Historical Musing #2 (in "D" Minor)

With the 2008 Democratic primaries in a state of chaotic flux, I introduce another note from the past.

After the election of 1908, the majority of the nation showed that it desired to continue in the ways of Theodore Roosevelt, and with Roosevelt himself persuading the Republican Party to nominate William Howard Taft, now President Taft was elected 1,269,411 popular votes (but 321 to 162 Electoral) versus perennial challenger William Jennings Bryan. By 1912 the sentiment had changed somewhat, as Roosevelt had become greatly displeased at Taft's handling of the office, in particular the downfall of so many programs over which Roosevelt himself had labored so diligently. Wilson managed 41.8% of the popular vote, but with the opposition split between 27.4% for the Roosevelt Progressives and 23.2% for Taft and the Republicans. In the Electoral College the victory for Wilson was much more sweeping, as he had taken 435 of the necessary 531 to win. Taft was left with eight total electoral votes, winning only Vermont and Utah. With that reference in mind, let us move on to our blog.

There has been a change of government. It began two years ago, when the House of Representatives became Democratic by a decisive majority. It has now been completed. The Senate, about to assemble will also be Democratic. The offices of President and Vice-President have been put into the hands of Democrats. What dies the change mean? That is the question that is uppermost in our minds to-day. That is the question I am going to try to answer, in order, if I may, to interpret the occasion.

It means much more than the mere success of a party. The success of a party means little except when the Nation is using that party for a large and definite purpose. No one can mistake the purpose for which the Nation now seeks to use the Democratic Party. it seeks to use it to interpret a change in its own plans and point of view. Some old things with which we had grown familiar, and which had begun to creep into the very habit of our thought and of our lives, have altered their aspect as we have latterly looked critically upon them, with fresh, awakened eyes; have dropped their disguises and shown themselves alien and sinister. Some new things, as we look frankly upon them, willing to comprehend their real character, have come to assume the aspect of things long believed in and familiar, stuff of our own convictions. We have been refreshed by a new insight into our own life.

This sentiment is all the more true today than it was when it was spoken in March of 1913. The Republicans have had the ball for some time now, but for the past five to six years have fumbled their way around the field. It is now the Democrat's game to lose.

Yet as they stand poised to make a titanic comeback, can they "punch it in" for the final score, the Presidency? They are on the verge, but with two stars remaining on their team, fighting amongst themselves for the individual glory, they have turned even their fans back upon themselves, and with a cheering section such as that behind you the outcome becomes much more foggy.

The longer they can maintain the charade the greater the possibility that the rift they are creating between the continents of the two candidates will become irreconcilable.

There is a catch, however. This bickering and prolonging and dividing within the Democratic Party provides a constant torrent of free publicity, inescapable to nearly all Americans. This can work one of two ways:

1. A significant enough portion of the voters tire of hearing the names of either of the remaining candidates, leaving whoever emerges from this "thing" doomed.
   
2. We may be reminded of Rudy Giuliani's campaign, the theory being that by holding back he would increase his popularity by refraining from rubbing the public's proverbial noses in his campaign ad nauseam. To this end he refrained from many of the early primaries, deciding to focus instead on "Super Tuesday" states. This worked out poorly for him. Along those lines, the unceasing barage of "Democrat, Democrat, Democrat" may leave voters speaking softly to themselves: "Yes, Democrat, Democrat; I'm going to vote Democrat."
   

One thing to consider about that latter, though, is that the primaries are inherently geared not to the middle ground, but to the more extremes of party politics, people who very likely wanted, even needed, to have their proverbial noses rubbed into his campaign ad nauseam.

Likewise, McCain is seen by many as a moderate, and while there are many out there who simply will not vote for the candidate with the capital "R" after his name (again, this is the Democrat's election to lose), this is a sentiment largest in younger groups whose voting turnouts are schizophrenic at best; whereas there are a number of older, more dependable voters who have been split by this rift in the Democratic Party and freely admit to their willingness to vote for McCain should their candidate not survive the convention process.

There are many factors which complicate this thing beyond measure, but I remind the reader that this truly is the Democrat's election to lose: Wilson's sentiment in 1913 resounds today, but the Democrats are trying their best to throw that ball into the hands of the defense, and while McCain may not be a first-team All-American, he's the best we've got right now.