Political candidates “campaign in poetry and govern in prose”, meaning sometimes voters hear a different tune before and after the election. Usually, voters can only guess how one or both candidates may animate the presidency based on campaign rhetoric, but the 2024 presidential election is not one of those times. If the few similar examples in United States history tell us anything, it may be that many voters prefer change.
President Joe Biden debated former President Donald Trump Thursday night, as part of an opportunity for the American electorate to compare the record, promises and performance of two men who have already done the job. More than once before in U.S. history has a former president challenged a sitting president in a national election.
In addition to Donald Trump challenging Joe Biden in 2024, Theodore Roosevelt mounted a losing bid against William Howard Taft in 1912, and in 1892, Grover Cleveland avenged his 1888 re-election loss to Benjamin Harrison. (As a New Yorker, I must point out that, for whatever it’s worth, all three former presidents challenging incumbents hailed from various parts of New York State.) Although there are many differences between the political periods in question, especially the make-up of the American electorate, these past president versus president matchups may provide some parallels.
Potential Parallels
All three former-president challengers are assertive and reform-minded in their own ways, albeit with very different motivations and approaches. Roosevelt and Cleveland were champions of civil service reform and battled against the Tammany Hall political machine in New York. Both were strong executives, although Roosevelt undoubtably reshaped the presidency more in his progressive and energetic image than did Cleveland in his conservative context. Trump employs populist rhetoric and has a forceful approach to executive power, although his policies are often more helpful for the already powerful and he also uses anti-democratic rhetoric.
Another parallel is the tendency to give too much credit or blame to the man in the office. American voters often dislike incumbent presidents, becoming disillusioned for many reasons, some at least partially outside a president’s control, such as natural disasters or the economy. Fewer than half of American presidents have been reelected, although presidential elections in different eras make imperfect comparisons. In the modern era, since the presidency of Harry Truman, half of all presidents left office with a less than 50 percent approval rating. Of these 12 presidents, only Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton left office with north of 60 percent approval.
As the Smithsonian’s political history collection curator Dr. Jon Grinspan wrote in the New York Times in April, a vast wealth gap existed in both 1892 and 2024 election cycles. The Council on Foreign Relations also compared late 1800’s Gilded Age to today’s political climate, with both including, “technological change, economic concentration, and rising inequality; political partisanship, financial corruption, and social turmoil; populism, racism, and xenophobia.” Reform efforts and the problems of corporate power concentration were substantial issues in 1912 as well.
During Thursday’s debate, Biden and Trump both addressed economic concerns, but voters don’t always know who to blame for their financial woes. Whether or not either president deserves it, voters may blame one or both candidates for not having fixed economic problems while in office. Disaffected Americans living in today’s era of wealth inequality may turn to someone new as they did in the past if both Biden and Trump are nominated by their respective conventions this summer, as presumed.
Third Party Power
Perhaps the most important similarity between these three elections is Americans’ desire for a third choice. Elections in 1892 and 1912 involved competitive third-party candidates and generally strong support for a choice other than the previous president. The Smithsonian’s Dr. Grinspan pointed out that 1892’s main party candidates were disliked by many voters. Both candidates were seen as friendly to the rising dominance of powerful corporate interests at the expense of individuals, particularly among farmers in the South and West. Populist Party candidate James B. Weaver made an unusually strong showing, winning more than 1 million popular votes and five states, for 22 Electoral College votes. Although Weaver may not be considered a spoiler candidate in the modern sense, the Populist movement influenced the political climate so significantly that in 1896, the Democrats nominated a well-known Populist, William Jennings Bryan, and the Republicans doubled down with the highly business-friendly William McKinley.
In 1912, when party regulars still controlled candidate choice, that year’s Republican National Convention chose the incumbent Taft over former president Roosevelt, who wanted to reclaim the party helm after a disappointing term by his hand-picked successor. TR and his supporters then formed the Progressive Party, also known as the Bull Moose Party, to run against Taft as a third-party candidate.
In a highly unusual election, the supremely popular TR won 88 Electoral College votes, with the sitting president Taft winning only Utah and its 8 votes. Even the Socialist Party candidate Eugene V. Debs won almost 1 million votes in the popular election that year, although he didn’t garner any Electoral College votes. Taft and TR’s rift helped the progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson win the election.
Although we only have a few data points to draw from, it may be the case that when faced with the choice of president versus president, many voters clamor for something else. However, even with an extremely popular former president like Roosevelt, the American presidential selection process isn’t set up for third-party electoral success without systemic reform.
Polling & Presumptions in 2024
Many poll watchers today are concerned about the influence of third-party candidates, like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chase Oliver, Cornell West and Jill Stein. However, no matter how distasteful the likely binary choice of octogenarians Biden and Trump is to many voters, especially younger ones, third parties may play the role of spoiler. At best for voters who dislike the two main choices, strong third-party candidates can influence one or both, molding them into choices closer to voter preferences. At worst, voters wind up helping their least preferred major candidate win. As explained by the respected political science theorem known as Duverger’s law, our first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system means third parties are not competitive in national elections, and they siphon votes from the ideologically closest major party. In essence, voting for a third-party candidate may help your least favorite of the three by not voting for a less objectionable second choice who has a chance to win.
After Thursday’s disappointing debate performance from Joe Biden, pundits are currently discussing whether Biden might want to step aside for a younger candidate, although who might that be is yet unclear. Those who dislike both Biden and Trump are known as “double haters” and some argue they could be the decisive voters. We are right to be concerned about them if the song of the past is any indication.
Featured Image: Keppler, Udo J. August 7, 1912. “Salvation is free, but it doesn’t appeal to him.” N.Y. : Published by Keppler & Schwarzmann. Library of Congress. Accessed June 29, 2024.
Learn more about the image at the Library of Congress website.
Clio and the Contemporary 
Leave a comment