Changing horses mid-stream
One of the arguments being made by the Bush
re-election campaign, is that you don't change a metaphorical horse mid-stream,
referring, of course, to the notion that, since the United States is in a state
of war, it would be unwise to unseat the wartime
president.
I realize that Mr. Bush
wishes to send a certain message to the enemies of our country, however the
notion of not changing horses is inconsistent with this country's history.
Looking back at all wars since George Washington became our first president in
1789, the only wars in which we didn't change horses in some capacity, were
those wars that both started and ended within one presidential term. (Or at
least, those in which our involvement both started and ended within that term.)
Let's look at history:
The War of 1812.
Lasted from 1812 to 1814. 1812 was an election year, the year that James
Madison was re-elected, which would have happened regardless of our involvement
in the British invasion.
War with
Mexico. 1846 - 1848. Entirely under the watch of James
Polk.
US Civil War. 1860 - 1865. The
1850's saw the degeneration of civil discourse between the north and south, to
the point that the south was looking for any excuse to attempt to secede. They
got that with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Technically, this war
began under President James Buchanan, but since the election had already
happened, his presidency couldn't have made the argument to elect Douglas to
keep the horse at least in the same party. Abraham Lincoln was re-elected by a
south abstaining from the vote in 1864. Arguably, his opponent never had a
chance. Then again, neither did Lincoln, since he was assassinated in 1865
before the war ended. It was a forcible changing of the horses, but it was a
changing of the horses
nonetheless.
Spanish American War.
1898 - 1899. All under the helm of President
McKinley.
World War I. Although this
war ran from 1914 to 1918, our involvement in the war did not begin until 1917.
In fact, Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election in 1916 on the platform of how he
kept us out of the war.
World War II.
Although this war ran from 1939 to 1945, our involvement did not begin until
1941. Like Wilson before him, President Roosevelt ran for re-election in 1940
of how he kept us out of the war. Roosevelt was also re-elected in 1944, but he
died in office in 1945. Like Lincoln before him, we changed horses by force,
but it was still a horse change to
Truman.
Korea. 1950 - 1953. This war
started under President Truman, who chose not to seek re-election in 1952.
(Under the 22nd Amendment to the constitution, he was the last president
permitted to seek more than 2 terms, he chose not to.) In a case where a
sitting war president chooses not to seek re-election, I would consider it a
change of horses if the party of the sitting president does not win the
election. Truman was a Democrat, and his Democratic successor was Adlai
Stevenson. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican candidate, won election in
1952.
Vietnam. I have a hard time
pigeonholing exactly where our involvement in Vietnam should begin. We first
sent military advisers there in 1956, when France pulled out of the region.
(Under President Eisenhower). Then in 1961, John F Kennedy sent more high-level
advisers. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and Lyndon Johnson won re-election
in 1964, at least partially on a platform of keeping us out of a large-scale
conflict in Vietnam. Then came the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which never really
occurred) in 1965, and the congressional war resolution. By the time our
large-scale involvement began, we had already changed horses twice, although one
of those was by force.
Or we can take
Vietnam as having started in 1965. LBJ chose not to seek re-election in 1968,
so I will follow the rule I laid out for Truman in Korea. LBJ's Democratic
successor was Hubert Humphrey, but who was defeated by Richard Nixon in that
year's election. Nixon was re-elected in 1972, but resigned the presidency in
1974. Gerald Ford assumed the office of the president without having been
elected to either the role of president or vice president, and we were out of
'Nam by 1975.
Persian Gulf War. 1991.
Started and ended under President George Herbert Walker
Bush.
Now I don't know what President
George W. Bush is asking for by making the argument about not changing horses
mid-stream, but history is certainly not on his side here.
Unless, of course, he wants to be
re-elected and then be assassinated or otherwise die in office. Somehow I doubt
that.
By the way, whatever it is we're
fighting over in Iraq and Afghanistan, it hasn't been declared as a war, so the
title of "war president" doesn't fit anyway.
Posted: Tue - September 14, 2004 at 09:49 AM