Matthew Yglesias » The Case for Willkie

Oct 24th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

The Case for Willkie

The New York Times has posted an interesting feature wherein you can read all of their presidential endorsements going back to Abraham Lincoln. They endorsed JFK over Nixon, and then since Civil Rights and realignment have been a solidly Democratic newspaper. But before that they were more idiosyncratic. I just read their 1940 endorsement of Wendell Willkie (following endorsements of FDR in ‘32 and ‘36 and also also of the lost cause Democrats of the 1920s) and except for a ludicrous outburst of balanced budget mania in Section III it’s pretty persuasive.

Comments
32

32 Responses to “The Case for Willkie”

King Rat Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Willkie was a good candidate. Not as good as his opponent, but a good candidate.

He also went on to play an honorable role in the U.S. war effort, both before and after Pearl Harbor. Eleanor Roosevelt said that he was likely to avoid the historic oblivion traditionally assigned to Presidential losers. She was wrong, but you can see why she said it.
CBIG Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I thought their endorsement of Lincoln in 1860 was also quite interesting in light of our current times
Petey Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
“I thought their endorsement of Lincoln in 1860 was also quite interesting in light of our current times”

It’s interesting in the fact that basically every single assumption of that editorial was incorrect. For example, they assert that if Lincoln is elected, “Things will go on as if they have”. Missed it by that much…
cbc Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I think the most striking thing about that tool is getting to the end and seeing Obama’s face after the string of white men. It really puts it into perspective what a huge thing this country hopefully is about to do.
Felipe Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Me I was thinking Lindy back in ‘40.
stefan Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I had to look up the NYT 1896 endorsee, John Palmer, since I’d never heard of him. 79 years old and got 1% of the popular vote. Nice sectional history.
Asher Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I think the most interesting thing about the Wilkie endorsement is that line where he speaks positively of American liberalism. Times really have changed.
Edward, the mad shirt grinder Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
In response to King Rat, doesn’t Matt’s post show that Eleanor was right? Willkie is more memorable than most losing candidates precisely because of the honorable (as things were understood then) campaign he conducted.
Curly Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Willkie is more memorable than most losing candidates precisely because of the honorable (as things were understood then) campaign he conducted.

And here I thought it was mostly because of the alliterative name.
David Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
He is more forgotten than Al Smith or Goldwater.
Rob Mac Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I’ve been thinking about the FDR/Willkie 1940 campaign lately for some reason, and for the first time it really hit me what an obnoxious power grab it was for FDR to run for reelection after two terms. The US was not at war. The depression was, for all intents and purposes, licked. His legacy had been clearly established with social programs like Social Security.

But he had to run for re-election after every two term president in history, starting with George Washington, had chosen not to? If it had been a Republican who had tried this Democrats would consider such a man to be history’s greatest monster, and I say that as a tremendous fan of what FDR accomplished. Would it really have been so impossible for him to have let Henry Breckenridge or John Garner or some other Democrat carry the banner that year?
John Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
In terms of 1896, the Times had become, with Cleveland, a Democratic paper (which it has more or less remained ever since). But conservative northeastern Democrats did not much care for William Jennings Bryan, and a lot of them (including President Cleveland) supported Palmer. Most of these in 1900 supported McKinley, then returned to the fold in 1904 when the conservative New York judge Alton B. Parker was nominated to oppose TR. I’d guess, though, that most Democratic papers remained in the fold in 1908 and held their nose and endorsed Bryan, but apparently not the Times. Other than opposing Bryan all three times, the Times has endorsed the Republicans a pretty small number of times since the party switch in 1884. Wilkie in 1940, Dewey in 1948, and Eisenhower twice. Every other time they endorsed the Democrat.
John Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
The US was not at war.

The world was at war. It was certainly a power grab, but I don’t think it was unjustified. Also worth noting is that John Nance Garner was an anti-new deal conservative who had helped scuttle Roosevelt’s court packing law. I have no idea who Henry Breckenridge is supposed to have been.

At any rate, the idea that the US was not in a crisis situation in 1940 is America First nonsense.
Linus Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I wonder what the Times had to say about that Alaskan deal.

(The Democrats didn’t send the Jews to Alaska either Linus.)

That’s true. Answer me this then: why did that kid at b&h not answer my question this morning and try to sell me stuff that wouldn’t help me take pictures of treasure maps.

(He was just being smart Linus. He’s probably one of these fresh kids.)

I suppose. But now I don’t know what to order.
Hector Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Rob Mac,

If FDR wanted to run for ten terms, he should have had that right. Term limits are a dumb idea and do nothing but empower corrupt oligarchic elites who don’t want to give popular reformers enough time to complete their projects. They represent a classic and particularly pernicious expression of the tendency of liberal states to elevate process over substance, and means above ends.
Danny Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
The NY Times views economics was not at all left-wing, the endorsement of Roosevelt in 1936 was hardly overwhelming, and they objected to various aspects of the later New Deal (and there was more to complain about after 1936). Until the Republicans started getting bat-shit crazy the NY Times would prefer Republicans to Democrats as long as the Republican candidate was solidly Internationalist. If anyone other than Willkie would have been the Republican nominee, the NY Times would have supported Roosevelt.
Another Chris Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
except for a ludicrous outburst of balanced budget mania in Section III

A lot of liberals and newspaper editors did this after elevating Paul Tsongas to veritable sainthood in ‘92. I’ll never understand what people saw in that sanctimonious prick.
Linus Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
(I think you meant for me to say something like: that was a dumb question Linus. You should’ve asked the guy a good question. He would’ve answered that.)

He was just being smart. He was one of these fresh kids.

(There you go.)

So what happened then?

(Something like: dude that thing you want is completely stupid. You should get this center column pod.)

That sounds about right. What happens next?

(You say: But I need to shoot these things at 90 degrees. He goes: it doesn’t matter. My girl Bathsheba loves it. I’m getting one with my discount.)

Can I get his discount too?

(What are you smoking man?)

See?
Peter Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Willkie would have died in office had he won.
Gene O'Grady Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
John Palmer (mentioned in no. 6 above) was the last Civil War general to run for president — interestingly, with a Confederate General as running mate — whose grandson, a US general in World War II, made what is perhaps the most ridiculous and offensive racist remark in American history.

Palmer (along with Logan, also a potential president) was one of the two good high level political generals in the Civil War. And he got around — rather like John Geary, after whom the street and theatre in San Francisco are named, who, in addition to being a lower level general, was governor of Kansas and Pennsylvania, plus mayor of San Francisco and Savannah.

My kids remember Wendell Wilkie from watching old cartoons I got on the cheap at a remainder sale. Guess the rest of you missed that cultural experience.
Ed Says:
October 25th, 2008 at 4:44 am
I agree with Rob Mac. I think if I had lived in 1940, I would have voted for Willkie, just on the “no third term” issue alone. And Willkie did improve on the Republican performance in 1936, though that was not hard to do, given that the 1936 election was probably the most lopsided in American history.

In retrospect, FDR was the best person to lead the US through World War II, but I don’t think Willkie would have been that bad, nor would have his running mate McNary (Willkie would likely not have lived through his first term).
Ranjit Says:
October 25th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I thought the most interesting thing about the Wilkie endorsement was the editorial “it” (as opposed to “we”). Never seen that before.
levitra Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:02 am
levitraIt is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 6:06 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
zyban Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 1:53 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol Says:
March 17th, 2009 at 2:52 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
buy viagra online Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:58 am
buy viagra online
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
viagra brand Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:53 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra

Matt Yglesias

The Case for Willkie

32 Responses to “The Case for Willkie”

Blogroll