INTRODUCTION

The current election, at least from the Republican perspective, seems to be an unusual one, in that the nominee has so strongly divided his own party. Admittedly, the rancor of the campaign has strongly divided the Democrats as well, but that is more a division between two pressure groups, not a real debate on philosophical principles. The Democrats are divided on whether the Obama coalition or Clinton coalition will guide policy, they are not divided on what that policy will be. The Republicans are actually divided on the question of whether their candidate fits the party at all. The Democrats are fighting over politics, the Republicans over philosophy.

A number of people have suggested that this election will mark the end of the Republican party, others have suggested it will mark the point where both parties move solidly to the left. I am not convinced that either is correct. What is unusual is that this is one of the few times in history where a candidate has actually inspired a large segment of his own party to threaten to sit out the election. So, I went to history to see if there any historical analogies, and to see how things changed following them.

The analogies were few, as most parties try to find a nominee who appeals to his base. The few times parties have failed to find broad support, it was usually a regional dispute, such as the election on 1824, not a dispute over the party's philosophy. The few examples I did find were almost all turning points in the history of the party involved.

One example would be the Whig nomination of Zachary Taylor in 1848 and Winfield Scott in 1852, which led to the dissolution of the Whig party and, eventually, the formation of the Republicans. Another would be the election of 1896, when the nomination of Bryant marked the transformation of the Democrats from the hard money, laissez faire party of Cleveland to the populist party of Bryant. And, coming to more recent times, the nomination in 1964 of Goldwater, setting the stage for the eventual change of the Republican party, and of McGovern in 1972, marking the change of the Democrats.

At least, those are all the instances I could find of parties nominating candidates who seemed ill-suited to the current driving philosophy of the party. I suppose I could have included the major philosophical shift of the Reagan nomination, but, as it really grew out of the Goldwater nomination and subsequent fracture in the Republicans, I decided the Goldwater nomination was much more important. Also, by 1980 the Goldwater faction actually had, at least temporarily, seized the Republican party, or a significant part of it, thanks in large part to the Nixon and Ford administrations.

I also excluded some others, such as the fracture of the Democrats between pro and anti slavery factions in the 1850's, as the pro-slavery forces maintained control of the party, so the nominee fit, rather than conflicted with, the driving philosophy. Likewise, I left out the 1904 and 1908 Republican nominations, even though Theodore Roosevelt won an aberrant nomination as something of a "reform" Republican, since the party was undergoing a bit of a philosophical crisis at the time, transforming from the old protectionist Republicans, through a short lived progressive/reform phase, to eventually become the mostly free-trade party of Harding and Hoover¹.

Which leaves us with four different landmark elections to examine, looking for the one which seems the best model of today's Republican nomination.

THE WHIGS 1848

This is the example most often offered up by those dissatisfied with McCain. The Whigs, following the Mexican American War, nominated war hero Zachary Taylor. The problem was, while a sure winner, Taylor did not share any of the Whigs' beliefs. In addition, by nominating a war hero, the Whigs prevented themselves from criticizing the Democrats for involving the US in a war with Mexico, which the Whigs had opposed.

In short, Taylor was the worst possible selection. And, because of his lack of agreement with the Whig platform, he ended up campaigning solely on his war record and personality. It was a successful campaign, but it had disastrous results for the Whigs.

After Taylor died in office, rather than stick with his vice president, the Whigs tried nominating another war hero, Winfield Scott, in 1852, and lost. This was followed by the dissolution of the Whig party, which eventually led to the formation of the modern Republicans.

The parallels are obvious, at least from the point of view of conservatives unhappy with McCain. The nominee was selected for his likelihood of being elected, with no regard for his political position.

On the other hand, there are some serious differences as well. McCain, while quite liberals, is not an exact analogy to Taylor. McCain not only claims to be conservative, he does share some positions with conservatives. Despite the opinion of the conservatives, he is a much better fit than Taylor was. McCain may not be completely conservative, but he does definitely represent the views of a segment of the Republican party, unlike Taylor, who shared almost no views with the Whigs.

THE DEMOCRATS 1898

Turning to 1989, we find an election which may be a better fit, the nomination of Populist Party agitator William Jennings Bryant. Coming as it did only 4 years after the nomination of laissez faire president Grover Cleveland in 1894 this marked a dramatic shift in the Democrat Party. Of course, it had been coming for some time, as the populists had been taking over the Democrat parties of the west and south, moving the party away from the pro-gold standard, laissez faire position it had pursued since the civil war (and before the war as well). However, this seizure of the party by the western and southern states marked the beginning of the transformation of the Democrat party from the free market, small government party into the more "progressive", activist party that it remains today.

What makes it interesting for our purposes is that the nominee was backed by one segment of the party and repudiated by another. Like McCain, Bryant had his partisans and his detractors. Also like McCain, the nomination caused serious fractures within the party, though, in the case of Bryant, it actually caused hard money Democrats to walk out and from the National Democrat party.

On the other hand, there are some serious differences as well. Bryant represented a definite philosophy, and his position was one toward which the Democrats had been slowly moving for some time. In the west and south populist Democrats had held local and even nation office for a while by the time Bryant was nominated, so it was not exactly a surprise that the populists made a bid for control of the party.

On the other hand, McCain does not truly represent a philosophy which is vying for control of his party. Many claim he is a a "RINO" (Republican in Name Only), but McCain calls himself conservative and at least makes an effort to appeal to the conservative wing of the Republican party. While his policies may often deviate from conservative principles, they do not form a coherent alternative to conservatism, and his partisans do not form a block distinct from conservatives.  If anything, his supporters and opponents differ mostly on how much one can deviate from the conservative orthodoxy, and in which areas, and still be considered conservative.

So, though 1896 seems similar on the surface, the fact that Bryant represented an opposition movement which seized control of the Democrats makes the race quite distinct from the McCain nomination.

THE REPUBLICANS 1964

The Republican nomination of Goldwater in 1964 is another possible analogy to the current nomination, though from the opposite direction. For two decades, the Republican party had been playing catch up with the Democrats. Ever since FDR had changed the face of government, intimately involving the state in all things economics, as well as laying the foundation for the modern welfare state, the Republicans had been reduced to a policy of saying "me too" to the Democrats. Following the pattern established by Eisenhower, the Republicans had offered no serious opposition to interventionist government, arguing only over questions of scope, and whether the state should more strongly favor labor or industry.

The Goldwater nomination was the first serious break with that position. As the Bryant nomination represented an effort to change the focus of the Democrats, the Goldwater nomination was an effort to change what it meant to be a Republican.It ultimately failed, and did not yield fruit for another decade and a half, but it was the first serious step in a change that would eventually take hold. Of course, it also differed from the Bryant nomination in that the Bryant movement was largely external to the party, an effort by the populists to enter and seize the Democrats, while the Goldwater movement was a grassroots movement within the party itself, but other than that, the movements were very similar.

Now, there were many superficial similarities between the Goldwater nomination and that of McCain. The animosity that accompanied the triumph of conservative Republicans over the more traditional Republican position (as embodied by Nelson Rockefeller) was very similar to the animosity that many conservatives feel for McCain. In fact, the similarities are striking enough that I would despair for the McCain campaign were it not for the fact that neither Obama nor Clinton are even half as competent at campaigning as Johnson was.

However, despite that similarity, I will still argue that the lack of an explicit philosophy behind McCain, just as in the comparison to the 1896 election,  makes the Goldwater nomination a bad example. McCain and his supporters claim to be conservatives, just like his strongest opponents. So, while the meaning of conservative may be in dispute, there is really no conflict between opposing philosophies as there were in the Goldwater or Bryant nominations.

THE DEMOCRATS 1972

The final comparison is to the Democrat nomination of 1972. As with the Bryant and Goldwater nomination, this represented a shift of focus for the party, moving power from the more moderate, pro-defense old guard and the more radical anti-war Democrats. It also represented one of the final steps in driving the conservative southern Democrats into the Republican party. The changes it started in the party, moving it from the party of JFK and Johnson to becoming the party of Carter and Clinton are still with us today.

One thing which is immediately striking for our purposes is that, like the McCain nomination, this shift in focus was achieved without any explicit change of philosophy. While Bryant brought populist politics to the Democrats, and the Goldwater nomination was a struggle between conservatives and "Rockefeller Republicans", the battle for the Democrat party was fought out over specific issues (eg. pro-war vs. anti-war) and not between explicit philosophies. This resembles the McCain nomination most closely, as both nominations featured disputes over specific topics but no open argument over general principles.

On the other hand there is a significant difference. While the Democrat establishment may have been unhappy with the McGovern nomination, by 1972 the Democrats had already perfected the ability to bring the party together following the primary. (An ability they may lose in 2008, but that remains to be seen.)  While they could not convince the voters to unite behind McGovern, the party hierarchy did, so there was not the visible fragmentation McCain is causing. And, while McGovern's nomination was one of the incidents which eventually drove the conservative southerners tot eh Republican Party, that did not take place until well after 1972.

ONE MORE POSSIBILITY

So, despite many partial matches, we have yet to find an election which matches the McCain nomination.

Perhaps we should take another look at one I excluded earlier. It seemed a bad fit at the time, as so few superficial traits fit, but perhaps the nomination of 1904 is a better match than I thought.

Now, let us look at the Republican Party of 1904 and the party of 2008.

In 1904 the Republican Party was in a state of confusion. Since the end of slavery as an issue, the Republican Party had been a strange hybrid, championing protectionist measures favoring domestic industry as well as inflationary measures targeted at appealing to farmers. With the Democrat merger with the progressives, much of the farm support went to the Democrats, so the Republicans, led by "reform Republican" members, attempted to become the champion of labor, especially in the fight against the "robber barons". It was an uncomfortable fit, and before long the Republicans would change yet again, becoming the semi-laissez faire, semi-protectionist party of Hoover and Harding. But for a brief moment, the Republicans and Democrats were actually fairly close in their beliefs, both adopting policies which would today be labeled liberal.

Likewise, the Republican Party of 2008 is in the midst of change. Admittedly, the change has been taking a long time. Following almost 50 years of  being a rather bland, moderate party (1908-1964), neither strongly laissez faire, nor strongly protectionist, and following the 1940's also weakly in favor of social spending, the Republican Party suffered an internal revolution. With the rise of "Goldwater Republicans" the party saw the birth of an internal struggle which is still taking place. At first (1964-1980) the traditional Republicans dominated the conflict, until the so-called Reagan Revolution of 1980 forced the party strongly toward the conservative side of the argument. The Bush presidency was something of a step back toward traditional Republicanism, but if we ignore the nominal head of the party, it appears that conservatives held sway from 1980 through 1996. In 1996, with the nomination of Dole, and again in 2000 with the move toward "compassionate conservatism", we saw a resurgence of them more traditional Republican moderation. Then again, the fact that it had to masquerade as "conservative" shows that the conservative side still has a strong influence. But, overall, the question is still not completely settled. Some regions (eg. Maine) still cling to the older tradition, and in national politics both sides have their partisans. It appears the conservative shave a bit of an edge, but the question has yet to be definitively answered.

With situations so similar, the fact that the nominations are similar will come as no surprise. Theodore Roosevelt was hardly the darling of the party.  As a "reform" Republican he was not well liked by the party hierarchy. Nor did he have anything approaching a consistent philosophy. He may have been dedicated to "reform", but anyone looking at the measures he supported would be hard pressed to find any overall plan to them, excepting an intense distrust of business.

All of which seems to fit McCain almost perfectly. He is not a sitting VP as Roosevelt was, but he was nominated almost as accidentally, more on the weakness of his opposition than on his own strength. And just like Roosevelt he is dedicated to change, but not to any specific philosophy. He makes policy more on a whim than as the result of any consistent theory of government. In fact, one could almost picture McCain glorying in being called "trust buster", as Roosevelt did. It would hardly seem out of character.

Of course, Roosevelt's nomination caused a bit less griping than did McCain's, but perhaps that is more the result of our media driven age more than anything significant. After all, it was hard tot ell if the rank and file was grumbling in 1904. And, to be honest, much as they grumble, the rank and file of today is hardly leaving the party to form a new opposition. They may gripe, may sit out the election, but they are taking no more decisive action, and neither did their counterparts back in 1904. So, perhaps had there been a 1904 analog to the blogs of today, we would have heard the same grumbling, but without that we are left seeing nothing but the same inaction.

CONCLUSION

If my analogy is correct, and McCain is closest to Roosevelt, being an accidental nominee who fits poorly with the party he represents, that leads to a few cheerful possibilities.

First, Roosevelt was dropped in 1908 in favor of Taft, meaning that we will not need to endure more than four years of McCain. Second, with the nomination of Taft, the Republican policy of "reform" officially ended², meaning that McCain's "maverick" policies, which I take as an embodiment of Republican big government, may finally come to an end. Finally, the Republican Party at last adopted a new, unified position to replace the confusion that had existed for a decade.

On the negative side, Roosevelt left us a legacy of many of the earliest regulatory agencies, among them the FDA and ICC. He also started the anti-business trend in government through his consistent hostility to "the trusts". Then again, I doubt McCain would have the freedom of action Roosevelt had. In a stroke of luck (and a bit of irony) the obstructionist Democrats will likely prevent McCain from doing too much harm, if only from their fear he will "get credit" for his bad ideas.

So, if I am correct, so long as we can make it through four years of McCain we can look forward to the final death knell of big government Republicans and the adoption of more consistently conservative policies³.

Of course, drawing conclusions from history rarely ever works out well. While the present may look a lot like some time in the past,t he two are never that similar, so it is foolish to draw too specific a conclusion from looking at the past.

Then again, when my theory comes up with such a pleasing outcome, I am tempted to forget all of that for a moment and just hope I am right.

---------------------------------------------------------

1. When I say "mostly free trade", I am thinking in terms of domestic trade. Obviously in terms of international trade the early 20th century Republicans were strongly protectionist. Actually, most of the world was strongly protectionist. I wrote a bit more on the topic earlier.

2. Though Taft was a protege of Roosevelt, and was claimed as a progressive reformer, he broke with FDR and adopted a more conservative stand. He was not as fully conservative as the party would become in subsequent years (though he did continue some of Roosevelt's policies), but the choice to nominate Taft rather than Roosevelt definitely shows that the Republicans were finished with reform. Even if one is not inclined to see Taft as a champion of more conservative values, the 1916 nomination of Hughes definitely marks the end of reformers in the Republican party.

3. I am not saying the Republican Party of 1912 or 1920 was "conservative" in a modern sense. In its support of high tariffs it was often more protectionist than laissez faire. Then again, Pat Buchanan would probably feel right at home should he time travel back to the 1916 convention. So, when I use the term "conservative" in terms of the early twentieth century, be aware that I do not mean it in the modern sense.