This was a first in recent American political history. I suspect President Obama’s mantra of change was an effective message during the campaign and many people voted for him based on perceived potential for leadership

However, he may be judged harshly by the electorate if he fails to deliver on that message. It’s leadership or a perception of leadership at least in presidential elections that appears to attract the interest of a majority (or winning plurality) of voters.

Here’s an admittedly subjective view of the political ideologies of winning presidential candidates over the last 57 years:

1952 & 1956 - Eisenhower (moderate)

1960 - Kennedy (moderate)

1964 - LBJ (liberal)

1968 & 1972 - Nixon (moderate)

1976 - Carter - (moderate)

1980 & 1984 - Reagan (conservative)

1988 - George Bush - (moderate)

1992 & 1996 - Clinton (moderate)

2000 & 2004 George W. Bush (?)

2008 - Obama (liberal)

I put a question mark next to George W. Bush because I’m not sure where he falls in the three-selection scale. He’s obviously not a liberal, but his presidential record wasn’t necessarily conservative. At the same time, the term moderate doesn’t quite fit.

In any case, over the last 15 presidential election cycles, moderates (if even viewed that way through the lens of time), have tended to win presidential elections.

Leadership qualities or perceived leadership qualities appear to be the winning credential in presidential elections.

DawnTreader - 30 August 2009 05:08 PM

Here’s an admittedly subjective view of the political ideologies of winning presidential candidates over the last 57 years:

1952 & 1956 - Eisenhower (moderate)

1960 - Kennedy (moderate)

1964 - LBJ (liberal)

1968 & 1972 - Nixon (moderate)

1976 - Carter - (moderate)

1980 & 1984 - Reagan (conservative)

1988 - George Bush - (moderate)

1992 & 1996 - Clinton (moderate)

2000 & 2004 George W. Bush (?)

2008 - Obama (liberal)

I’m sorry DT, but how could you rate Presidents Carter and Clinton as anything other than liberal. Maybe when compared to Obama they start to look more moderate, but when taken in the prospective of their times and their policies, they were very left leaning. There is a difference many times in how a candidate may campaign, attempting to draw in as many voters as possible and how they govern once elected. President Reagan was one of the few that was just as much of a conservative after the election as he was before. Note his landslide victory. I see George W. as a conservative when it came to the defense of this nation, but as a moderate on domestic policies. He failed to provide his party with direction and the congress was lost.

Just curious.

 

Great post, DT, and some great analysis. I honestly can’t add much to that portion of your post, and agree with most of what you observed.

MacCube: Clinton was absolutely a Centrist. He reduced welfare roles, he reduced the size of the government, he reduced, and eventually eliminated the deficit, and he was a free trader.

It’s only through the crap-colored glasses of Fox News that you can call Clinton anything other than a Centrist.

I’ll grant you that Carter leaned further to the left—price controls, for instance, being one of his biggest mistakes—but even still he was more centrist in his day than he was a leftist.

DT: George W. was neither conservative nor moderate, he was a radical right-winger with a firm belief in an imperial presidency (bolstered by Cheny’s even more fervent belief in that concept) and his having been picked by his God to lead the country.

He ruled by decree, he ignored the law at his whim, he abrogated most environmental and economic oversight responsibilities, and worked hard to impose radical Christian-right ideals and ideas into his governance.  He worked overtime to stick the government’s nose into the bedroom, and trampled civil liberties in the name of protecting freedom.

He expanded the size of government, and almost doubled the federal debt. He cut taxes and spent, spent, spent. He worked extra hard (actually, it was Cheny more than Bush on this one) to put business in charge of regulating itself, or at the least, business lobbyists in charge of regulating their former employers.

He authorized torture in the name of protecting liberty, for goodness sake!

The list goes on, but most of those things are neither conservative nor moderate ideals. They are radical-right wing ideas that boggle my mind.

MacCube - 31 August 2009 07:36 PM

I’m sorry DT, but how could you rate Presidents Carter and Clinton as anything other than liberal. Maybe when compared to Obama they start to look more moderate, but when taken in the prospective of their times and their policies, they were very left leaning. There is a difference many times in how a candidate may campaign, attempting to draw in as many voters as possible and how they govern once elected. 

The ineptness of the Carter Administration was one of motivators in my early life to get involved in politics. I do not intend in any way to demean Jimmy Cater the person. But his four years in the Oval office, in my view, were a political disaster.

In 1976 he ran against a sitting president and moderate Republican who had previously not been a candidate for office outside of a congressional seat in Michigan. Mr. Ford also carried the baggage of the Nixon pardon, a move he thought necessary to move beyond the Watergate scandal but cost him dearly on election day. Still, had the presidential election been held a week or two later, the outcome might have been different.

In securing the nomination in 1976 Jimmy Cater ran against classic liberals such as Jerry Brown and establishment liberals such as Frank Church. He was, comparatively, a moderate and considered a Washington outsider, which was attractive to the electorate at the time. I don’t see Jimmy Cater’s presidential decisions as being consistently in the classic liberal camp leading to a challenge from Senator Kennedy for the 1980 Democratic nomination.

Compared to 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern and his primary season opponent in 1980, Sen. Kennedy, I consider him a moderate.

As for President Clinton, I’m not about to sing his political praises. I consider him a political opportunist and a consummate politician. But that doesn’t make him a liberal. His political views and political practices regarding national policies did not have thematic liberal consistencies nor did he subscribe whole-heartedly to liberal schools of thinking such as “Minnesota liberals” Humphrey and Mondale or “Massachusetts liberals” such as Kennedy and Dukakis (references not intended to be seen as derisive).

DT, I respect your opinions, even when I disagree with them.

And I don’t always disagree with them.  

To wit: Clinton was indeed an opportunist and the consummate politician - probably the best politician (for good an ill) in our generation.  I also think he was a great president, that’s where we’ll most likely have to differ.

I also agree with your assessment of Carter as a moderate, but I think it’s clear he’s the closest thing to a liberal president we’ve had since FDR.

I’d be curious as to what you think of my characterization of W. Bush as a radical right winger in light of the points I used to illustrate that position.

To be honest, DTs posts have been the first ones in this thread that haven’t annoyed me. He gave a reasonable analysis without resorting to name-calling or slamming the beliefs of either side. They have been the most civil in the debate. Kudos for that.

It also annoys me when people refer to “Faux News” or “Communist News Network” or any of the other derogatory names used for the various news organizations. No news organization has an exclusive lock on the truth. There is truth in all of them and there is spin in all of them. Remember, they are, first and foremost, entertainment. Pure news for news’ sake died out a long time ago. If one really wanted a well-rounded position, they would listen to them all to get all sides of the story, not just the one that best fits their world view.

And Bryan, I think you (and many others) give Cheney WAAAAY too much credit and power, especially as VP (a relatively powerless position).

I think 50 years from now, history will hold a much more tempered view of the Bush administration (as usually happens after time passes). He was by no means a perfect president (far from), nor was he the evil whacko that many portray him to be. Just as Obama is neither the messiah nor the beast, and I’ve heard him portrayed as both. They are just men, trying to do what they think (or thought) is right. Sometimes they get it right, and sometimes they don’t. Regardless, they will never be able to please everybody no matter what they do.

There have been truly evil leaders/people in the world, but these two do not fit into that category.

Bryan Chaffin - 06 September 2009 04:23 AM

DT, I respect your opinions, even when I disagree with them.

And I don’t always disagree with them.  

To wit: Clinton was indeed an opportunist and the consummate politician - probably the best politician (for good an ill) in our generation.  I also think he was a great president, that’s where we’ll most likely have to differ.

I also agree with your assessment of Carter as a moderate, but I think it’s clear he’s the closest thing to a liberal president we’ve had since FDR.

I’d be curious as to what you think of my characterization of W. Bush as a radical right winger in light of the points I used to illustrate that position.

Bryan:

Jimmy Carter - I note your comments in a previous post citing the wage and price freezes. Again, I don’t see Carter as a liberal. I became politically cognizant during his administration and view his administration in its time, prior to the “Reagan Revolution” which, in contrast, would influence the characterization his administration when viewed through today’s political glasses. In my view at the time both nationally sanctioned political parties were decidedly moderate in their views. Dissatisfaction of this moderation on the Republican side led to the emergence of a Libertarian offshoot and an insurgent conservative movement.

On the Democratic side I see Jimmy Cater as more of a pragmatist in comparison to Frank Church, Mo Udall and Jerry Brown (among the competitors he faced in securing his party’s nomination in 1976). As a relative political unknown in the national political arena he wasn’t beholden to the Great Society baggage that influenced the political orientation of his competitors.

I agree the wage and price freezes were an egregious over step of Federal authority. But I think that effort (or series of efforts) resulted from frustration and executive ineptness rather than the consistent application of political theory. He was dealing with a really strange mix within his own party’s congressional delegations (resulting from the 1974 mid-term elections)  and his lack of leadership skills - I think he was overwhelmed by the duties of the presidency - compelled him to take disastrous courses of action. I see similar signs of political naiveté in the early months of the current administration.

In all, I see LBJ as more liberal in his application of policies and programs than Jimmy Carter. Although I disagree with many elements of the Great Society initiatives, I see LBJ as much more consistent and thematic in his approach to governance than Jimmy Carter.

Back to Bill Clinton - I’m not a fan of his presidency. But there are three examples that come immediately to mind in which I believe he showed appropriate and skilled leadership:

NAFTA - He bucked his own party to push through the initiative.

The Microsoft Anti-Trust litigation - I was pleasantly surprised by his administration’s support of the state attorneys general in their efforts reign in the company’s aggressive and illegal behavior.

Base closings - That was a political no-win scenario in which he skillfully worked with Congress to re-align domestic bases in the post-Cold War era.

Bill Clinton benefitted from the “Peace Dividend” and beginning in 1994 faced a Congress in opposition that helped to keep him on a moderate track.

In my view he had gratuitous character flaws that he allowed to overshadow his presidency. At the same time he faced a rabid faction in Congress that was eager to jump on any infraction or misstep that was real or imagined. If the guy had a bout of stomach distress and passed gas unintentionally upwind he’d face a congressional declaration the following day claiming he was a toxic danger to America and his deliberate, premeditated action was a primary source for claims of global warming.

Like his successor I think he often turned a blind eye to needed market regulation or at least regulatory reassessment in an increasingly global economy in favor of an “anything goes” approach to the markets. Not to heap praises on George W. Bush, but some of the market mess he inherited from his predecessor.

As for George W. Bush, I’m not ignoring your request to share my views. I will respond a bit later today after thinking through my concerns about his administration and its actions.

Intruder - 06 September 2009 11:36 AM

It also annoys me when people refer to “Faux News” or “Communist News Network” or any of the other derogatory names used for the various news organizations. No news organization has an exclusive lock on the truth. There is truth in all of them and there is spin in all of them. Remember, they are, first and foremost, entertainment. Pure news for news’ sake died out a long time ago. If one really wanted a well-rounded position, they would listen to them all to get all sides of the story, not just the one that best fits their world view.

That’s an interesting point and one reason why I enjoy my iPhone. It’s been years since I’ve watched a televised news show. I much prefer reading news from multiple sources (including American, Canadian and European news sources). My goal is information and insight, not to seek out a news source with an editorial slant or focus wholly in agreement with my own.

My political views today are not the same as they were even ten years ago and I hope with the passing of time and the seeking of wisdom my political views will not be the same ten years from now as they are today. While some views may not soften or change, seeking knowledge and understanding at least assists me in understanding the points of view of others.

Ignorance should be the enemy, not the person who espouses an informed but opposing point of view. Understanding the views of others assists in finding common ground. Most of seek the same outcomes - peace, prosperity and human dignity - it’s choosing the paths to travel in reaching those outcomes that appear to be the points of political conflagration and the source of animus between peoples and societies.

Bryan Chaffin - 06 September 2009 04:23 AM

I’d be curious as to what you think of my characterization of W. Bush as a radical right winger in light of the points I used to illustrate that position.

Bryan:

Here are some of my issues with the George W. Bush Administration. First I’ll delineate those issues, provide a summary and an elaboration of what I perceive may be the basis of your views. I’m seeking to better understand your vantage point.

Issues:

I believe he allowed the 9/11 attacks (as shocking as they were) to drive his view of the world and to see it as almost a wholly hostile global environment.

This has lead (in my view) to a disturbing and continuing rollback of domestic personal privacy rights and civil liberties that began in his administration and continues today.

On the economy, neglecting needed revisions (strengthening and/or modifying) financial regulations that were/are inadequate and outdated isn’t moderation.

An outright failure as head of the party in power to put a check on the excesses allowed in the House did not serve him or the nation well. He had an opportunity to properly shape and mold the fiscal policies of the nation but allowed the Congressional leadership to act without any kind of self-discipline while set-asides and earmarks that destroyed the integrity of the Congress continued unabated.

While aggressive tax cuts can help revive a faltering economy, he lost sight of needed fiscal balance and deficits spiraled out of control. I do find onerous tax levies to be economically disadvantageous, but keeping the budget in balance or close to balance is both an economic and national security concern. I did not see a well-developed approach to the tax cuts other than a consistent anti-tax stance which lead to skyrocketing deficits.

While fixated on Iraq no real initiatives were put forth to resolve the illegal immigration issue plaguing our nation. While I don’t believe in “open borders” I also don’t believe the wholesale deportation of millions of undocumented residents is realistic either. Illegal immigration is an economic, national security and international relations priority that requires solutions at the source: The flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central and South America who see illegal entry into the US as the only rational avenue to escape corruption, violence, government oppression and economic desperation at home. In other words, there are no other real options as long as this nation refuses to deal forthrightly with entrenched problems in the Americas. 

Neither Presidents Clinton nor Bush sought to address this issue in a meaningful way.

On Iraq: the decision to immediately disband the Iraqi army following the successful elimination of organized military resistance was not a stroke of genius. A new command structure quickly put in place while keeping the infrastructure in place would have, in my view, been a much more effective strategy.

On the decision to use military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power: The man was a dangerous despot who needed to be removed from power. Please remember it was the Clinton Administration that first called for “Regime Change” in Iraq as our nation’s foreign policy. The humanitarian crisis that was increasing in severity due to the diversion of revenue from sanctioned oil sales had to be stopped. However, the approach was hasty and obviously that nation’s recovery plan was ill-conceived.

Consequently, Iraq and homeland security became the nearly all-consuming interest of the White House to the detriment of needed governance (in my view).

Summary:

I did not see a coherent set of foreign and economic policies and thus I’m challenged to categorize the president’s approach to governance. Erratic policy sets or even a haphazard approach to governance are challenging to assign to a political philosophy.

Bryan: Your deep-seeded dislike for the Bush Administration is apparent. I don’t see the same deliberate motivations that you do because in retrospect I don’t think the administration was well organized in developing any kind of a thematic approach to governance.

As to your view President Bush was a radical right-winger, I really can’t say that I agree. Not to dispute all of your points, but I don’t see an administration that was so well-organized as to perpetrate such a scheme.

Elaboration:

I will say this: It appears his administration whole-heartedly embraced political and cultural factions with extreme views that sought to ignore and undermine sound scientific study in the pursuit of cultural and political change as well as economic advantage.

On the issue of radical Christian beliefs brought into government:

In the 2,000 years since the start of the Christian faith there have been brutal periods of infighting, oppression and intolerance that resulted in hard-fought changes to Church thinking, doctrine and application of theological concepts to the development of our civilization.

It was the Church that first funded the great institutions of learning in Europe in an effort to search for scientific truths as they relate to human and theological understanding. Through these institutions the scientific method was developed and the application of both faith and reason in theological understanding was advanced to benefit the cause of mankind.

Dismissing sound scientific study or deliberate adherence to simple and literal interpretations of profound theological works for the sake of political or economic expedience is dangerous. Whether this is Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s claims certain natural disasters were God’s “punishment” for perceived racial inequalities or fundamentalists who claim those same series of disasters were God’s “punishment” for perceived moral decay, we, as a society, begin to travel down a slippery slope.

More to the point: Ignoring sound science whether it applies to “climate change” or for the sake of political and economic expedience is just plain stupid whether it’s from the extreme right or the extreme left and neither should proclaim a divine prerogative as the justification for scientifically unsound positions or for unsound claims of divine intervention in support of their political positions.

Using solely faith and self-interpretation of profound theological works as the basis for justification of public policy is unsound and departs from the model of faith and reason. It sets up an indefensible position and seeks to establish the politician who practices this effort as above accountability to us mere humans under claims of divine decree or justification based on simple, self-interpretation of profound theological works.

An example of this errant thinking is the conduct of South Carolina Governor Sanford, who, in public statements, claims a justification to remain in his elected position following misuse of state resources for personal purposes, deliberate absenteeism from his responsibilities as governor to pursue an extra-marital relationship outside the country and to ignore calls for his resignation due to misconduct based on his self-interpretation of the biblical accounts of the life of King David. I won’t take the time now to delve into his views.

This kind of thinking and self-interpretation of theological works not only can lead to self-delusion, it sets one up to deny personal accountability and is a misstep from developed theological thinking and application of reason.

Allowing this kind of thinking to influence public policy is dangerous. In relation to the Bush Administration, embracing elements or factions that practice this mode of self-justification could have led to poor policy. However, I don’t see a concerted or organized effort to adopt this kind of thinking as an operating mode.

Self-delusion occurs in politics whether it’s based on primitive self-interpretation of theological works as justification or claims that a politician’s criminal behavior should be overlooked or minimized in the public’s eye because of the amount of “good” a politician claims to have done in the past. That’s also an unjustifiable position and speaks to rationalization of behavior based on some “greater good” the person claims to have achieved or enabled. Whether the self-delusion is based on secular rationalization or self-interpretation of profound theological works makes no difference in the outcome.

Compute17 - 16 October 2009 08:18 AM

I can’t add much to this discussion except that one always needs to take into account the role of the media in presidential elections. The candidates with the most money and the most influential sponsors get more air time, ads and a more favorable appearance on TV. The lobbyists in the background have a huge say in how their chosen candidate(s) are portrayed in the media. I have more of a cynical view in this regard, namely that the actual voters aren’t the real deciders hence this discussion is kind of moot for me. Think about it, there’s dozens of candidates every election and the media only presents a selected handful. Ones that represent their own interests (the media’s and businesses that is). Anyway…

I think the operative word in the entire analysis is “PERCEIVED” leadership skills. In the world of politics, perception is everything. And the problem with that basic fact is perception for the masses can be significantly swayed, if not outright controlled.  This is why despotic governments invariably control the media - because the people can only base their perceptions on what they know, and if what they know is controlled, then so are their perceptions of their political environment.

And even if the media is not controlled by the government, the main stream of information given to (in some cases FORCED on) the public IS controlled by a relatively few people. A case in point, and in my opinion a significant factor in the last election, is the fact that the MSM literally FAWNED over Obama. (Frankly they still do.) Prior to the election, Time magazine had him on the cover 6 times by himself (including a glorified, in-depth article on his past) and 6 times with his opponent (twice with Clinton, 4 times with McCain)  Compare that to McCain being shown only twice by himself on the cover (both times prior to the primaries) and 4 times with Obama. An environment of literal hero worship was created, starting before primaries were even over and carrying on to present times. (A NOBEL award for his POTENTIAL?  Pul-EEEEZE!)

Then there is, of course, the manner in which preconceptions can drive perceptions even in the face of opposing fact. The whole global warming issue is a prime example of that; from those who deny that the Earth is in a warming trend to those who place all (or at least the majority) of the blame on human activity - both in spite of scientific evidence that opposes their conclusions.

And perhaps, (definitely!) that is why our founders chose to focus on building a Republic, as opposed to a democracy. Democracy is, unavoidably, swayed by perception, and perception is all too easily swayed by MISperceptions, misunderstandings, skewed and incorrect data, and (worst of all) outright lies.