Among other blessings for which Americans can give thanks this
and every Thanksgiving is the quality of its defeated presidential
candidates. Their character, talents, and reaction to loss reveal
as much about our nation as do the winners. C-Span’s ongoing series
The
Contenders spotlights 14 failed but significant
presidential campaign losers.
It starts with Henry Clay and concludes with Ross Perot.
The next three yet to be broadcast programs, besides Perot, feature
George Wallace and George McGovern. Each program largely elevates
the reputation of each defeated candidate, and perhaps they will
succeed with these final 3. Most fascinating have been Henry Clay,
William Jennings Bryan and Adlai Stevenson, already commonly
praised as towering if flawed statesmen. But The
Contenders restores respect for poor Tom Dewey, so commonly
derided as aloof and arrogant. And even Wendell Willkie, though
bombastic and easily persuaded, is portrayed
sympathetically.
Hardly as clueless to his demise as often assumed, Dewey
well knew FDR would defeat him in 1944. Fascinated with the early
science of political polling, he also sensed Truman’s widely
undetected late surge during the 1948 campaign. But Dewey thought
it too late to alter his own careful campaign strategy. The
omnipresent historian Richard Norton Smith noted that Dewey ran the
sort of high-toned, issue based, impersonal campaign that media
pundits claim America needs. It was a boring dud. C-Span
interviewed Dewey’s laconic son, who recalled his forward-thinking
father never later discussed the stunning 1948 loss. Now mostly
forgotten, Dewey had been a meteor-like phenomenon, who became a
national celebrity and presidential candidate while still a
thirty-something, crusading New York prosecutor. He left the New
York governor’s office at age 52, already an elder statesman who
never again ran for office but who was instrumental in the rise of
both Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower. He died at only age 68 at
a golf resort while vacationing with his friend, agro-businessman
Dwayne Andreas. Fellow failed candidate Hubert Humphrey was another
personal friend whom Dewey knew through Andreas. No liberal, Dewey
once supposedly told big spending Nelson Rockefeller: “I like you
but I can’t afford you.”
Willkie’s rise was even more dramatic, having never held
elected office and having only been a Republican for a few years. A
utility executive, he defeated Senator Robert Taft in 1940 for the
Republican nomination in what Alice Roosevelt Longworth reportedly
described as a “prairie fire that swept across the country clubs of
America.” Having defeated isolationist opponents for the
nomination, Willkie supposedly allowed FDR to be more aggressive in
offering aid to Britain during its isolation by Nazi Germany. More
stridently at the campaign’s close, Willkie accused FDR of angling
for U.S. entry into the war, which FDR somewhat disingenuously
denied. FDR later dispatched Willkie as a bipartisan envoy to
Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek. Easily
impressed, Willkie sang unfortunate praise for the Soviet Union
during his visit. Some also allege Willkie had an affair with
Madame Chiang Kai-Shek, but the affair would have to have occurred
during only a couple private hours during his visit. Willkie was
not even invited to the 1944 Republican convention and he died
shortly later at only age 52, refusing to dismount from a cross
country train despite repeated heart attacks until he got to New
York. Willkie’s grandson, a former aide to Senator Richard Lugar,
is interviewed.
Another presidential loser who was both friend and foe to
FDR was Al Smith, FDR’s predecessor as New York governor and who
always thought he should have been the Democratic candidate in 1932
rather than FDR. Smith was the first Catholic presidential nominee.
His 1928 campaign aroused heated opposition over his religion, open
opposition to Prohibition, ties to Tammany Hall, and jarringly
gravelly New York accent. Although resoundingly defeated by Herbert
Hoover, Smith received more votes than any other previous
Democratic nominee and presaged FDR’s coalition centered on urban
votes. Smith, who later presided over the construction and
management of the Empire State Building, became a sharp critic of
FDR’s New Deal and endorsed Republican Alf Landon in 1936 and
Willkie in 1940.
Charles Evans Hughes was another New York governor who
failed to attain the presidency, although supposedly Woodrow Wilson
went to bed on election night 1916 not knowing whether he had lost
to Hughes. Teddy Roosevelt reputedly dismissed Hughes as the
“bearded lady.” Hughes later became a majestic U.S. Supreme Court
Chief Justice, and current Chief Justice John Roberts has said the
deep-voiced, white bearded Hughes was god-like in demeanor.
Hughes’s court initially resisted FDR’s New Deal but eventually
relented.
As warm as Hughes was frosty, Henry Clay was perhaps the
greatest American who never became president, though he tried at
least three times. Magnetic and captivating, he was a master
legislator who helped craft crucial Congressional compromises that
forestalled the Civil War by a few decades. Clay was the young
Abraham Lincoln’s “beau ideal” of a statesman. A book personally
inscribed by Clay to Lincoln is shown, though it’s not clear
whether they ever personally met.
Almost as charismatic as Clay was James G. Blaine, the
Maine senator, U.S. Speaker of the House, and Secretary of State
who also failed several times in presidential bids, most famously
by a whisker to Grover Cleveland in 1884. He probably lost only
because a Presbyterian clergyman in Blaine’s presence aligned the
Democrats with “rum, Romanism and rebellion,” which a Democratic
operative quickly advertised to indignant Catholic voters, losing
Blaine New York. Richard Norton Smith asserts Blaine would have
been America’s strongest president between Lincoln and Teddy
Roosevelt. Known to supporters as the “Plumed Knight,” the
allegedly corrupt Blaine electrified supporters and enraged his
opponents.
Less polarizing was Adlai Stevenson, the witty Illinois
governor who excited intellectuals but lost in near landslides to
Eisenhower. His son, the former senator, provides interesting
anecdotes, rebutting the recently released Jackie Kennedy tapes
deriding his father. As she often went to Broadway shows with the
elder Stevenson when he was JFK’s UN Ambassador, the son suggested
she was closer to his father than to many of the
Kennedys.
Hubert Humphrey was far more populist and never would have
uttered Stevenson’s famous quip to the suggestion that only
“thinking” Americans would vote for him but unfortunately he needed
a majority. The maker of a recent documentary about the Minnesota
senator and vice president paints Humphrey as long-suffering in his
defeat by JFK’s money in the 1960 Democratic race and in his
degradation by LBJ, whose support almost until end of the 1968
presidential campaign was tepid.
Unsurprisingly, Humphrey was good friends to fellow
senator and presidential loser Barry Goldwater, who is accurately
portrayed as near founder of the modern conservative movement. His
defenders insist he was intellectually consistent with his
libertarian roots during his final years when Goldwater derided the
Religious Right. But Goldwater’s 1996 endorsement of Bill Clinton
against Bob Dole was surely different from the earlier man, who had
not hesitated to endorse moderate Republicans Gerald Ford and
Richard Nixon.
Socialist Eugene Debs, another ideological candidate, is
also featured, though he never came close to the presidency. More
potent was progressive populist William Jennings Bryan, whose three
runs as a failed Democratic nominee are a record. An ardent
Protestant evangelical orator commonly recalled for the Scopes
Monkey Trial, Bryan is not typically venerated by modern liberals.
But his liberal biographer tries to reclaim him as an example of
how traditional religion can wed progressive politics.
Other than Bryan, the contenders’ religious views are
rarely if ever addressed, except briefly for the Social Gospel
Methodism that shaped young Humphrey. It’s a rare weak spot for
C-Span’s The Contenders, many of whose segments are filmed
at the homes or other spots closely tied to the candidates. Most of
these failed candidates were honorable men who could have served as
distinguished presidents. On the whole, their candidacies confirmed
rather than detracted from our democracy.
Thomas Wilbur| 11.23.11 @ 10:18AM
Click Mark's link to the current episode (about Debs) and you can hear something remarkable: the expert panelists agreeing that Harding was 'a nice man' - even the socialist from Gloucher College calls him 'genial' (Harding pardoned Debs - locked up by Wilson - and invited him to the WH). It's around 00:59 minutes, right before the conversion glitch at 00:59:27.
Petronius| 11.23.11 @ 10:51AM
The Principles and Competence of those who have been elected to Our Presidency has usually been inversely proportional to the predominantly infantile bent of the electorate. The kind of man who should occupy the Oval Office is the kind who has the good sense to want nothing to do with the job.
rn| 11.23.11 @ 11:22AM
Correct, Petronius. There are so many ways to illustrate this!
One is just the presidential press conferences. Matters NOT what president or when in the last 30 or so years.
Just listen to the questions posed of the POTUS behind the seal.
Questions that are not in a president's purview. Topics a president cannot (and definitely should not!) impact or touch. I wanted to throttle the neck of the male reporter asking Obama about the recent Penn St travails at what looked like a Hawaii beach setting press conference just ten days ago.
The good men shy away from politics at all levels. Don't shout them down and challenge their core values or love of country.
Who wants to be a suck up to donors? Who wants to be approached by the slickest hucksters the world has ever seen? Who wants to put himself and family in a zoo cage 24/7? Who wants a simple human error elevated to what ranks as colossal buffoonery? Who wants the weight of the world on his shoulders while surrounded with self-focused opportunists (one's advisors, staff, cabinet, generals) ready to place a dagger in the back of another to better elevate themselves?
Al Adab| 11.23.11 @ 12:12PM
A fascinating and instructive look back at our history. Henry Clay, Bryan and of course Goldwater were the most influential losing candidates. American voters have made two very real mistakes: Not electing Goldwater and electing Obama.
marshcope| 11.24.11 @ 12:51AM
And not reelecting TR in 1912.
marshcope| 11.24.11 @ 12:51AM
And not reelecting TR in 1912.
Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 9:49PM
It would be odd if they did not meet, Lincoln and Clay, since Clay was in the Senate when Lincoln was in the House of Representatives from 1846-1848, and Lincoln was a great admirer.
Mike 3/505| 11.24.11 @ 1:09AM
Why nothing about Samuel Tilden or Horace Greely?
POST American| 11.24.11 @ 3:30AM
OF course, with the last of the American
economy being packed up and sent to
RED China at US taxpayer expense,
the BEST losers are now ----the American
people themselves.
----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------
cuban pete| 11.24.11 @ 6:59AM
Jimmy "The Greek" Synder overheard two women talking about not voting for Dewey because of his mustache. He bet a lot of money on Truman,the heavy underdog, and that is how he got his start as an odds maker. It might be urban legend but it is a good story.
Happy Thanksgiving.
David Thompson| 11.24.11 @ 7:10PM
Perhaps Goldwater learned something after endorsing Nixon and Ford.
"Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Words have never been written to better describe Dole and his '96 campaign.