Do Presidential Elections Matter?
Results Have Changed History
American Presidents have for decades been chosen by a turnout of less than three-fifths of the voting age population. Apathy, distrust, and a repeated assertion that there were no appreciable differences between major party candidates have contributed to this level of participation. While the validity of the assertion for our times can be debated, there is ample evidence that far-reaching changes in U.S. history have turned on the character and skill of the man elected President.
Deciders Who Made A Difference
There is no doubt that George Washington, who received every electoral vote both times he ran, established patterns of government that impact to this day. His enduring model of a vigorous, independent executive was climaxed by his stepping down after two terms rather than becoming President for life. Thomas Jefferson, by contrast very narrowly elected, jettisoned a personal philosophy of limited central government to make the Louisiana Purchase, which more than doubled the size of the United States.
The election of Tennessean Andrew Jackson forced Washington policy makers to shift their main focus from the interests of Atlantic coast merchants and Southern planters to fostering the infrastructure and other support which would make possible the development of the West. And who but Abraham Lincoln, the beneficiary of a fatally split Democratic Party, could have managed the preservation of the Union and the abolition of slavery?
Ironically, it was the reelection of William McKinley, soon to be assassinated, that put Teddy Roosevelt in position to put the brakes on a no-holds barred economy dominated by monopolies. TR's seven-plus years in office, including an elected term of his own, were highlighted by unprecedented trust-busting, consumer protection legislation, and the modernization of the Navy. His distant cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, ushered in the era of big government with social and economic innovations in the Depression era and quietly initiated defense preparations in the face of an apparent isolationist consensus which enabled the U.S. to play the decisive role in World War II.
Closer to our time, Ronald Reagan dared both to direct a provocative, in-your-face military buildup and to conduct sweeping disarmament negotiations with a powerful and implacable foe. His reward was to see the collapse of the Soviet Union shortly after he left office.
At Times, Not Much Difference
Truth be told, there have been times when elections apparently made little difference. While scholars continue to debate whether the Civil War was an "irrepressible conflict" or not, neither the winners nor the losers in the 1840's and 1850's seemed to sense the dimensions of the coming tragedy or offer realistic solutions. Nor did the elections of the late 19th century have much influence on the economic and geographical expansion spurred by the Industrial Revolution and the Age of Invention.
With the crafting of a bipartisan foreign policy based on containment of a nuclear-armed Soviet Union and unprecedented post-World War II prosperity, it is unlikely that reversals of most of the elections from 1948 to 1976 would have made life in America profoundly different, especially since even Republican Presidents had to work with Democratic-led Congresses. The landslide victory of Lyndon Johnson in 1964 would be a conspicuous exception.
The Bottom Line
The dramatic examples of how much outstanding Presidents contributed to what our nation is today are more than sufficient to inspire citizens to vote.
Sources: Infomedia; Doris Kearns Goodwin, "Team of Rivals;" Encyclopedia Britannica
What do you think about this article?
More in History
Latest Articles