Wrong email address or username
Wrong email address or username
Incorrect verification code
back to top
Search tags: presidential
Load new posts () and activity
Like Reblog Comment
url 2020-10-01 12:35
US ELECTION 2020 – An in-depth Insight

The process of US Presidential Election 2020. the next time you vote, do select the right candidate.

Like Reblog Comment
quote 2019-10-31 20:51
Trump is not the first president to obsess over his opponents and to rant about the seeming injustice of the world. He's just the first to make the rest of us listen in as he does it.

With that in mind, the closest parallel to President Trump's tweets should give him no comfort, for the precedent is not FDR's millions of cubic fee of records or Lincoln's reams of manuscripts or Jefferson's thousands of letters. It is the covert White House recordings of Richard M. Nixon, who destroyed his own presidency by allowing his darkest machinations to be captured on audiotape.
The Donald J. Trump Presidential Twitter Library - The Daily Show With Trevor Noah

Jon Meacham, Forward 

Like Reblog Comment
review 2019-10-09 13:27
A good overview of one of the most critical elections in American history
The Deadlocked Election of 1800: Jefferson, Burr, and the Union in the Balance - James Roger Sharp
American politics today is frequently criticized for its divisiveness, its nastiness, and the way it polarizes the population. Yet this is hardly a new development, as many of those elements were on display in the early years of the republic as well. Back then the men who are canonized in the popular imagination today as the "Founding Fathers" engaged in political warfare even more vicious and bitter than what Americans decry today. Nothing demonstrates this better than the presidential election of 1800, which James Roger Sharp argues was one of the two most important elections in American history ⁠— and was fought as one by all of the people involved in it.
Sharp situates his account of the election in the politics of the 1790s. This was the beginning of the "first party system," when the Federalist and the first Republican parties emerged to promote their respective visions of the new nation. While the Federalists dominated during this period, Sharp notes that what really distinguished this period from any other in American political history was that the concept of legitimate contested opposition had yet to establish itself. This added to the divisiveness of politics of the time, as many Federalists did not hesitate to use the instruments of government to prosecute their Republican opponents as enemies of the state. Making this argument was easier given the international political situation of the time, as the ongoing conflict between Great Britain and France in the 1790s fueled the political polarization and cast the shadow of war over the country. In these circumstances it was easy for the Federalists to pass laws that could be used to attack Republican newspaper publishers and even threaten Republican members of Congress.
Further complicating the situation was infighting within the Federalist Party itself. Though John Adams was the president, many Federalists looked to Alexander Hamilton as their party's true leader. Dissatisfied with the prospect of an Adams presidency, Hamilton even attempted to engineer the election of his vice presidential nominee, Thomas Pinckney, as the president in 1796, a gambit that ended with Adams's opponent Thomas Jefferson winning the vice presidency. The election of 1800 was a rematch between the two candidates, and was fought out over the course of 1800. Sharp details the events in the various states that determined the election, which was not a contest between the two men for the popular vote but a more indirect battle within the states over choosing the electoral college delegation. This Jefferson's supporters won, only for some desperate Federalists to try to engineer the election of his running mate Aaron Burr ⁠— who through a quirk was in the balloting as well and possessed the same number of votes ⁠— instead. It was only through Hamilton's strenuous efforts, coupled with a declaration by a Federalist senator that Jefferson would preserve the Federalist system of government, that Jefferson emerged the winner, effecting the first successful exchange of power between presidents of different parties.
As a scholar of early American political history, Sharp brings to the book an extensive knowledge of the period and the scholarship on his subject. This he employs to craft a study that clarifies the very different politics of the era, which helps to explain both the election and its outcome. Because of this, it is a good book for anyone seeking a guide to a very different type of presidential contest than the ones they are familiar with today, one in which politics was more personal and opposition often fought simply to establish its legitimacy.
Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
review 2019-02-24 22:57
Reconsidering one's conclusions about an iconic election
I Like Ike: The Presidential Election of 1952 - John Robert Greene
The presidential election of 1952 is one that left a number of enduring impressions upon the American imagination. But while Americans today may remember it for Adlai Stevenson's high-toned campaign or Richard Nixon's famous "Checkers speech," one image stands out above all others: that of the genial, grinning face of Dwight D. Eisenhower. As the Republican nominee Eisenhower ended two decades of Democratic domination of the executive branch and began an eight-year presidency that has become indelibly associated with America in the 1950s.
While there are no shortage of books about Eisenhower or his years as president, nearly seven decades after his election there are only two histories about it. Indeed, John Robert Greene can rightfully be said to dominate the field, since he wrote both of them. As he explains in the introduction to his volume for the University Press of Kansas's American Presidential Elections series, however, this is no mere rehashing of his first book The Crusade, but a thorough revision of his original arguments about Eisenhower's interest in becoming president based on a reexamination of the sources. It is not often that a scholar renounces his or her previous work and even rarer that they do so in a new monograph. That Greene does so warrants a greater degree of respect for the argument he makes here.
Greene begins the book by situating the campaign in the context of the politics of the early 1950s. With the nation mired in a stalemate in Korea and with headlines trumpeting Truman administration scandals and charges of Communist infiltration, there was a widespread sense that the nation was heading in the wrong direction. Republicans hoped to capitalize upon this in the upcoming election, with many viewing Robert Taft as the best standard-bearer. Yet while the Ohio senator was seen as the leading spokesman of the conservative wing of the party, his isolationist views concerned many in the moderate, internationalist branch of the party, who sought someone more representative of their views.
For them that candidate was Eisenhower. While Greene's previous study of the election saw Eisenhower as an active pursuant of the nomination from the start, here he stresses Eisenhower's reluctance to enter electoral politics. One of the strongest parts of Greene's book is his careful reconstruction of the efforts by Eisenhower's supporters to convince their hero to run, which he only agreed to do out of fear of Taft's desire to withdraw the United States from the recently created North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Eisenhower's nomination was far from a sure thing, however, as Greene stresses the dominant position enjoyed by Taft's supporters in the party hierarchy and the role the events in the convention played in winning it for the general.
As Greene demonstrates, though, the Republicans were not the only ones with a reluctant nominee. Having withdrawn from the race after his defeat in the New Hampshire primary, Harry Truman encouraged Adlai Stevenson to enter the race, viewing the Illinois governor as the man best positioned to carry on the president's Fair Deal agenda. Yet Stevenson hesitated to run, and did not emerge as the Democratic nominee until the party's convention. Though Stevenson went on to run a dignified campaign notable for his learned and polished speeches, Greene argues that in the end no Democrat could have triumphed that year against the twin factors of national dissatisfaction with the Truman administration and Eisenhower's enormous popularity with the American people, with the events of the campaign itself largely anticlimactic in terms of deciding its outcome.
Thanks to his willingness to revisit his earlier conclusions, Greene provides his readers with something far more than just an updating of his previous work on the 1952 election but a through and open-minded examination of the contest. In doing so, he benefits not only from the greater availability of archival materials but also the related scholarship that has emerged as a result. While there are a few surprising absences from his list of secondary sources employed, overall the book is a thorough work of scholarship that will likely be the standard by which future works on the subject are judged.
Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
review 2019-01-17 16:02
A revisionist account of a pivotal election
The Election of 1860: "A Campaign Fraught with Consequences" - Michael F. Holt

The presidential election of 1860 was unlike any other in American history. The product of the contentious and often violent politics of the 1850s, it saw no less than four candidates contesting for the White House. With the fracturing of the Democratic Party over the issue of slavery, the Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln was able to win with a only a plurality of the vote, thanks to the majority he won in the electoral college through his near sweep of the populous states of the northern United States. In response to his victory, seven southern states sought to break away from the Union, an action that led to the bloodiest war in the nation's history and the eventual abolition of slavery in the country.


Given its dramatic nature and the momentous events that followed, the 1860 campaign has never wanted for attention from historians. Yet Michael F. Holt argues that a number of misconceptions have accumulated around the election which have skewed our perception of it. His book offers a revisionist account of the campaign that highlights these obscured or distorted elements in an effort to gain a better understanding of the issues that defined it for the voters who participated. Foremost among them, he argues, is the idea that the election was primarily about slavery, which he sees as the view of the southerners who would subsequently seek to break away from the union. For most voters, though, the main issue was the corruption of the Buchanan administration. Holt shows how Republicans highlighted this in the months leading up to the election, making the case that what was needed was a clean sweep of the executive branch. As he explains this also played a key role in the selection of "Honest Abe" as the nominee, as Lincoln's profile was one better suited to make the case for the Republicans than that of his main competitors, William Seward and the corrupt Simon Cameron.


While the Republicans sharpened their arguments about Democratic corruption in advance of the election, the Democratic Party was plagued with infighting between the president, James Buchanan, and Stephen Douglas. Holt traces the origins of this to Douglas's refusal to admit Kansas as a state under the proslavery Lecompton constitution. As Holt points out, this coupled with Douglas's qualified acceptance of the Dred Scott decision also alienated him from the southern Democrats who increasingly dominated the party, setting the stage for the party convention in Charleston in 1860 at which the Democrats fractured into pro- and anti-Douglas factions. With a victory by the (at that point undecided) Republican candidate increasingly likely, a group of politicians organized a conservative alternative to Republicans in the form of the Constitutional Union Party, who selected the elder statesman John Bell as their presidential contender. With the nomination of Douglas and Vice President John Breckinridge by the separate Democratic factions, the stage was set for a chaotic contest.


In covering the campaign that followed, Holt pushes back against the traditionally narrow view of it as separate contests between Lincoln and Douglas in the north and Breckinridge versus Bell in the south. Though Breckinridge, and Bell both refrained from electioneering, their campaigns sent speakers and mounted rallies in the northern states as well as the southern ones, while Republicans distributed ballots in the border slave states as well. Most dramatically Douglas undertook the then-unusual step of personally campaigning by making speeches in both the northern and southern states. Holt's chapter on the campaign itself is the best in the book, as he describes the myriad activities the parties adopted to turn out the vote. In this respect the Republican effort proved the most successful, as the dramatic appeals to young voters with the "Wide Awake" clubs and criticisms of Democratic corruption delivering them the victories they needed in the key swing states. As Holt points out, slavery was a salient issue only in the south, where arguments that Republicans were seeking outright abolition were so disconnected from Republican campaign goals that Republicans failed to take seriously the threats of secession by many southerners —a delusion that would quickly be dispelled in the weeks following Lincoln's victory.


As a longtime scholar of antebellum politics, Holt brings a lifetime's worth of learning to his subject. Yet he wears this lightly, providing an accessible description of the election while making arguments that go far towards shaking up the traditional interpretation of the 1860 election. Yet Holt oversells the revisionist nature of his account. Though he performs a valuable service in highlighting aspects of the campaign that were obscured by subsequent events, as Holt himself acknowledges at the end, perceptions of Democratic corruption and "misrule" in the north were as much tied to the perception of the party's excessive deference to southerners' anxieties about slavery as it was the buying of votes or the favoring of Democrats in awarding contracts. Moreover, his account of the election itself only qualifies somewhat the view of it as separate contests, suggesting the misconception is more one of emphasis than detail. Yet in the end these are criticisms of degree rather than of substance. Overall, Holt's reexamination of the 1860 election offers a refreshing reexamination of one of the truly pivotal moments in American history, and is necessary reading for anyone seeking to understand the election and how it led to the devastating conflict that followed.

More posts
Your Dashboard view:
Need help?