1952 and 2008
The last time both parties had presidential candidates who were neither incumbents nor sitting vice presidents was 1952. This year’s race is starting to look a lot like that in two ways.
In 1952, voters looked back at 20 years of New Deal and Fair Deal politics – and decided to make a change. Now, voters are looking back at 20 years of Bush or Clinton administrations. Most Iowa Democrats didn’t want to replay those battles. Most Iowa Republicans wanted candidates not only decent but articulate.
In 1952, Democrats went for the candidate who appealed to their better natures, Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Iowa Democrats last night chose the candidate who said he would end partisan sniping, Barack Obama. On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee had a great night, but the biggest beneficiary of Mitt Romney’s failure is war hero John McCain, poised like Dwight Eisenhower to pick up support from those most concerned about winning a six-year-old cold war with a hot spot: Korea then, Iraq now.
One big difference: evangelical politics as such did not exist in 1952. The New York Times and other press pulpits were declaring throughout 2007 that the evangelical moment was gone. Not so fast.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top14 Comments to “1952 and 2008”
The New York Times and other press pulpits were declaring throughout 2007 that the evangelical moment was gone. Not so fast.
It’s not gone, but it’s fading fast. The Huckaboom is one of the last gasps of a dying movement.
One big difference: evangelical politics as such did not exist in 1952.
Report comment to moderator
In my mind an electorate works best when they are able to articulate their ideals and vote their conscience. I would hope that there never was such thing as and evangelical block that voted like clones. But I am glad people are realizing that what the Bible says about life and ethics is influential. Rush says that the president can’t do as much about abortion as he can about taxes but I think many believe the God of the Bible will be more upset with a nation that extols abortion than one that has too many taxes.
Report comment to moderator
I’d guess that the reason “evangelical politics” didn’t exist in 1952 was that the nation as a whole, unbelievers and believers alike, had a Christian consensus. A known adulterer would not have been elected/re-elected. Abortion was still unthinkable (though yes, a few of them were done). No politician had to debate whether it was too dangerous to mention God. It isn’t really the evangelicals who have changed their views–though in fatc they have, being more liberal than they were in the fifties.
Report comment to moderator
The Republican coalition of social conservatives, strong proponents of national security, and strong proponents of economic freedom is far from a dying movement.
For a while I thought Romney could lead this coalition, though it’s clear now that his being a Mormon and major flip-flopper is sinking his campaign.
John McCain at this point bids fair to be an effective leader of this coalition. In recent months he has been effective in shoring up his position with both social and economic conservatives. Also, he has been a tremendous, stand-up leader on national security issues.
My guess is that we’ll end up with Obama and McCain. Further, on national security issues, McCain will take O’bama to the woodshed.
Another point is that on the issues of abortion and marriage Obama is an unredeemable liberal, while McCain is solid on the social conservative side. The liberals like to think they have the majority of Americans with them on abortion anf marriage, though this is exceedingly doubtful.
NightTrain’s view that the evangelical movement is fading fast is based more on wishful thinking than reality. The evangelical vote was decisive in both 2000 and 2005; so far, I’m not aware of any convincing reason that this vote could not be equally decisive in 2008
Report comment to moderator
I’m too young (and probably not up enough on my history) to have noticed these contrasts and similarities – thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT: . . . on the issues of abortion and marriage Obama is an unredeemable liberal . . . The liberals like to think they have the majority of Americans with them on abortion anf marriage, though this is exceedingly doubtful.
A huge difference from 1952 is that Christians are bonded to the Republican party by Reaganomic theory and severed from the Democratic party by their perception that Obama is a baby killer.
Report comment to moderator
Alissa #5. So am I, but I’m capable of studying and learning from history before my lifetime.
Report comment to moderator
I am astounded at the lack of coverage of Fred Thompson. Every radio and tv show and newscast mentions McCain, McCain, McCain, without even MENTIONING that Thompson came in 3rd! It is getting surreal.
Report comment to moderator
Peter (post 4)….Methinks John McCain is not a conservative. Remember the McCain / Feingold Campaign finance bill?? I strongly urged my congresspeople to vote that down, but to my chagrin, they did not. That first Bill of Right says: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW…..abriging free speech. Well that’s what the finance campaign bill ended up being. I respect Mr. McCain’s heroism, but that has not translated in conservatism on his part. Peter, you and I agree on Mitt Romney, tho. I was living in Blackstone, Mass. when He ran for governor, with Kerry Healey as his running mate. I’m sorry I voted for him.
I like to think I’m more conservative than most Repubs. I;ll just wait-n-see who’s still available come March 4th at the Rhode Island primary.
Report comment to moderator
Methinks John McCain is not a conservative.
McCain voted against George Bush’s tax cuts and has fused to sign Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge. Spending is taxation. “Tax cuts” are a burden-shift away from the very wealthy to everyone else in the economy.
Report comment to moderator
JUSTUS331, It’s true McCain has gone wobbly on some important conservative issues in the past, though based on a recent session he had with the WSJ editorial board, he is moving to the right at least on economic issues. I trust his wors when he gives it.
The point is that as far as I can see he would be the best man to lead the crucial Republican coalition of interests as well as pick up a good share of independents and blue dog Democrats.
Having said this, the one area that I have questions about McCain is whether he would select conservative Supreme Court nominees along the line of Roberts and Alito. Yet, on balance for the moment I’d vote for McCain in the primary.
Report comment to moderator
The Values Voters/Religious Right “didnt exist” in the 50s? I think that bloc only came into existence as a distinct entity in the 70s. As others have noted, in the 50s there was a consensus on most issues relating to marriage, abortion etc. The New Deal labor unionists were all solidly married men with kids who wanted only to ensure labor got a bigger piece of the pie, and that the vicissitudes of free enterprise were better managed.
The “proFamily Movemt”? Certainly unlimited abortion ignited an uproar in the 70s, but We can thank Jimmy Carter and Jim Guy Tucker for our even needing a proFamily voting bloc. Carter hosted a White House conference on The Family. Gays and other nontraditional “families” demanded and got the WH to drop the THE from the conference title. It was a rancorous-filled gathering. Connie Marshner collected names and began a mailing list.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells: Exactly what I’m doing here.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!