Henry Clay

The Republican Party Crisis: Does It Have A Future, Or Is It To Go Into The Dustbin Of History?

As we enter the year 2013 in two days, the long term future of the Republican Party as a legitimate long term alternative to the Democratic Party is in dire threat of disappearing into the dustbin of history!

The Republican Party lost the Presidential and Congressional Elections of 2012 in a sound repudiation, with Barack Obama soundly defeating Mitt Romney. The US Senate, with 23 of 33 seats up for election being Democratic seats, and expected to lose some seats, ended up winning 25 of the seats, gaining three seats and only losing Nebraska to the Republicans. The US House of Representatives, while remaining in Republican hands, saw a gain of ten House seats by the Democrats. If it was not for gerrymandering by many Republican state legislatures, the Democrats would have gained control, as they won more total votes nationally in House races than the Republicans.

So the GOP really was walloped, and yet the party seems unable to accept what happened, and have allowed themselves to be hijacked by extremist groups, including the Tea Party Movement, Americans For Tax Reform, right wing talk show hosts on radio and Fox News Channel, the National Rifle Association,The Koch Brothers and other millionaires and billionaires, right wing preachers, and anti immigrant nativists and anti women’s rights elements, therefore resisting the need to move back from the extreme right to the moderate center, where the party had many victories over the years as a more mainstream conservative alternative to the Democratic Party.

It is now a moment of reckoning, as the Republican Party is about to implode, as public opinion polls make clear that the party will be blamed if America goes off the “fiscal cliff”, and taxes go up on everyone, and ruthless spending cuts, which hurt the most needy and disadvantaged in our society, occur!

There is a possibility that the Republican Party will go into the dustbin of history, if they do not reform in time for the midterm elections of 2014, which could, ironically, lead to the demise of the party on its 160th anniversary, having been founded as a reform oriented party in 1854, replacing the Whig Party!

John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have a major burden to deal with as the New Year begins, and their own personal futures, as well as that of their party, is meeting the challenge of becoming what they once were, a mainstream centrist party that can appeal to the changing demographics of America, or be replaced by a modern day Whig Party, with statesmen and leaders on the model of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, and former Whigs who started the Republican Party, such as Abraham Lincoln!

John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, And Barack Obama

When one looks at American history and the conflicts that arise between Presidents and Congresses, it is clear that all Presidents have battles with Congresses over some issues, even when their party is in control of both houses of Congress.

Some Presidents are more effective than others in accomplishing legislative goals, and of course, some Presidents face an opposition party Congress control in both houses, and much more rarely, in one of the houses of Congress.

But when one looks at the depth of hatred and refusal to cooperate of the Republican majority in the 112th Congress, and probably likely to continue in the 113th Congress in 2013-2014, it makes one want to look back and see when did such hatred and refusal to cooperate become a general reality in our 224 year history?

The answer is twice before the present situtation with President Barack Obama–the times of President John Tyler (1841-1845) and of Andrew Johnson (1865-1869).

Both were Democrats put on the Presidential ticket of the Whig Party (in the case of Tyler), and the Republican Party (in the case of Johnson), to bring Democratic party votes to Whig William Henry Harrison in 1840 and Republican Abraham Lincoln in 1864.

Both Presidents Harrison and Lincoln died within weeks of their inauguration–Harrison after a month from pneumonia, and Lincoln by assassination six weeks into his second term.

When Tyler and Johnson, therefore, became President by succession, the party that had put them on the ticket as a balancing act electorally, totally turned against cooperation with both Presidents, considering them to be illegitimate successors, although constitutionally, legitimate.

So Tyler had battle after battle with Henry Clay and other Whigs, who were furious that he was President, and very little could be accomplished without constant battle,. There was also a motion to impeach Tyler, which, fortunately, went nowhere.

In the case of Johnson, things deteriorated quickily, and eventually, Johnson faced an impeachment trial on flimsy grounds, was found not guilty by the Senate, but had been weakened and repudiated, nevertheless.

In both cases, their major accomplishment was the acquisition of Texas under Tyler, and of Alaska under Johnson, the two largest states in land area.

The difference now is that Barack Obama legitimately won a majority of the popular vote twice, and still is rejected and mistreated by the Republican House, in a way not seen since the time of Tyler and Johnson!

John Kerry Joins Distinguished Company Of Seven Former Presidential Nominees Who Have Served As Secretary Of State

The indication that President Barack Obama has decided to nominate Massachusetts Senator John Kerry as the next Secretary of State adds dignity and statesmanship to that office, particularly in light of the exceptional leadership of the present Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Kerry has had a distinguished career as a United States Senator for 28 years, and is the tenth most senior member of the present Senate, and was, of course, the 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, losing a close race to George W. Bush, because of the electoral result in Ohio.

Kerry has been Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the past four years, and had he won the Presidency in 2004, he would have been responsible for our foreign policy for the past eight years, assuming he had won a second term.

He becomes the eighth Presidential nominee to lose the White House and become Secretary of State, following Henry Clay (under John Quincy Adams); Daniel Webster (under John Tyler); John C. Calhoun (under John Tyler); Lewis Cass (under James Buchanan); James G. Blaine (under Benjamin Harrison); William Jennings Bryan (under Woodrow Wilson); and Charles Evans Hughes (under Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge).

These Secretaries of State stood out as major figures in their times, and in our history long term, and John Kerry will be seen the same way when he retires from the State Department after serving Barack Obama.

Can Hillary Clinton Be Crowned President For 2016? Not Realistically!

As Hillary Clinton gets ready to leave the State Department after four distinguished years, she is being flattered by kudos paid to her brilliance, and public opinion polls that make her, on paper, an easy nominee and winner of the Presidency in 2016!

But hold it, everyone! Our system of government and elections does not permit the nomination and election of anyone without real competition, hard work, and lots of grief and “blood, sweat and tears”!

We do not crown anyone to be President, and if you believe otherwise, ask such luminaries of the past as Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, William Seward, Charles Evans Hughes, William Borah, Hiram Johnson, Robert La Follette Sr, Al Smith, Henry A. Wallace, Robert Taft, Arthur Vandenberg, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, Nelson Rockefeller, George McGovern, Bob Dole, Bob Kerrey, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, and even Hillary Clinton, about the conclusion that they would be President of the United States someday!

Fifty seven percent in a poll want Hillary to be President, but it is a long four years to 2016, and there will be many others who wish to be President, and the question is whether she wants to go through the same hell she went through in 2008!

Don’t be so sure that Hillary will run in 2016!

Presidents, Presidential Nominees, Presidential Seekers, Supreme Court Justices, And The Position Of Secretary Of State

Many followers of American history, government and politics may not be aware of the large number of Presidents, Presidential nominees who lost the White House, and Presidential seekers who failed to win their party’s nomination, who have been Secretary of State, the most important cabinet position. And also there are four Secretaries of State who have served on the Supreme Court of the United States.

The following Presidents have been Secretary of State earlier:

THOMAS JEFFERSON
JAMES MADISON
JAMES MONROE
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
MARTIN VAN BUREN
JAMES BUCHANAN

The following have been Presidential nominees, but failed to win the White House:

HENRY CLAY
JOHN C CALHOUN
DANIEL WEBSTER
LEWIS CASS
JAMES G BLAINE
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN
CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

The following sought their party’s Presidential nomination, failed to win it, but went on to be Secretary of State:

WILLIAM SEWARD
EDMUND MUSKIE
HILLARY CLINTON

Additionally, four Secretaries of State have served on the Supreme Court, with three of them being Chief Justice:

JOHN JAY
JOHN MARSHALL
CHARLES EVANS HUGHES
JAMES F BYRNES (Associate)

This is of great interest now as we have Senator John Kerry, 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, under serious consideration by President Obama to be his second term Secretary of State!

Secretary Of State John Kerry Or Secretary Of State Susan Rice? Kerry Should Be Favored!

With all of the hullabaloo over Senator John McCain’s derogatory comments about United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice in regards to the September 11 Libyan ambassador death controversy, a momentum has built up in the Obama Administration to double down on Rice, and decide to nominate her to be Hillary Clinton’s replacement as Secretary of State.

Susan Rice is certainly qualified for the position, and would do a fine job in the State Department. She has excellent qualifications, and educational and scholarly credentials to back her up for the nomination.

But what this struggle between John McCain and Barack Obama has done is minimize the possibility that the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry, might gain the position.

Kerry has has a long, distinguished career in the Senate, and had he been President, he would have had to deal with all of the many international matters that would have arisen. He has been a forceful spokesmen on foreign affairs for many years, and having been an anti war advocate in the past, SHOULD be seen as a positive factor, unlike conservative commentator Bill Kristol’s assertion on Fox News Channel yesterday that Kerry’s past anti war stands should disqualify him for the position. Kerry truly deserves this position, and would not be the first losing Presidential candidate to become Secretary of State, joining a long list who have served in the State Department after losing the Presidency, including

HENRY CLAY
JOHN C CALHOUN
DANIEL WEBSTER
LEWIS CASS
JAMES G BLAINE
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN
CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

Also, there have been former Presidential contenders, who failed to win the nomination, who have later served as Secretary of State, including:

WILLIAM SEWARD
EDMUND MUSKIE
HILLARY CLINTON

So TEN former Presidential seekers have gone on to serve as Secretary of State, and anyone with knowledge of American diplomatic history KNOWS that they are among the very best people we have had in that position, particularly the case with Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Blaine, Hughes, Seward, and Clinton. So if seven out of the ten have made a major impact, that is an excellent argument for John Kerry as Secretary of State!

Hardball, Knuckleball Political Campaigning: Part Of The American Tradition!

Right or wrong, hardball and knuckleball political campaigning is part of the American tradition, and is nothing new in 2012.

We can go back to the origins of political parties in the 1790s, with the Federalists and Democratic Republicans at each other’s throats, beginning with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson nasty toward each other in 1796 and 1800.

Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams, and Jackson against Henry Clay, is another example widely reminiscent of hardball, knuckleball campaigning.

Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas went at each other, and after the Civil War, the Republicans looked at the Democrats as “traitors”!

When the progressives became prominent, conservatives went on the counterattack and have not stopped, under Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and now Barack Obama.

The no holds barred attack by the right wing, including McCarthyism in the 1950s and again now with Michele Bachmann and others, is finally getting a full measure of counterattack by the Democrats and liberals and progressives, as they have come to realize that being a civil campaigner does not work, and only emboldens the opposition.

Sadly, many people are turned off to this attack and counterattack, but it is not going to go away, and for anyone to decide not to vote because of this is the height of irresponsibility, as even with disgust with both sides and their tactics, it still does matter who wins and who controls power!

To sit on the sidelines is a horrible mistake at at time when the future is so uncertain, and requires all citizens to participate!

Unpleasant Presidential-Vice Presidential Ties Throughout American History

It has become evident that in many cases, no love is lost between sitting Presidents and Vice Presidents, who often link up for electoral reasons, but often have poor chemistry in working together. And many times, a President has wished to “dump” his Vice President, when running for another term in office, and a few times has done so.

Examples of unpleasant Presidential-Vice Presidential relationships include:

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, with Jefferson, the opponent in the 1796 Presidential election, becoming Vice President, but leading to the 12th Amendment in 1804, to prevent any future such combination. The two men fought each other bitterly, and opposed each other again in 1800.

Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, “tied” in electoral votes in 1800, forcing the election to the House of Representatives, leading to Alexander Hamilton’s endorsement of Jefferson and trashing of Burr, and causing Hamilton’s death in a gun duel with Burr in 1804. Jefferson had no relationship with Burr, after Burr tried to “steal” the election, and he was “dumped” in 1804.

John Quincy Adams and John C Calhoun, who were rivals in 1824, had totally different views of the protective tariff, with Calhoun switching to support of Andrew Jackson and running with Jackson in 1828.

Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun were elected together in 1828, but Calhoun broke with Jackson over the protective tariff, resigning, and creating a potential threat of civil war, with the Nullification Crisis of 1833, resolved by a compromise devised by Henry Clay. Jackson even threatened to kill Calhoun if he promoted secession of South Carolina from the Union.

William Henry Harrison, elected with John Tyler in 1840, had totally divergent views since Tyler was a Democrat running on the Whig Party line, and Tyler succeeded to the Presidency when Harrison died after one month in office in 1841, and the Whigs made Tyler’s life miserable.

Abraham Lincoln and his first Vice President, Hannibal Hamlin, elected in 1860, hardly knew each other, and the indications are that Hamlin had no major role in the administration, and was replaced by Andrew Johnson on the ticket for 1864 for political reasons.

Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, elected together in 1864, with Lincoln picking Democrat Johnson to help win support in the North, then was assassinated, and succeeded by Johnson after six weeks of the second term in 1865.

James Garfield and Chester Alan Arthur were elected together in 1880, from different factions of the Republican Party, and when Garfield died from assassination wounds six months into office, Arthur finished up the rest of the term from 1881-1885.

Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall were elected together in 1912, but Marshall was “kept out of the loop”, and when Wilson suffered a stroke in 1919, was denied access to the President by Mrs. Wilson, never knowing the extent of Wilson’s incapacity for the rest of the term to 1921.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his first Vice President, John Nance Garner were elected to two terms together in 1932 and 1936, with Garner unhappy with the New Deal programs, and wanting to succeed FDR in 1940, and alienated when FDR ran for a third term in 1940.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his second Vice President, Henry A. Wallace were elected together in 1940, but Wallace was “dumped” by FDR in 1944, to please Southern Democrats unhappy with Wallace’s advocacy of civil rights for African Americans, and his backing of close relations with the Soviet Union.

Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon were elected together in 1952 and 1956, but Ike wished to “dump” Nixon in 1956 although that did not happen, and he was less than supportive of Nixon in 1960 and 1968.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, elected together in 1960, were never close, having been rivals for the Presidential nomination, with LBJ feeling slighted by Robert F. Kennedy, the Attorney General and brother of the President, and rumors swirling that he would be “dumped” in 1964, if Kennedy had lived.

Lyndon B. Johnson and Hubert H. Humphrey were elected together in 1964, but with Humphrey feeling mistreated by LBJ, and unhappy as Vice President, seeing himself trapped, and being undermined when he was the Presidential nominee in 1968, and LBJ working against him when Humphrey ran against Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were elected together in 1968 and 1972, with Agnew feeling “used” by Nixon to do his “dirty work” against the news media, and gaining no support from Nixon when in legal trouble over accepting bribes, leading to his resignation in 1973. Agnew refused to speak ever again to his former boss.

Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were never close, and the Bushes were never invited to the White House by the Reagans, after their two victories in elections in 1980 and 1984.

George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle were elected together in 1988, with obvious discomfort by Bush as to Quayle’s performance in his term of office as Vice President, and considered “dumping” him in 1992, but not done in that losing re-election effort.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore, elected together in 1992 and 1996, got along well, but after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a growing divide occurred between the two men, and Gore decided not to have Clinton help him in the Presidential campaign of 2000, and then the two men had angry words in a confrontation in the Oval Office after the defeat.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, elected together in 2000 and 2004, originally worked well together, but Bush then ignored Cheney’s advice often in the second term, and refused Cheney’s request that Scooter Libby be given a pardon. Cheney, in his memoir, made clear that his relationship with Bush had cooled.

So often, the relationship between President and Vice President has been a very difficult one, an interesting aspect of American history!

Exceptions to this were the close relationship of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller between 1974 and 1977, although Rockefeller was “dumped” from the ticket in 1976 for Bob Dole, a move that Ford later said he did for political reasons, and greatly regretted; the extremely close ties between Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale between 1977-1981, with Mondale practically a “Co President”; and the present relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden since 2009.

Ten Other Presidential Elections That Transformed American History For Better Or Worse

In addition to what are considered the ten most important Presidential elections in American history, there are also ten other elections that transformed our history, as history would have been different had the results been the opposite of what they were.

In chronological order, these elections are as follows.

Presidential Election of 1844—If James K. Polk had not won over Henry Clay, the likelihood of gaining the Pacific Northwest by treaty with Great Britain, and gaining the Southwest by war with Mexico, together the greatest land expansion since the Louisiana Purchase under Thomas Jefferson, would have been far less likely. But also the Civil War might have been delayed without the battle over freedom or slavery in the Mexican Cession territories gained from the war.

Presidential Election of 1864—An election often ignored, if Abraham Lincoln had not won over General George McClellan, who he had fired from Union Army military leadership, the Civil War, in its late stages, might have ended differently in some form, hard to determine.

Presidential Election of 1876—If the Electoral Commission and Compromise of 1877, giving Rutherford B. Hayes victory over Samuel Tilden, had not occurred, after a disputed election result in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, there might have been civil war erupting all over again.

Presidential Election Of 1896—If William McKinley had not defeated William Jennings Bryan, there might have been no Spanish American War, no Filipino Insurrection, and no gaining of overseas colonies, as Bryan opposed the idea.

Presidential Election Of 1916—If Woodrow Wilson had not squeaked out a victory over Charles Evans Hughes, he had readied plans to hand over the Presidency to Hughes early, with the Secretary of State resigning, Hughes being named Secretary of State, the Vice President resigning, and then Wilson resigning. Wilson left behind a hand written memorandum to this effect, concerned about the transition of power as the dangers of World War I came closer to the possibility of American participation.

Presidential Election Of 1928—If Herbert Hoover had lost to Alfred E. Smith, the likelihood of a very different reaction to the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 might have led Smith to being the equivalent of Hoover’s successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and his New Deal.

Presidential Election of 1968—If Hubert Humphrey had defeated Richard Nixon, it is likely that the Vietnam War would have ended earlier, and that there would not have been a Watergate scandal, and instead a continuation of the Great Society begun by Lyndon B. Johnson.

Presidential Election of 1976—If Gerald Ford had defeated Jimmy Carter, it is likely that after 12 years of Republican control and growing economic and foreign policy challenges, that the Democrats would have retaken the White House in 1980, and there would have been no Ronald Reagan Presidency.

Presidential Election Of 1992–If George H. W. Bush had not had to deal with an economic recession and the third party challenge of Ross Perot, the second highest popular percentage third party effort in US history, it is very likely that Bill Clinton would never have been President.

Presidential Election of 2000—If the popular vote recount in Florida had been continued, and the Supreme Court had not intervened to declare the election over, then Al Gore would have become President instead of George W. Bush, and there might not have been a September 11 terrorist attack, the resulting war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely not a tremendous growth in the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion

How much history would have been different if only the results of these elections had been other than what they were!

Vice President Joe Biden Suggests A Possible Candidacy For President In 2016

To the surprise of many observers, Vice President Joe Biden has suggested on a CNN interview with Candy Crowley that he might run for President in 2016, to succeed his boss, President Barack Obama.

Why is this surprising? It is because after two failed Presidential candidacies in 1988 and 2008, it was figured that Biden was just happy to be Vice President, play a crucial role in the Obama Administration, and then retire after two terms as Vice President at the age of 74.

But instead, Biden makes it clear that he is feeling good, enjoying his work, and will consider another run for the top spot.

How should one react to this? The author wishes to leave no doubt of his great admiration for Joe Biden, thrilled that he is playing a major role under Barack Obama, and convinced that he is adding to the stature and growth of the Vice Presidency. And Joe Biden has a winning personality–warm, gregarious, friendly, reachable–and has tremendous contacts and links to people on Capitol Hill. He is, in many ways, a more charming and charismatic Lyndon Johnson without the rough edges of the 36th President. He has tremendous experience, and in fact, would be by far the most experienced ever of any Presidential candidate, even surpassing Johnson, Bob Dole, and Henry Clay, among others. He would literally have 44 years of service in government by 2016, 36 in the Senate, making him one of the longest serving in that body’s history, plus eight active years as Vice President.

Having been Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee at different times, Biden would have a background that could not be matched by any Democratic or Republican opponent. He has the distinction of being the sixth youngest US Senator upon taking the oath, but the second youngest of all when one considers direct popular vote of the people after 1913, under the 17th Amendment.

His lifetime of service would be capped by four to eight years as President, but he would also be the oldest first term President at 74, and if he had two terms, would leave office as the oldest President in history. Only Ronald Reagan was elected in his 70s, and served two terms to just short by a few weeks of his 78th birthday, with Bob Dole being 73 when he ran, and John McCain being 72 when he was nominated.

The question is whether his health would hold up for the next five years and through a theoretical four to eight years after that. He would certainly be challenged by a new generation of leadership in his party, and his age might be a detriment. And since he is prone to gaffes and misstatements after so many years in office, and being extremely conversational by nature, he could have major problems in succeeding toward his goal.

One thing is certain–that if Joe Biden chose to run for President in 2016, it would be a fascinating run, whether he succeeded in his goal to be nominated and elected, or was retired after 44 years of distinguished service.