Nobel Prize winning presidents

Question: How many presidents have won the Nobel Prize?
From: Susan E. of Washington, DC
Date: February 7, 2005

Gleaves answers: The Nobel Prize has been given in most years since 1901, in the fields of physics, chemisty, medicine, literature, and for promoting peace. Three U.S. presidents and one vice president have won the Peace Prize in particular.

Theodore Roosevelt was the first U.S. president to win the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. He received the honor in 1906 for his efforts in mediating the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), midwifing the Treaty of Portsmouth signed by Russia and Japan on September 5, 1905, at Portsmouth, NH. TR did not attend the award ceremony but dispatched Herbert H. D. Peirce to accept the prize on his behalf. Deputizing Peirce was fitting: in 1905 Peirce, as a member of the U.S. State Department, was in charge of organizing the deliberations at Portsmouth.[1]

Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919 "in recognition of his Fourteen Points peace program and his work in achieving inclusion of the Covenant of the League of Nations in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles." Wilson was too sick to attend the award ceremony in person. Albert G. Schmedeman, United States ambassador to Norway, accepted the prize on Wilson's behalf.[2]

Vice President Charles Dawes won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1925, along with Sir Austen Chamberlain. Dawes was a member of Warren Harding's administration as well as Calvin Coolidge's. He became a Nobel laureate in recognition of his work as chairman of the Dawes Committee, which tackled the problem of German reparations.[3] He became vice president-elect when Coolidge was elected in 1924. So he was the nation's Veep when he received the Nobel Peace Prize -- the first and only vice president to have achieved that distinction.

Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development." He was the first U.S. president to accept the prize in person, in a ceremony in Oslo on December 10, 2002.[4] His efforts at Camp David were instrumental in Anwar al-Sadat and Menachem Begin sharing the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978.

In addition to these three presidents and a vice president, a handful of secretaries of state also won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Elihu Root won the Nobel Peace Prize for 1912. Root had served as Theodore Roosevelt's second secretary of state. Root agreed to speak in Oslo on September 8, 1914, but was prevented from doing so by the outbreak of World War I. This is what was said about Root in absentia: "In the ten years during which he held office [as secretary of war and secretary of state], he had to settle a number of particularly difficult problems, some of an international character. It was he who was chiefly responsible for organizing affairs in Cuba and in the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. Even more important was his work in bringing about better understanding between the countries of North and South America. When he visited South America in the summer of 1906, he did a great deal to strengthen the Pan-American movement, and in 1908 he founded the Pan-American Bureau in New York. His strenuous efforts to improve relations between the small Central American countries have borne splendid fruit. The most difficult problem with which Root had to deal while secretary of state, however, was the dispute with Japan over the status of Japanese immigrants. Although a final solution of this dispute eluded him, his work on it was nevertheless of great value.After he had left the government, Root gave himself heart and soul to the cause of peace, and he is now president of the great Carnegie Peace Foundation. [As a senator] Root was one of the most energetic champions of Taft's proposal for an unconditional arbitration treaty between the U.S.A. and Great Britain; and in the dispute concerning tolls for the Panama Canal, he supported the English interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, opposing special privileges for American shipping. When he spoke on this in the Senate last spring, he gained the admiration of all friends of peace."[5]

Frank Kellogg won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1929. He served as Calvin Coolidge's second secretary of state, and Herbert Hoover's too. At the presentation ceremony it was said of him: "The movement in favor of the 'outlawry of war,' to proclaim war illegal and to label it a crime, had gained increasing support in the U.S.A. ever since the end of the World War. Mr. Briand, France's great champion of peace, made a point of choosing a memorable date in the American calendar -- April 6, 1927 -- the tenth anniversary of the entry of the United States into the war, to declare himself a disciple of that movement: 'If there were any need between these two great democracies [the United States and France] to testify more convincingly in favor of peace and to present to the peoples a more solemn example, France would be ready publicly to subscribe, with the United States, to any mutual engagement tending, as between those two countries, to "outlaw war," to use an American expression.' And on June 20, 1927, Briand handed to the American ambassador in Paris a draft of a treaty of perpetual friendship between the two countries. According to the draft, the two parties would solemnly declare that they condemned war and renounced it as an instrument of their national policies. On the other side of the Atlantic, Frank B. Kellogg, the U.S. Secretary of State, elevated this proposal to the status of the world pact to which we pay tribute today in the person of its author: 'The Government of the United States is prepared, therefore, to concert with the Government of France with a view to the conclusion of a treaty among the principal Powers of the world, open to signature by all nations, condemning war and renouncing it as an instrument of national policy in favor of the pacific settlement of international disputes.' And from this common action emerged the pact that today binds together almost all civilized nations in the world. Article I of the Pact states the following: 'The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.'"[6]

Cordell Hull won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1945 for a career devoted to peace. He was Franklin Roosevelt's secretary of state from 1933-1944, and his reward was sealed when FDR called him the "father of the United Nations."[7]

George C. Marshall won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953. His packed resume included being general president of the American Red Cross, President Truman's third secretary of state, Truman's third secretary of defense, U.N. delegate, and originator of the Marshall Plan. At the award ceremony, it was said of Marshall: "Less than four months after entering the State Department, he presented his plan for that tremendous aid to Europe which has become inseparably connected with his name. He stated in his famous speech at Harvard University: 'Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist. Such assistance, I am convinced, must not be on a piecemeal basis as various crises develop. Any assistance that this government may render in the future should provide a cure rather than a mere palliative.' Marshall carried out his plan, fighting for it for two years in public and in Congress."[8]

Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Le Duc Tho, in 1973. After negotiations that lasted nearly four years, a ceasefire agreement was concluded between the U.S. and the Vietnamese Democratic Republic on January 23, 1973. The new secretary of state was unable to attend the award ceremony.[9]
________________________
[1]http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1906/roosevelt-acceptance.html

[2]http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1919/wilson-acceptance.html

[3]http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1925/dawes-acceptance.html

[4]http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2002/carter-lecture.html

[5]http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1912/press.html

[6]http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1929/index.html

[7]http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1945/press.html

[8]http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1953/press.html

[9]http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1973/press.html

Cost of Inaugurations

Question: Can we get a comparison of presidential inauguration costs for the last 6 to 10 presidents?
From: Bob S. of Albuquerqui, New Mexico
Date: January 21, 2005

Gleaves answers: Many visitors to http://www.allpresidents.org/ have been asking this question or some variation of it. There are two primary costs of inaugurations. One is the cost of the swearing-in ceremony, which is paid for by taxpayers; the funds are appropriated by Congress; in 2001, George W. Bush's swearing-in ceremony cost $1 million. Second is the cost of the balls, the candlelight dinners, the parties, the concerts -- all the festivities that surround the swearing-in ceremony, which are paid for by private donations.

If there is criticism of how much a modern inaugural costs, it is usually directed at this latter cost, the parties and festivities, even though the burden is not borne by taxpayers. Going backward in time, from the most recent to the most distant inaugurals, here are the private-sector costs of the festivities surrounding some inaugurations:

George W. Bush's 2nd inaugural will cost in the neighborhood of $40 million. That's what the Presidential Inaugural Committee is trying to raise through private donations and ticket sales to the nine balls and three candlelight dinners.

George W. Bush's 1st inaugural in 2001 also cost nearly $40 million.

Bill Clinton's 2nd inaugural in 1997 was comparatively lean by the inaugural standards of the times, $23.6 million.

Bill Clinton's 1st inaugural in 1993 cost approximately $33 million.

George H. W. Bush's inaugural in 1989 cost approximately $30 million.

Ronald Reagan's 2nd inaugural in 1985 cost in the neighborhood of the 1981 inaugural, around $20 million.

Ronald Reagan's 1st inaugural in 1981 cost $19.4 million, significantly more than his predecessors. One reason is that inflation had been sky-high between Carter's and Reagan's inaugurations. A second reason is that several balls were added to the festivities. A third is that the swearing-in ceremony was moved to the west front of the Capitol. Because of topography, that aspect of the building is much more dramatic than the east front; it was also symbolic of Ronald Reagan's western roots.

Jimmy Carter's inaugural in 1977 cost $3.5 million. Elected in the wake of the Watergate scandal, he deliberately downplayed anything that appeared to aggrandize the presidency.

Richard Nixon's 2nd inaugural in 1973 cost $4 million. Bob Hope, a Nixon supporter, joked that the three-day extravaganza commemorated "the time when Richard I becomes Richard II."

Lyndon Johnson's inaugural in 1965 cost $1.5 million.

Woodrow Wilson's inaugural was relatively lean since on his orders there would be no ball. He disliked dances. Congress appropriated $30,000 for the event.

James Madison's inaugural ceremony in 1809 cost more than previous inaugurals in part because it was the first to include a ball. Dolley Madison, the federalist era's social maven, had also served as hostess for President Jefferson.

Christmas at the White House

Question: How have the holidays been celebrated by our presidents?
From: Hauenstein Center staff and friends, Grand Rapids, MI
Date: December 18, 2004

Gleaves answers: To our visitors, holiday greetings from the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies! Around Grand Valley I have run into several people who have asked if there would be something on the website talking about how our presidents have traditionally celebrated the holidays.

It surprises many Americans to learn that Christmas was not celebrated by every community in the early years of the United States. Some descendents of the New England Puritans, for example, avoided placing special emphasis on the Yuletide season. But in states like Virginia, Christmas enjoyed more popularity. At Mount Vernon on Christmas morning, the festivities organized by George and Martha Washington began at daybreak with a fox hunt. A hearty midday feast followed in a celebration that included Christmas pie, music, dancing, and visits with friends and relatives that sometimes continued for a week.

One of the most unusual Christmas celebrations was hosted by James Buchanan, our nation’s lone bachelor president. In 1857 he threw a party for 30 American Indians representing the Ponca, Pawnee, and Pottawatomie tribes. An eyewitness account reported that while the Pottawatomie arrived in “citizen’s dress,” the Pawnee and Ponca “were in their grandest attire, and more than profuse of paint and feathers.”

Half a century later, Theodore Roosevelt almost forbade bringing a Christmas tree into the White House. A staunch conservationist, TR didn’t believe in cutting down conifers for decoration. Two of his boys, Theodore Jr. and Kermit, got into a bit of trouble when their father caught them dragging two small trees into their rooms. After the incident, Roosevelt spoke with Gifford Pinchot, the famous forester, who persuaded TR that selectively cutting down trees helped forests thrive. That was enough for TR, and the first family kept the trees Theodore Jr. and Kermit had dragged in, and every year thereafter brought a Christmas tree into the White House.

In 1923 First Lady Grace Coolidge accepted the gift of a large Christmas tree given by the District of Columbia Public Schools, and it became the first cut tree ever displayed on the grounds outside the White House. The balsam fir was decorated and displayed on the South Lawn. To dazzle citizens with new technology, President and Mrs. Coolidge were able to light the tree by merely pushing a button – a feat that we take for granted today but that caused wonderment then!

The idea of having themes for official White House Christmas trees was championed by First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy in 1961. A tree decorated with ornaments reminiscent of Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker Suite stood in the Blue Room. Some of the ornaments were reused on the next year’s tree and included brightly wrapped packages, candy canes, gingerbread cookies, and straw ornaments crafted by disabled persons and older citizens from all over the United States.

With the growth of the environmental movement in the late 1960s and early ’70s, President Richard Nixon took an environmentally friendly step. In 1972 he planted a Colorado blue spruce on the Ellipse south of the White House. By 1978 the spruce was large enough and sturdy enough to be designated the National Christmas Tree. It is lit up every year in early December and tended by the National Park Service.

Back in the residence, topping the official White House Christmas tree has become another holiday tradition, and that feat has been accomplished by former First Lady Barbara Bush a record twelve times. She had the honor from 1981 to 1992, during President Reagan’s and her husband’s combined three terms.

Increasingly, American presidents have been sensitive to the fact that the holiday season is not just celebrated by Christians, but by believers of other faiths and people from other traditions. For instance, several presidents – among them Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton – have participated in Hanukkah celebrations. In 1998 President Clinton joined Israel’s President Weizman in Jerusalem to light the first candle of Hanukkah. And this year a 100-year old menorah, borrowed from the collection of the Jewish Museum in New York, was lit in the White House residence for the first time. President and Mrs. George W. Bush celebrated the holiday with staff members and their families by lighting the second candle on December 10th.

As Americans, we have much to celebrate this holiday season among our family, friends, and colleagues, and we at the Hauenstein Center wish you a happy holiday and productive 2005.

Presidents as high priests

Question: As a follow up to my last question about all the presidents' roles, would you please elaborate on the president as America's "high priest" (your term)?
From: Walter A., of Portland, ME
Date: November 12, 2004 [revised November 23, 2004]

Gleaves answers: In my last answer I said that Americans expect presidents to govern, to be sure. But they also want leaders who can inspire, console, comfort, and even lead the nation in prayer when the situation warrants -- in other words, to be their high priest. Think about it: no other individual in America can summon the entire nation to prayer when there is a D-Day Invasion, a Challenger tragedy, or a September 11th.

Nor do we look to our presidents to serve as high priests only in crises. Going all the way back to the founding, we have followed our leaders when they have called for days of "fasting, thanksgiving, and prayer." Presidents have lent solemnity to the national mood when laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. And they direct our thoughts when leading us in benediction at the annual National Prayer Breakfast.

There is no question that religion has been historically linked with the presidency. The question is: What are the policy implications of this relationship?

Secular-Friendly Interpretation of the Presidency

To say that presidents have served as Americans' high priest is to confirm the historical record, and to broach one of the thorniest debates in the United States today. On the one side are historians, sociologists, and political scientists with secular leanings. The most extreme secularists would share Ernest Hemingway's sentiment, "To Hell with a church that becomes a state; to Hell with a state that becomes a church."

For these, Jefferson's famous letter to the Baptists, calling for the separation of church and state, has become tantamount to a Constitutional provision (which is somewhat curious, considering that Jefferson was neither a delegate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 nor the author of the First Amendment).

One of the deans of American history, Arthur Schlesinger Jr, has weighed in on Hemingway's side of the debate. Recently the former aide to John F. Kennedy roundly attacked attempts to merge God's House with the White House by going back to our nation's origins. In the interest of balance, it is worth quoting Schlesinger at length:

"The founding fathers did not mention God in the Constitution, and the faithful often regarded our early presidents as insufficiently pious.

"George Washington was a nominal Anglican who rarely stayed for Communion. John Adams was a Unitarian, which Trinitarians abhored as heresy. Thomas Jefferson, denounced as an atheist, was actually a deist who detested organized religion and who produced an expurgated version of the New Testament with the miracles eliminated. Jefferson and James Madison, a nominal Episcopalian, were the architects of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. John Quincy Adams was another Massachusetts Unitarian. Andrew Jackson, pressed by clergy members to proclaim a national day of fasting to seek God's help in combating a cholera epidemic, replied that he could not do as they wished 'without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the general government.'

"In the 19th century, all presidents routinely invoked God and solicited his blessing. But religion did not have a major presence in their lives. Abraham Lincoln was the great exception. Nor did our early presidents use religion as an agency for mobilizing voters. 'I would rather be defeated,' said James A. Garfield, 'than make capital out of my religion.'

"Nor was there any great popular demand that politicians be men of faith. In 1876, James G. Blaine, an aspirant to the Republican presidential nomination, selected Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, a famed orator but a notorious scoffer at religion, to deliver the nominating speech: The pious knew and feared Ingersoll as 'The Great Agnostic.'

"There were presidents of ardent faith in the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson had no doubt that the Almighty designated the United States -- and himself -- for the redemption and salvation of humankind. Jimmy Carter ... was 'born again.' Ronald Reagan, though not a regular churchgoer, had a rapt evangelical following. But neither Wilson nor Carter nor Reagan applied religious tests to secular issues, nor did they exploit their religion for their political benefit."[1]

John F. Kennedy is perhaps unique among the presidents. On the way to becoming the nation's first Roman Catholic president, he explicitly distanced himself from the Vatican and church teaching. His September 1960 speech to Baptists gathered in Houston was a landmark in campaign history.

Religious-Friendly Interpretation of the Presidency

Most presidents have not been like Kennedy. Most have unapologetically deployed their faith to tap into the strong spiritual beliefs of citizens. Many of our early presidents, for example, could call for official days of fasting, thanksgiving, and prayer without being criticized. Some other specific examples:

Jefferson, stung by accusations of being an atheist in the bruising campaign of 1800, proved to be more accomodating to Christianity than is generally realized. He acknowledged the beneficence of Providence in his Second Inaugural Address and funded Catholic missions to the Indians with federal dollars.

During our nation's agony, Lincoln, a man of deep faith, openly wondered in his Second Inaugural Address about divine retribution for the nation tolerating the sin of slavery and appealed to "the better angels of our nature."

Garfield was the nation's first preacher-president.

On June 6, 1944 -- D-Day -- Franklin D. Roosevelt asked that Americans stop what they were doing to pray for the success of the Allied reconquest of Nazi-occupied Europe.

Ike at his Inauguration read aloud a prayer that he himself had composed; was baptized in the White House; and hired an individual to be his liaison to the faith community.

Carter appealed directly to the "born again" for political advantage.

Reagan, who was rarely seen going to Sunday servives, nevertheless courted evangelical Protestants (known as the Moral Majority) and wrote a pro-life article for Human Life Review. He also detailed William Casey to work with the Vatican to end the Cold War.

Many was the Sunday that Bill Clinton would use going to church, with Bible in hand, as a photo-op. But those who know Clinton well say that his faith is no superficial gesture, that it is genuine and deep.

On the campaign trail in 2000, President George W. Bush famously said that his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ. And Democratic candidate Al Gore said he supported faith-based initiatives to help solve social problems.

There is no question that many of our presidents have been men of faith. Nor is there any question that they have served as a kind of high priest in our national life. But debate rages over the extent to which the presidents' personal religious convictions should inform public policy.

AMERICA AS A RELIGIOUS NATION

To acknowledge that our presidents from time to time play the role of high priest presupposes that the United States is a religious nation with citizens who are open to such a high priest. In fact, the U.S. is unusual in this regard. Of the twenty most developed nations in the world, the U.S. is by far the most religious. Surveys show that a large majority of Americans believe in God and in Satan and say that religion is important to them; more than half our population believes that the U.S. benefits from divine protection and has a negative view of atheists; almost half attend a worship service weekly. The extent of American religiosity contrasts sharply with that of other peoples. Only 20 percent of Germans, 12 percent of Japanese, and 11 percent of French say that religion is highly important to them.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, "religious expression in the United States seems to have grown, not diminished, with socio-economic development. According to Roger Finke, a sociologist at Pennsylvania State University, in 1890, 45 percent of Americans were members of a church. By 2000, that figure was 62 percent."[2]

It is fascinating to inquire why America is the most religious of the top twenty nations on the United Nations' Human Development Index. Our country hardly fits the long-espoused sociological model that held that modernization and religion do not mix; that said the more wealth a nation generated and distributed, the less religious it would be. A fascinating piece in the New York Times explains: "Old-school sociology holds that as nations become more prosperous, healthy, and educated, demand for the support that religion provides declines. People do not suddenly lose faith as they grow rich, these sociologists argue. Rather, they gradually go less to church -- reducing their children's exposure to religion. Meanwhile, secular institutions take over functions, like education, formerly controlled by the church. Religious attendence, they argue, wanes from one generation to the next. In economic terms, demand for religion drops as its perceived benefits diminish compared with the cost of participating."[3]

Certainly the old sociological model seems to account for the lukewarm state of religion in thoroughly modernized European nations, as well as in Canada and Japan. But it does not explain why the wealthiest and most modern nation of all, the United States, has remained an enclave of religiosity.

The way to understand American exceptionalism may lie in thinking by means of an analogy. The analogy that suggests itself is supply-side economics, long associated with America's fortieth president, Ronald Reagan (which is apt, considering the extent to which the Gipper reached out to evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, and pro-Israeli Jews). Here is what the same New York Times piece observes: "over the past 10 years or so a growing group of mostly American sociologists has deployed a novel theory to explain the United States' apparently anomalous behavior: supply-side economics. Americans, they say, are fervently religious because there are so many churches competing for their devotion."[4]

More specifically, "demand for religion has little to do with economic development. Instead, what creates change is the supply of religious services. That is, Americans are more churchgoing and pious than Germans or Canadians because the United States has the most open religious market, with dozens of religious denominations competing vigorously to offer their flavor of salvation, becoming extremely responsive to the needs of their parishes. 'There's a lack of regulation restricting churches, so in this freer market there is a larger supply,' said Mr. Finke."[5]

What's more, "The suppliers of religion then try to stoke demand. 'The potential demand for religion has to be activated,' said Rodney Stark, a sociologist at Baylor University. 'The more members of the clergy that are out there working to expand their congregations the more people will go to church.'"[6]

Further, "Mr. Finke notes that this free-market theory fits well with the explosion of religion across Latin America, where the weakening of the longstanding Catholic monopoly has led to all sorts of evangelical Christian churches and to an overall increase of religious expression. The supply-siders say their model even explains secular Europe. Europeans, they argue, are fundamentally just as religious as Americans, with similar metaphysical concerns, but they suffer from an uncompetitive market -- lazy, quasi-monopolistic churches that have been protected by competition by the state. 'Wherever you've got a state church, you have empty churches,' Mr. Stark said."[7]

Historian Garry Wills makes the trenchant observation that the American tradition of separating church and state "protected religion from anticlericalism." This fact, combined with our pluralism, would help religion flourish in the U.S.[8]

All these factors help explain why Americans do not shy away from seeing their president occasionally play the role of high priest. But this statement must be qualified. If the president is to play the role of a "pope" in America's civil religion, he must be respectful of America's tradition of religious pluralism. He must not be perceived as a proselyte or apologist for his particular denomination. He must take care to avoid using symbols and words that are peculiar to his denomination.

___________________________________

[1]Arthur Schlesinger Jr, Los Angeles Times.

[2]Roger Finke quoted in Eduardo Porter, "Give Them Some of That Free-Market Religion," New York Times, November 21, 2004, p. 14 in Week in Review.

[3]Porter, "Give."

[4]Porter, "Give."

[5]Finke quoted in Porter, "Give."

[6]Rodney Stark quoted in Porter, "Give."

[7]Stark quoted in Porter, "Give."

[8]Garry Wills quoted in Porter, "Give."

Best signs for predicting the winner

Question: Which polling organization has the best track record of predicting who will win the presidency?
From: Tara C. of Grand Rapids, MI
Date: October 24, 2004 [revised November 2, 2004]

Gleaves answers: Eat crow, Gallup. Move over, Zogby International. Eat dirt and die, NBC/Newsweek. You don't even come close to being as good as WRC readers when it comes to predicting who wins presidential races.

As good as who?

The Weekly Reader Corporation (WRC) publishes a newspaper for school kids, and in every presidential election since Dwight Eisenhower's re-election it has invited our youngest citizens to predict who will win the November contest. Since 1956, the WRC poll has correctly dubbed the winner in 11 of 12 contests.

That's saying something, considering some of the close presidential elections in the last half century. In 1960 school kids correctly predicted that Kennedy would come out on top in a breathtakingly close contest with Nixon. Same with the fiercely fought battle in 1976 when incumbent President Gerald Ford was eventually overcome by Jimmy Carter, and the bitter contest in 2000 between George W. Bush and Al Gore that held the nation in suspense for more than a month.

The only election the kids got wrong was 1968, when they thought Robert F. Kennedy would beat out the Republican nominee. However, that survey was gathered in the spring of '68, months before the election and before RFK was assassinated in June.

Whom do school kids think will win in 2004?

The news release available this morning from Weekly Reader opens: "The students who read Weekly Reader’s magazines have made their preference for President known: they want to send President Bush back to the White House.... Hundreds of thousands of students participated, giving the Republican President more than 60% of the votes cast and making him a decisive choice over Democratic Senator John Kerry."[1]

It was almost an electoral sweep at every level. Elementary school kids in every grade voted overwhelming for George W. Bush. Among middle school kids the president also won, but by a narrower margin. Most high schoolers also preferred President Bush; only 10th graders voted in greater numbers for Senator Kerry.[2]

Besides the Weekly Reader poll, other indicators have traditionally presaged who wins in November.

For instance, The stock market's performance in the two months leading up to an election can tell you who will win. There have been 26 elections since 1900. In 16 of those elections, the Dow Jones industrial average trended up in September and October, and in all but one of those 16 elections, the incumbent party candidate won in November. In 10 elections since 1900, the Dow trended down in September and October, and in all but one of those elections, the incumbent party candidate lost in November. What is more, no president running for re-election has ever lost if the Dow in October is up at least 3 percent compared to one year earlier. But no president has been re-elected if the Dow in October is down by 5 percent of more, according to Jeff Hirsch in the Stock Trader's Almanac. [The less than stellar performance of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in September and most of October would seem to favor Kerry; however, there was a surge of earnings at the end of October, which might have reflected confidence in a Bush victory.]

Moreover, for the last 40 years the road to the White House has gone through the sunbelt; every winner since 1964 has been from the west or the south. Going further back, to 1948, candidates who came from sunnier, warmer states -- a home base to the south or west of their opponent's home base -- tended to win the White House. So:
- 1948: Missouri (Truman) beat New York (Dewey).
- 1952: Kansas (Eisenhower, who was actually born in Texas) beat Illinois (Stevenson).
- 1956: ditto
- 1960 is the clear exception to the rule: Massachusetts (Kennedy) beat Southern California (Nixon).
- 1964 saw two sunbelt contestants, as Texas (Johnson) beat Arizona (Goldwater); in this case, the candidate from the state with both western and southern elements won.
- 1968: Southern California (Nixon) beat Minnesota (Humphrey).
- 1972: Southern California (Nixon) beat South Dakota (McGovern).
- 1976: Georgia (Carter) beat Michigan (Ford).
- 1980 saw two sunbelt contestants, as Southern California (Reagan) beat Georgia (Carter).
- 1984: Southern California (Reagan) beat Minnesota (Mondale).
- 1988: Texas (with more than a touch of New England in George H. W. Bush) beat Massachusetts (Dukakis)
- 1992: Arkansas (the unambiguously southern Clinton) beat Texas (the ambiguously southern Bush who, remember, had New England roots).
- 1996: Arkansas (Clinton) beat Kansas (Dole).
- 2000: Texas (Bush) beat Tennessee (Gore).
- 2004: [The trend favors Bush of Texas over Kerry of Massachusetts.]

But don't count northern states out for their usefulness in determining the winner. Watch, for example, how the state of Ohio leans. Republicans have never won the White House without carrying the Buckeye State. [Bush is leading slightly in Ohio.]

Also, look at the "right track" or presidential approval poll numbers for the incumbent. If the last sizeable, reputable poll before the election shows that more than 50 percent of likely voters believe that the nation is on the right track, or that the president is doing a good job, then that is a common-sense sign that the incumbent will win. [Bush is at or slightly above 50 percent in most polls.]

And -- this one's really curious -- watch how the Redskins football team does in its last home game prior to the election. If the Redskins win, the incumbent's party stays in; if the Redskins lose, the incumbent's party loses too. This uncanny coincidence has prevailed for 17 straight elections -- all the way back to 1936. So:

1936 -- [Boston] Redskins beat the Chicago Cardinals 13-10; Democrat Franklin Roosevelt was re-elected.
1940 -- Washington Redskins beat the Pittsburgh Pirates 37-10; Roosevelt was re-elected.
1944 -- Redskins beat the Cleveland Rams 14-10; Roosevelt was re-elected.
1948 -- Redskins beat the Boston Yanks 59-21; Democrat Harry S. Truman was elected.
1952 -- Redskins lost to the Pittsburgh 24-23; Republican Dwight Eisenhower was elected.
1956 -- Redskins beat the Cleveland Browns 20-9; Eisenhower was re-elected.
1960 -- Redskins lost to the Cleveland Browns 31-10; Democrat John F. Kennedy was elected.
1964 -- Redskins beat the Chicago Bears 27-20; Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was elected.
1968 -- Redskins lost to the New York Giants 13-10; Republican Richard M. Nixon was elected.
1972 -- Redskins beat the Dallas Cowboys 24-20; Nixon was re-elected.
1976 -- Redskins lost to the Dallas Cowboys 20-7; Democrat Jimmy Carter was elected.
1980 -- Redskins lost to the Minnesota Vikings 39-14; Republican Ronald Reagan was elected.
1984 -- Redskins beat the Atlanta Falcons 27-14; Reagan was re-elected.
1988 -- Redskins beat the New Orleans Saints 27-24; Republican George H. W. Bush was elected.
1992 -- Redskins lost to the New York Giants 24-7; Democrat Bill Clinton was elected.
1996 -- Redskins beat the Indianapolis Colts 31-16; Clinton was re-elected.
2000 -- Redskins lost to the Tennessee Titans 27-21; Republican George W. Bush was elected.
2004 -- Redskins lost to the Green Bay Packers 28-14.... [The pattern suggests Kerry will win, eh?]

There are other "signs" that are watched to predict the presidential race -- like the Iowa Electronic Futures; like Nickelodeon viewers' preference (there the kids accurately picked the winner from 1988-2000); like the top sales of Halloween masks of the candidates (sales of Bush masks are selling 10 percent better than Kerry masks this fall), to name just three. These offbeat "polls" are considered by many to be eerily accurate. But because of all the contradictory signals this year, all bets are off. What we know for certain is that some of the traditional "reliable predictors" are going to be wrong. Ultimately, the one poll that counts will be taken on November 2, when the ballots are counted.

_______________________________________________________

[1]http://www.weeklyreader.com/election_vote.asp

[2]http://www.weeklyreader.com/election_results.asp

[3]The pattern holds for the team specifically called the Redskins, whether in Boston (during the 1936 election) or in Washington (since the 1940 election). Interestingly, the Boston team had been called the Braves until 1933, when the name changed to the Redskins. Source: USA Today, November 1, 2004, p. 3C.

Reaganomics

Question: What is Reaganomics, and did it outlive the Reagan administration?
From: Bob S. of Minneapolis, MN
Date: October 9, 2004

Gleaves answers: Reaganomics -- the economic program named after President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) -- has been one of the most controversial programs in American politics, much mentioned but little understood since first bolting onto the scene in the early 1980s. Reagan's long-time friend and advisor Edwin Meese III observed that Reaganomics "was the most consistently attacked and most ardently defended of all the president's initiatives."[1] Another Reagan domestic and economic policy advisor, Martin Anderson, tried to explain one source of popular misunderstanding: "There is a great deal at stake in the writing of the history of the Reagan presidency. For the past 25 years most of the men and women on the political Right ... have focused their energies on creating new policies, forging political coalitions, electing presidents, and fomenting peaceful worldwide revolution. They have been successful far beyond their wildest fantasies. But while many of us have been basking in warm contentment and self-satisfaction, those who were beaten have been busily writing our history."[2]

DEFINITIONS, PERCEPTIONS

Reaganomics was the name given to the economic program of our 40th president, who championed fiscal restraint and smaller government, tax cuts for individuals and less red tape for businesses. Reaganomics is based on "supply-side economics," a counter-intuitive set of policies that aims to increase revenues by decreasing taxes. Here is how it supposedly works: Significant tax cuts can lead to greater economic activity, since people have more money to spend and invest, which in turn can lead to greater tax revenues for the government.

To middle class Americans, Reaganomics was sold primarily as a tax cut that would let families keep more of their money, impose limits on big government, and increase consumer spending, savings, and investment. It was an idea that had broad appeal to many moderate and fiscally conservative voters when it was introduced in the early 1980s. To die-hard supporters, Reaganomics was more than an economic program. It was an idea inspired by nothing less than the American founding. In an era of creeping statism, it was a moral crusade to limit government power and restore individual freedom.

To critics, by contrast, Reaganomics was not based on sound economic policy at all, premised as it was on the "trickle down" theory of how wealth spreads. Critics liked to point out that it led to high budget deficits and provided the political cover to cut taxes for the rich -- invariably "on the backs of the poor." It is telling that George H. W. Bush, when he was competing with Reagan for the Republican nomination in 1980, referred to Reagan's economic plan as "voodoo economics." By whatever name, according to critics, Reaganomics was shorthand for bogus economic policies and the greed of the 1980s.

However viewed, Reaganomics was the centerpiece of the 40th president's domestic policy, forcefully articulated by Ronald Reagan during the 1980 campaign and persistently pursued during his first years in office. As the economists who formulated it explained, Reaganomics meant:
- slowing the rate of growth in federal spending (as opposed to shrinking the size of government),
- trimming personal income tax rates,
- reducing the regulatory burden on business, and
- cooperating with the Federal Reserve System's monetary policy to encourage a stable currency and robust financial markets.[3]

Meese notes that "The economic program was the first matter the administration tackled, and it dominated discussion of domestic policy for years."[4]

ROOTS OF REAGANOMICS

There are many sources of Reaganomics, most of them drawn from the experiences of Ronald Reagan himself. In the first place, at Eureka College he had majored in economics.

Second, as his movie career took off, Reagan became increasingly dismayed by the taxes he paid to Sacramento and especially to Washington.

Third, Reagan had to stay atop economic policy throughout his eight years as California's governor. As Meese points out, "When Reagan ran for president, one of his most obvious and impressive credentials was that he had been chief executive of the largest state in the Union. It would be hard to imagine a better training ground for the managerial job at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. With over 20 million people [in the late 1960s], California was larger than 90 percent of the countries on earth; had it been a separate nation, its gross national product would have been the seventh largest in the world."[5]

A few years later, when he ran for president, Reagan assembled an estimable team of advisors, some 460 policy experts who advised the candidate on everything from atom bombs to welfare reform; 74 of these experts were detailed to 6 economic task forces focusing on the federal budget, tax policy, spending control, regulatory reform, inflation, and international monetary policy. Some of the advisors are now familiar names: Alan Greenspan, Milton Freedman, William Simon, Jack Kemp, and George Schultz, who was chairman of the campaign's Economic Policy Coordinating Committee. These advisors formed the brain trust that gave Reaganomics its shape.

The economic malaise that arose on President Carter’s watch was the ostensible bogeyman that Reaganomics set out to slay. But Reagan also set his sights on a more formidable foe -- a three-headed hydra that was part Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, part Harry Truman’s Fair Deal, and part Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. From the 1930s to the 1960s, these three Democrats pushed the size and scope of the federal government beyond anything the Founders intended, according to Reagan. The California governor set out on a quest to slow down the advance of Leviathan, realizing that it would probably only be a rear-guard action.

Reagan, it should be said, was also trying to distance himself from a previous Republican president, also from California. Richard Nixon (1969-1974) turned out to be as progressive on the domestic front as Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969) had been. For example, Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency, proposed the Family Assistance Program to guarantee a minimum income for the poor, unveiled the start of national health insurance, and imposed wage and price controls to battle inflation. Nixon's was government on offense. As presidential historian Robert Dallek observes, "Everyone mistakenly assumed Nixon would scale back the Great Society, but he actually took up many traditional liberal causes."[6] Reagan believed that the Republican party needed to be the nation's conservative party, rather than a pale shadow of the nation's other party, the home of progressive Democrats.

OPPORTUNITY

Reagan's entry onto the national political stage occurred when he spoke on behalf of Senator Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential campaign; from that point forward he was seen as a spokesman for the conservative (as opposed to Eastern Establishment) wing of the GOP. Reagan himself made a modest run for president in 1968, and launched a much more serious effort in 1976, when he challenged the Republican incumbent, Gerald R. Ford, and won a number of primaries. Both times he was turned back -- the time for his ideas was not ripe.

But the economic stresses that beset the United States during the 1970s made the public receptive to a change. After Jimmy Carter had been in the White House for four years (1977-1981), the economy "was in the midst of its worst crisis since the Great Depression. In January 1981 the unemployment rate stood at 7.4 percent, on its way up to 10 percent. Persistent double-digit inflation had pushed interest rates to an unbelievable 21 percent. Real pre-tax income of the average American family had been dropping since 1976, and -- thanks to bracket creep -- after tax income was falling even faster. The supply of oil and other raw materials seemed precarious. The outgoing president warned of a bleak economic future."[7]

It was these stresses -- and Carter's inability to manage them effectively -- that gave Reagan the opportunity to mount a serious challenge during the 1980 campaign. The movie star beat the incumbent Democrat in a landslide.

Reagan wasted no time trying to enact his economic program, the centerpiece of which was a 25 percent tax cut over three years. As I've written in another Ask Gleaves answer, although Reagan had campaigned lower taxes and leaner government, in 1981 he had to deal with a Democratic majority in the House. (In the '81 election Republicans gained control of the Senate.) True, an incoming president traditionally enjoys a honeymoon period of a hundred days or so, but in his first couple of months in office, Reagan was encountering stiff resistance among House Democrats. After Reagan proposed his Economic Recovery Plan, Speaker Tip O'Neill said, "We're not going to let them [the Republicans] tear asunder programs we've built over the years."[8]

The mood changed dramatically after John Hinckley fired his way into history. The would-be assassin shot Reagan on March 30, 1981, barely two months after the 40th president's inauguration. The president's grace and courage during the ordeal raised the esteem in which the American people held him. In such an atmosphere it was difficult for congressional Democrats to criticize the recovering president. Edmund Morris wrote of this critical period in Reagan's presidency:

"By April 24, [Reagan] was well enough to walk to the West Wing and chair a full Cabinet meeting. And four days later, live on prime time, he made the most dramatic presidential appearance in Congress since Franklin Roosevelt's return from Yalta.

"The millions watching saw a large and splendid man, literally death-defying, appear at the threshold of the House as the doorkeeper roared the traditional 'The President of the United States!' All members rose as required, but their respect on this occasion verged on reverence -- and also signaled a near-helpless capitulation to the message they knew he was bringing.

"'I walked in to an unbelievable ovation that went on for several minutes,' he wrote afterward. His speech -- a call for one hundred percent support for his Program for Economic Recovery -- was interrupted by fourteen bursts of applause and three standing ovations. 'In the 3rd of these suddenly about 40 Democrats stood and applauded. Maybe we are going to make it. It took a lot of courage for them to do that, and it sent a tingle down my spine.'

"Not forty but sixty-three Democrats subsequently joined the solid Republican minority, sending Reagan's budget to the Senate with a vote of 253-176. If not quite the total support he had dreamed of, it was a huge victory, and the first official register of his legislative power. As Speaker Tip O'Neill philosophically reminded reporters, Congress was ultimately responsible to the American people, 'and the will of the people is to go along with the President.'"[9]

All through the spring and summer of 1981, Reagan lobbied Congress to cut welfare, the food stamp program, school meals, and Medicare and Medicaid. Congress went along with most of the president's plan, passing the Economic Recovery Tax Act on July 29, 1981. Reagan signed the legislation the next month at his ranch in California, outside the house on the now-famous tax-cut table. The legislation cut taxes by $750 billion over five years, making it the largest tax cut in American history.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF REAGANOMICS

Defenders of Reaganomics like to talk about how the bleak '70s gave way to the sunny '80s. "From 1982 to 1990 the United States experienced 96 straight months of economic growth, the longest peacetime expansion in its history [at that point]. Almost 20 million brand-new jobs, most of them high-paying jobs, were created. Inflation fell dramatically to low levels and stayed there as the American dollar once again became sound. Interest rates also fell dramatically and stayed down. The stock market soared, nearly tripling in value. Government revenues -- at the federal, state, and local levels -- nearly doubled, making possible the largest increase in social welfare spending in history. And, almost incidentally, we financed an enormous buildup in America's military power, checkmating the evil intentions of the old Soviet Empire, and ultimately causing the disintegration of Communism throughout the world."[10]

IMPACT ON THE NATION'S CLIMATE OF OPINION

Economists continue to debate the degree to which Reaganomics delivered economic recovery and prosperity. Whatever its contribution to the nation's economic recovery, there is no question of its impact on public discourse and policy. No sooner did Reagan leave office in 1989 than many of the nation's governors -- Republican and Democratic -- picked up the gauntlet and adopted the lower taxes/smaller government mantra.

Indeed, Reaganomics informed the economic thinking of the fiscally conservative New Democrats, of whom Bill Clinton was a leader. During Clinton's eight years as president, he never seriously entertained taking the nation back to the marginal tax rates of the Carter administration. In one of his State of the Union addresses, he disarmingly proclaimed, "The era of big government is over." It was because of Reaganomics.

Most recently, in the second presidential debate of the 2004 campaign, John Kerry was pressured into saying, in no uncertain terms, "I will not raise taxes" on the middle class. It was because of Reaganomics.

There is no question that economic and social debate at the state and federal level are different because of the credibility Reaganomics gained in the 1980s. "In retrospect, the initial Reagan economic program was the most ambitious attempt to change the direction of federal economic policy of any administration since the New Deal.... In the end, for various reasons, there was no 'Reagan Revolution' -- but considerable evolution occurred in economic policy during the Reagan presidency."[11]
___________________________

[1]Edwin Meese III, With Reagan: The Inside Story (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1992), p. 148.

[2]Martin Anderson, "When the Losers Write the History," National Review, August 31, 1992.

[3]Willaim Niskanen, William Poole, and Murray Weidenbaum, Introduction to the Reagan Economic Reports, in Two Revolutions in Economic Policy: The First Economic Reports of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, ed. James Tobin and Murray Weidenbaum (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1988), p. 280.

[4]Meese, With Reagan, p. 148.

[5]Meese, With Reagan, p. 27.

[6]Robert Dallek, To Lead a Nation: The Presidency in the Twentieth Century (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004), p. 75.

[7]Ed Rubenstein, Introduction to "The Real Reagan Record," National Review, August 31, 1992.

[8]Lou Cannon, President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (New York: Public Affairs, 2000), p. 203.

[9]Edmund Morris, Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan (New York: Modern Library, 1999), pp. 438-39.

[10]Martin Anderson, "When the Losers Write the History," National Review, August 31, 1992.

[11]Niskanen, Poole, and Weidenbaum, Introduction to the Reagan Economic Reports, in Two Revolutions, p. 289.

Presidents and jobs

Question: As a follow-up to my previous question, which recent presidents have had the best record of job growth?
From: Sherry J., Phoenix, AZ
Date: September 15, 2004

Gleaves answers: This answer is going to surprise many people, especially if they are partisan and have a dog in the fight. Going back to 1929 and the Hoover administration, following are the presidents who presided over the most job growth (expressed as a percentage).
1. Bill Clinton -- 11.6 percent increase in jobs during his first term (1993-1996).
2. Bill Clinton -- 11.4 percent increase in jobs during his second term (1997-2000).
3. Ronald Reagan -- 10.8 percent increase in jobs during his second term (1985-1988).
4. Jimmy Carter -- 10.5 percent increase in jobs while in office (1977-1980).
5. Lyndon Johnson -- 9.8 percent increase in jobs during his one full term (1965-1968).
6. Franklin Roosevelt -- 7.7 percent increase in jobs during his third term ((1941-1944).

The winner, in five of the top six instances, was a Democrat.

Going back to 1929 and the Hoover administration, following are the presidents who presided over the least job growth (expressed as a percentage):
1. Herbert Hoover -- 6.4 percent decrease in jobs while in office (1929-1932).
2. George W. Bush -- 1.2 percent decrease in jobs during his first 3 and 1/2 years in office.
3. Dwight Eisenhower -- 0.8 percent increase during his second term (1957-1960).
4. George H. W. Bush -- 2.5 percent increase while in office (1989-1992).
5. Dwight Eisenhower -- 2.8 percent increase during his first term (1953-1956).

The least impressive performances, in all five cases, were those of Republicans.

The other presidents -- Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford -- occupied the Oval Office when the Help Wanted ads expanded between 3 and 6 percent.

ECONOMIC STEWARDSHIP

Technically presidents don't create jobs; what they really do is help create the conditions in which jobs are added to or subtracted from the economy. That's why one of a president's chief tasks is economic stewardship. Presidential stewardship of the economy has a storied past, going back to the beginning of our nation, when George Washington hired Alexander Hamilton to be Treasury secretary. Hamilton wrote a series of perceptive reports and proved to be a brilliant architect of economic growth that has influenced presidents and policymakers to this day.

How do presidents carry out the task of economic stewardship? First, foremost, and hopefully by doing no harm. Presidents have to watch what they say because their words can make the stock market rise or fall. They have to think through their fiscal policy since it usually involves changes in tax policy, the regulatory burden, a budget surplus or deficit, and the national debt. Whether they sign or veto the legislation sent to their desk from Capitol Hill can similarly have an impact, as can the trade agreements they negotiate. And since the president is the commander in chief, do not forget the impact of war, which usually has an enormous impact on the economy.

Presidents have historically taken quite different tacks to influence the economy. Those in the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt spoke of "stimulus packages" -- i.e., government programs -- to pump money into the economy to try to create jobs. Those in the tradition of Ronald Reagan have spoken of tax and regulatory cuts to stimulate the economy. Whatever their economic approach, by word and deed modern presidents can have an impact on trade, outsourcing, income, savings, investment, the gross domestic product, consumer confidence, home ownership, business expansion, and job growth.

Now, since presidents are constrained by the Constitution, Congress, Supreme Court, the bureaucracy, public opinion, election year politics, term limits, and custom, there are limits to their power over the economy. Moreover, they exercise economic leverage through fiscal policy, not monetary policy, which is the province of the Federal Reserve Board.

How is the economic stewardship of any given administration measured? One measure is the percentage change in jobs, which your question seeks to plumb. Two other common measures are the unemployment rate and inflation rate. These two can be added up to reckon the Misery Index, devised by Jimmy Carter's campaign in 1976 to criticize President Gerald R. Ford's economic performance. Four years later, Ronald Reagan turned the Misery Index against its creator to discredit Jimmy Carter's economic stewardship.

This answer started with some surprise facts. But over the past several decades, polls have consistently shown that voters regard Republican presidents as better economic stewards than Democratic presidents. Republicans tend to run as fiscal conservatives. Most voters and a good many economists believe that fiscal conservatism -- lower tax rates, a balanced budget, fewer regulations -- leads to better conditions for job growth than the alternative -- higher taxes, budget deficits, and more regulations. However they are measured, virtually all modern presidents want to be remembered as good stewards of the nation's economy.

Job growth and elections

Question: Is strong job growth the best predictor of an incumbent president's re-election chances? Likewise, is weak job growth the best predictor of a challenger's chances to unseat an incumbent?
From: Sherry J. of Phoenix, AZ
Date: September 14, 2004

Gleaves answers: Yes and no -- how do you like that for an answer?

Seriously, the answer is more complex than many voters may realize.[1] The conventional wisdom is that if presidents are in office when there is double-digit job growth, they or their hand-picked successor will win re-election. We are constantly told that people vote their pocketbook. But tell that to Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon Johnson, each of whom lost following double-digit job growth.

The truth is that pocketbook issues are extraordinarily complex; job growth is just part of the calculus that involves inflation, interest rates, consumer confidence, consumer debt, home ownership numbers, and other factors.

The best that can be said is that some presidents who presided over double-digit job growth won re-election. This is true of Bill Clinton, who owns the record; there was 11.6 percent job growth during his first term (1993-1996), and he handily beat back challenger Bob Dole in 1996. Similarly, Vice President George H. W. Bush did quite well because of Ronald Reagan's legacy; there was 10.8 percent job growth during Reagan's second term (1985-1988), and Bush easily defeated Michael Dukakis in 1988.

On the other hand, double-digit job growth did not insure victory for others who had been in office. There was 11.4 percent job growth during Bill Clinton's second term (1997-2000), but it did not secure Vice President Al Gore's victory over George W. Bush in 2000. Likewise, the fact that jobs grew by 10.5 percent during Jimmy Carter's term (1977-1980) -- a statistic that really surprises people -- did not guarantee his being returned to office when Ronald Reagan challenged him.

So: twice in recent times the electorate rewarded incumbents after double-digit job growth, and twice the electorate turned them out.

It is hard to discern a meaningful political pattern based on robust or anemic job growth. During Dwight D. Eisenhower's first term (1953-1956), there was only 2.8 percent job growth, yet he was easily returned to office. During Lyndon B. Johnson's term (1965-1968), there was 9.8 percent job growth, but his successor was defeated.

And think about this. Franklin D. Roosevelt became president during the depths of the Great Depression, when one in four workers was unemployed -- there was nowhere to go but up. Yet he was re-elected when there was 5.5 percent job growth in his first term (1933-1936), 3.3 percent growth in his second term (1937-1940), and 7.7 percent growth in his third term (1941-1944), when the nation was totally mobilized for war. Hardly exceptional numbers, any of them.

Not that job performance is irrelevant to one's chances of re-election. Consider poor Herbert Hoover: the nation's economy lost 6.4 percent of its jobs during his term (1929-1933), and the Great Enginneer failed to win re-election. Is there a causal link? Absolutely.

So what about the current president, George W. Bush? Based on data through July of 2004, it appears that Bush will be the first president since Hoover to reside in the White House when there is a net job loss; there are 1.2 percent fewer jobs today than in 2000. Come November 2, will there be a causal link between the economic fact and the political performance? Yes. Will it be enough of a link to determine the outcome of the election? Not likely. As of this writing, Bush is ahead of rival John Kerry in the polls.

What to make of such a statistical hodge podge? Only this: In the end, many factors determine who wins presidential elections. It is not always true -- as was said in 1992 -- that "It's the economy, stupid!" The context of the times is always a factor. If the nation is at war, then the country is judging the candidates as commanders in chief. If the nation is grappling with past wrongs, then citizens are judging candidates' sense of justice. If the nation is impatient for reform, then voters are sizing up candidates' relations with Congress, and whether they have the ability to get legislation passed and signed.

Citizens are sensitive to many dimensions of the people who run for high office: vision, character, personality, sense of justice, political skills, communication skills, economic stewardship, administrative skills, international relations, leadership in a crisis -- all play a role. In the end, the choice often seems to be a mystery.

_________________________________________________________________

[1]For the data used in this answer, I am indebted to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bloomberg Financial Markets, and Dylan Loeb McClain, "In Elections, It's Not Always about Jobs," New York Times, August 8, 2004, p. 2 of Week in Review.

Convention Cities

Question: My question is prompted by the Democratic National Convention being held in Boston: How many times has Boston hosted the Democrats? What are the other top convention cities? How are the host cities chosen?
From: Dena M. of Wilmington, Delaware
Submitted: July 24, 2004

Gleaves answers:
The Democrats have held 43 national conventions. Their first meeting was in a saloon in Baltimore in 1832; the shindig in Boston will be the 44th. That first national convention back in 1832 occurred in the heyday of the Age of Jackson, when American politics was lurching toward a more democratic process of selecting candidates. (Before 1832, candidates were selected by the party elite -- by "King Caucus" -- not by broadly representative conventions.) It surprises people to learn that historic Boston is experiencing a first: Beantown has never before been the host city of the Democratic National Convention.

That may seem odd when you consider how many times some cities have been tapped to host political conventions. Democrats have met most often in Chicago; the Windy City has hosted the Democrats 11 times. (Chicago is also the top choice for Republicans, who have met in Chicago 14 times. In fact, in 1896 and 1932, both Republicans and Democrats held their national conventions in Chicagoland.) Baltimore has hosted the Democrats 9 times; New York, 5 times; St. Louis, 4 times; Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, a couple of times each. A dozen other cities -- Houston, Denver, Atlantic City, Miami Beach, Kansas City -- have earned the distinction once.

Listed below and in chronological order are the cities that have hosted the Democrats, as well as the nominee who emerged victorious from the convention. An asterisk indicates that the nominee went on the be elected president:

1832: Baltimore - President Andrew Jackson*
1835: Baltimore - Vice President Martin Van Buren*
1840: Baltimore - President Martin Van Buren
1844: Baltimore - Rep. James K. Polk of Tennessee*
1848: Baltimore - Sen. Lewis Cass of Michigan
1852: Baltimore - Former Sen. Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire*
1856: Cincinnati - Former Sen. James Buchanan of Pennsylvania*
1860: Charleston / Baltimore - Sen. Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois / Vice President John Breckinridge of Kentucky (Southern Democrat nominee)
1864: Chicago - General George McClellan of New Jersey
1868: New York - Gov. Horatio Seymour of New York
1872: Baltimore - Horace Greeley of New York
1876: St. Louis - Former Gov. Samuel Tilden of New York
1880: Cincinnati - Gen. Winfield Hancock
1884: Chicago - Gov. Grover Cleveland of New York*
1888: St. Louis - President Grover Cleveland renominated
1892: Chicago - President Grover Cleveland renominated*
1896: Chicago - William Jennings Bryan
1900: Kansas City - William Jennings Bryan
1904: St. Louis - Former Sen. Henry Davis of West Virginia
1908: Denver - William Jennings Bryan
1912: Baltimore - Gov. Woodrow Wilson of New Jersey*
1916: St. Louis - President Woodrow Wilson renominated*
1920: San Francisco - Gov. James M. Cox of Ohio
1924: New York - John W. Davis
1928: Houston - Gov. Al Smith of New York
1932: Chicago - Gov. Franklin Delano Roosevelt of New York*
1936: Philadelphia - President Franklin Delano Roosevelt renominated*
1940: Chicago - President Franklin Delano Roosevelt renominated*
1944: Chicago - President Franklin Delano Roosevelt renominated*
1948: Philadelphia - President Harry S. Truman*
1952: Chicago - Gov. Adlai E. Stevenson of Illinois
1956: Chicago - Gov. Adlai E. Stevenson of Illinois
1960: Los Angeles - Sen. John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts*
1964: Atlantic City - President Lyndon B. Johnson*
1968: Chicago - Vice President Hubert Humphrey
1972: Miami Beach - Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota
1976: New York - Gov. Jimmy Carter of Georgia*
1980: New York - President Jimmy Carter renominated
1984: San Francisco - Vice President Walter Mondale
1988: Atlanta - Gov. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts
1992: New York - Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas*
1996: Chicago - President Bill Clinton renominated*
2000: Los Angeles - Vice President Al Gore
2004: Boston - stay tuned....

How are the host cities selected, you ask? By doughty souls who are persuasive and willing to work hard. The Democrats, in the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and the Republicans, in the Republican National Committee (RNC), canvass the cities that are competing against one another for the honor of hosting a convention. In any given year, a number of factors go into the selection of the host city -- geographic, historic, electoral, political, financial, personal. Sometimes the site is chosen because of its historical symbolism; in 2004 the GOP is meeting in New York City in 2004 to provide a dramatic background to their renomination of George W. Bush as a war president, and to connect with the spirit of that city after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Sometimes the site is chosen because of the financial contributions of certain party leaders; in 1928 Democrats met in Houston in part because of the deep pockets of Jesse Jones, a Texas mogul.

Before Modern Conventions

Question: I've heard that presidential candidates were not always nominated in national conventions. How were they originally nominated? And when did conventions take over the process?
From: Craig H. of San Jose, California
Submitted: July 23, 2004

Gleaves answers:
The U.S. Constitution says nothing about how presidential candidates are to be nominated. There is not a word about political parties, caucuses, primaries, or conventions. The process has changed considerably over time and has become part of the nation's "unwritten constitution."

GEORGE WASHINGTON

To understand how the quirky process evolved, you have to go back to the beginning, to George Washington, the colossus of the new nation; the man who was "First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen." We all know how widespread that sentiment was, but rarely do we think through what it meant. What it meant, politically, was that Washington had no opponent when he was asked to become the nation's first president. So there was no need for political parties to nominate candidates so long as he was willing to serve as president. Both in 1789 and in 1793, the gentleman-planter from Mount Vernon was unanimously chosen by the Electoral College to be president of the United States.

EARLY PARTIES AND KING CAUCUS

Washington admonished the new republic to be unified; it should not be torn asunder by factions (parties). During his years in office, Washington was able to keep a fairly tight rein on his contentious cabinet. Still, by the second term, deep divisions were apparent, and the nation's first political parties were starting to form -- Federalists around Hamilton and Adams, and Democratic-Republicans around Jefferson and Madison. As a result, when Washington retired and there was no consensus on who should succeed him, the newly emerging political parties rushed into the vacuum. The Constitution being silent on the question of how to select candidates for high office, party leaders had to make up the rules as they went along. Beginning with the election of 1796, leaders in Congress divided into two camps -- a Federalist caucus and a Democratic-Republican caucus. The two caucuses nominated their presidential and vice presidential candidates. Rank-and-file Congressmen had little say in the process. Ordinary Americans had no say in the process. A small club determined who could run for president, and "King Caucus" lorded over presidential politics.

The early caucus system survived for almost three decades because the Founders were not keen on democracy; from their reading of ancient Greek and Roman authors, they believed that democracies were susceptible to mob rule. Representative republics were a superior form of governance. So our nation's Founders did not mind that an elite group of powerful men essentially hand-picked presidential candidates.

CRISIS POINT: 1824

Despite the wisdom of the Founders, problems with the caucus system were not long in coming. During the first two decades of the nineteenth century, the Federalist party grew increasingly bankrupt of ideas and energy -- it got so bad that Federalists didn't even nominate a candidate for the 1820 election. This meant that whomever the Democratic-Republican caucus nominated would be handed the presidency on a platter. Without citizen input. Without public debate. Without competition. In 1820 James Monroe ran for re-election virtually unopposed, and to put the best face on the fact, his presidential years were dubbed the "Era of Good Feelings."

Dissatisfaction with King Caucus erupted in 1824. By that point, the caucus system had aroused trenchant criticism, even among some Democratic-Republicans who were in the catbird seat. In 1824, several men were popular enough to have a shot at the presidency, above all, Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams. But do you think King Caucus dubbed either of these two men? No. The caucus instead chose Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford to run. The subsequent election was one of the more colorful in U.S. history, to be sure, but it made little sense to most Americans. Jackson received the most popular votes; he also received a plurality of votes in the Electoral College. But he could not become president outright because he failed to win a majority of electoral votes. That's because Old Hickory was competing not only against Adams and Crawford, but also against Henry Clay, who had thrown his hat into the ring. As not one of these four men had a clear majority in the Electoral College, the election was thrown into the House of Representatives, which selected John Quincy Adams to be the nation's sixth president. So much for King Caucus, which had dubbed Crawford. (Remember him?)

Few Americans were happy with the process. So upset was Jackson that he called for abolishing the Electoral College, and while reformers were at it, the caucus system as well.

FIRST POLITICAL CONVENTIONS: 1831-1832

From the tumult of these early years, King Caucus was allowed to die. It was replaced by the convention system that in theory (and eventually in practice) would give more people the chance to influence the nominating process. Andrew Jackson's candidacy was supported by mass meetings and state conventions as early as 1828. But the first national convention was held in 1831, when the Anti-Masonic party met in a Baltimore saloon. Jackson's Democratic supporters liked the idea so much that they met one year later in that same saloon. The events that unfolded in Baltimore in 1832 look modern in outline: delegates attended from the states; they nominated a presidential candidate (Jackson) and his running mate (Martin Van Buren); they drew up a party platform.

Many people of that day reckoned that open, public conventions would give more citizens a voice in the nominating process. Alas, the best laid plans....

It turned out that the new method of selecting candidates was not really open to ordinary Americans. Yes, there were delegates who got to vote. But conventions were under the control of small but powerful cliques of state and local party leaders who had screened and handpicked most delegates. Dramatic moments were frequent, however, as competing candidates for the party's nomination showed up. They had to go behind the scenes to make deals to secure enough delegate votes to win the nomination. This was the era of the proverbial smoke-filled room. The nominating process was ruled by party bosses who brokered conventions.

CONVENTIONS REFORMED

Smoke-filled rooms, party bosses, political machines, brokered conventions -- was this the best the greatest democracy in the world could do? Toward the end of the 19th century, there was growing dissatisfaction with a nominating process that was in the hands of so few men. The Progressive movement arose in the first decades of the 20th century to confront a host of challenges -- economic and social as well as electoral. Indeed, some of the Progressive-era reforms passed almost a century ago influence party conventions to this day. For example, states passed laws that allowed voters to select candidates in primaries. This method gave ordinary citizens the chance to voice their preference. The results in most cases were binding. By 1916, almost half the states had adoped the primary system.

Despite reforms, presidential nominations were still the domain of party bosses and hand-picked delegates to national conventions. Rank-and-file voters were not yet in the driver's seat. Most conventions were brokered by factional party leaders committed to favorite sons. Two example illustrate. In 1952, the Democratic National Convention chose Adlai Stevenson to be the party's nominee, even though Estes Kefauver had won more than three-fifths of the votes in the primaries. In 1968, the infamous Democratic National Convention in Chicago gave the nod to Hubert Humphrey even though he had not actively run in the primaries.

Conventions in the 1960s could be fairly raucus, reflecting the temper of the decade. Already noted were the Democrats in Chicago, who were anything but neatly packaged as they tried to deal with urban violence, protesting youth, the Vietnam War, and the recent assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. Delegates were overshadowed by riots, and outnumbered by 11,900 Chicago police; 7,500 Army troops; 7,500 Illinois National Guardsmen; and 1,000 Secret Service agents.[1]

Four years earlier, in 1964, the GOP had its share of tumult when meeting in San Francisco's Cow Palace. Their convention saw moderate Nelson Rockefeller booed and heckled, and conservative nominee Barry Goldwater assert that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice.[2]

Since 1972, a new wave of change has given conventions the look they have today. One change has been the decline of party machines. Another has been the rise of campaign finance rules that sidestepped organized parties. A third has occurred as more states adopted the primary election system to choose delegates and sort out candidates. As William Safire points out, "By 1972, the proliferation of primaries ... made brokerage more difficult, though not impossible."[3]

RECENT POLITICAL CONVENTIONS

Major party conventions today lack the drama of those in years past, no doubt about it. Conventions nowadays are about speeches, about marketing a candidate and selling a party; they are usually not the venue in which momentous decisions are made.

The last truly exciting conventions occurred in 1980 at both party convocations. Democratic delegates, meeting in New York City, were divided between Senator Edward Kennedy and incumbent President Jimmy Carter. Although Carter won on the first ballot, Kennedy gave one of the most memorable speeches in Democratic convention history.

Also in 1980 the Republican convention meeting in Detroit provided excitement because, at the beginning of the convention, no one -- not even Ronald Reagan -- was sure who the vice presidential running mate would be. In Detroit there was a tense all-nighter in which Reagan tried to persuade former President Gerald Ford to be his running mate. The idea was that Reagan and Ford would be "co-presidents." Speculation ran rampant through the night, Americans tuned in, and several politicians went on national TV to proclaim that Ford had accepted the offer. Not so. In the wee hours it was learned that George H. W. Bush and Reagan came to an agreement.

Reagan, by the way, provided drama at an earlier convention that involved Gerald Ford. In the 1976 GOP convention in Kansas City, the former California governor made a serious run at incumbent Ford. After Ford narrowly won nomination at the convention, Reagan's numerous delegates chanted for Reagan to return to the floor and make a speech. Reagan answered the call -- and overshadowed the nominee -- with a rousing extemporaneous speech about leadership. The crowd went wild, and Reagan and the nation knew he'd be back in 1980.

2004

Columbia University presidential historian Alan Brinkley observes that "political conventions have not been decision-making forums for half a century." But that may change in 2004. The Democratic convention in Boston and Republican convention in New York are "the first in more than 30 years to coincide with the combination of war, crisis, and bitter political division."[4]

---

[1]2004 Democratic National Convention Official Site, "Past Conventions," at http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/lk/content2.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=118243
[2]Alan Brinkley, "Is Democracy Still Welcome in the Hall?" New York Times, July 25, 2004, section 15 ("Boston"), p. 3.
[3]William Safire, Safire's New Political Dictionary (Random House: New York, 1993), s.v. "brokered convention," p. 86.
[4]Brinkley, "Is Democracy," p. 3.

Presidential debates

Question: Are the presidential candidates scheduled to debate this fall? Have there always been presidential debates?
From: Dan P. of Boulder, Colorado
Submitted: July 05, 2004

Gleaves answers:

2004 DEBATE SCHEDULE

Debates provide one of the few opportunities for high drama in an election season, and this fall there will be three of them, as well as one vice presidential debate. Here is the schedule as set out by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD):

First presidential debate: Thursday, September 30, at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, FL.

Vice presidential debate: Tuesday, October 5, at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, OH.

Second presidential debate: Friday, October 8, at Washington University in St. Louis, MO.

Third presidential debate: Wednesday, October 13, at Arizona State University in Tempe, AZ.

The CPD also announced two back-up sites, Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester, NY, and the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC. All debates will start at 9:00 p.m. ET.

The debate schedule was announced back on November 6, 2003, by Paul G. Kirk and Frank J. Fahrenkopf, co-chairmen of The Commission on Presidential Debates. To keep abreast of any changes, check out the CPD's Website: www.debates.org/

WHAT TO WATCH FOR (A DEBATE STRATEGY PRIMER)

Conventional wisdom says four things about debates.

1. To debate or not to debate. It is usually in the incumbent's interest to debate a challenger as few times as he can get away with. Contrarywise, it is in the challenger's interest to get the incumbent to debate as much as possible. The idea is to create the opportunity for a major misstep that will diminish the stature of the president. This is what happened in a 1976 debate between challenger Jimmy Carter and incumbent Gerald R. Ford. To the amazement of his audience, Ford said, "There is no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe, and there never will be during a Ford administration." The president had to endure sustained criticism for that misstatement. John Kerry will try to create and take advantage of a similar situation when he debates George W. Bush in 2004.

2. The are-you-better-off question. Once in a debate, the incumbent must try to convince the audience that they are better off now than they were four years ago. By contrast, the challenger will be trying to persuade voters that they are worse off. This is what Jimmy Carter did in 1976, when he set out to beat incumbent Gerald R. Ford. Carter's campaign created the "misery index" -- the sum of the inflation rate and unemployment rate -- and asserted again and again that President Ford had not been a good manager of the nation's economy -- the numbers proved it. Ah, but the misery index came back to bite Carter in the 1980 campaign, because unemployment and inflation had risen dramatically during the Democrat's four years in office. Reagan asked Americans, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" and he beat Carter in a landslide that sent the incumbent packing to Plains, Georgia, a melancholy man.

3. Presidential presentation. Both the challenger and the incumbent must possess self control and act presidential during their entire 90 minutes onstage. They must also do something paradoxical: they must look like the ordinary guy next door (I'm just a good ol' Bubba), and yet convey an inner character that says, in effect, I am superior to my opponent and, indeed, to most Americans, for I am the one who can stare terrorists down, send young men and women into war, and do whatever it takes to increase the security and prosperity of Americans. In 1988, Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis sometimes had a tough time looking as if he could be commander in chief. (Admittedly Ronald Reagan was a hard act to follow.) He hardly helped his case when handlers got him to don a military helmet and ride around in a U.S. Army tank in Michigan. The nation laughed, and the image stuck to Dukakis during his debates with George H. W. Bush, who was able to paint the Massachusetts governor as just another Northeastern liberal who wasn't tough enough to lead America and the free world. Four years later, in 1992, Republican George H. W. Bush was portrayed as totally out of touch with ordinary Americans when it was shown that he did not recognize the scanner in a grocery store, and he lost to a skillful Democratic challenger, Bill Clinton.

4. Whose mission makes people want to march? Successful presidential contenders need an idealistic streak -- they need to appeal to something greater than self-interest. Throughout American history, politicians have looked to Americans' love of freedom -- not just for themselves but for others -- to inspire the nation. The more expansive the freedom, the better. The 1980 debates are instructive. Carter had premised his presidency on limits -- limits to economic growth, limits to American power, limits to energy, limits even on the American spirit (which he said suffered from malaise).* Reagan self-consciously took the opposite tack, emphasizing that Americans can do anything if they are free -- free from burdensome taxes and regulations at home, and free from Communist intimidation abroad. Voters responded positively to the more positive message. It was Reagan's mission that made them want to march, and he won the 1980 election in a landslide.

EARLY DEBATES**

It's hard to believe nowadays, but public presidential debates are a recent development in American politics. Only since 1976 have they been a regular feature in America's political landscape.

What about the most famous debates in American history, Lincoln-Douglas? Those seven sparring matches that took place throughout the Illinois countryside during the summer and fall of 1858 were not presidential debates; they were debates between U.S. Senate candidates. The Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln, was challenging the Democratic incumbent, Stephen Douglas. Each debate lasted three hours. Although Lincoln won the popular vote the following November, he lost the 1858 election in the Illinois legislature (consistent with the manner of electing senators prior to passage of the 17th Amendment). Lincoln clearly won in the longer run. The cogency of his arguments concerning Union and slavery made his reputation soar and positioned him to win the Republican nomination for president two years later.

The first modern public debate between presidential candidates took place in 1948, in the Oregon Republican primary where Thomas Dewey and Harold Stassen were battling it out. The one-hour debate, over the question of whether to outlaw the Communist party, was broadcast nationally over radio to more than 40 million listeners. It was the only debate in which the contenders were restricted to one topic.

The next debate occurred in 1956, in the Florida primary, where Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver were duking it out for one hour on ABC radio. Topics ranged from foreign to domestic policy.

1960

The year 1960 saw truly momentous developments in presidential debates. They were the first nationally televised debates, and they were the first debates between contenders from different parties. Each of the four debates between Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy was seen by more than 60 million television viewers, and heard by millions more radio listeners. The setting for combat was a new milieu -- the TV studio -- in Chicago, Washington DC, New York, and Los Angeles. Most of the debates lasted one hour.

Interestingly, people who listened to the candidates on radio tended to think that Nixon won; people who watched them on television tended to think that Kennedy won. (Nixon's recent illness and his propensity to sweat under klieg lights did not help his presentation.) Media handlers still study the 1960 debates to understand audience response and to prepare their candidates to act like Everyman -- the plain ol' Bubba next door -- yet look authoritative and sound presidential.

There would be no more public, nationally broadcast debates among presidential candidates for another 16 years.

1976 to the present

The continuous tradition of having major candidates debate before a national TV audience is less than three decades old. The number of debates and their format are basically the same today as in 1976, the year America was celebrating its bicentennial. Democratic upstart Jimmy Carter challenged Republican incumbent Gerald R. Ford in three debates, hosted in cities redolent with the nation's founding -- Philadelphia and Williamsburg -- as well as in San Francisco. Interestingly, there were not many more television viewers of the debates in 1976 than in 1960 (despite a larger population and more access to television), probably because of the cynicism generated by the Watergate scandal that unfolded after the 1972 election.

A new twist in 1976 was to see the vice presidential contenders debate on national TV: Democrat Walter Mondale and Republican Bob Dole had at each other in the Alley Theater in Houston, Texas. Some 43 million Americans tuned in.

In 1980, Republican nominee Ronald Reagan took part in two debates on the road to the White House. His first was in Baltimore against Independent candidate John Anderson and lasted one hour, and his second was in Cleveland against Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter and lasted an hour and a half. The Cleveland debate was seen by more than 80 million viewers, a record that has not since been matched.

In 1984, Democratic nominee Walter Mondale challenged Republican incumbent Ronald Reagan in two debates in Louisville, KY, and Kansas City, KS. Each was one and a half hours in length and viewed by some 60 million Americans. In addition, the two vice presidential nominees, Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush and Democratic challenger Geraldine Ferraro (the first woman vice presidential candidate in U.S. history), fought it out for an hour and a half in Philadelphia.

In 1988, Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis challenged Republican nominee George H. W. Bush in two nationally televised debates, in Winston-Salem, NC, and Los Angeles, CA. The vice presidential nominees -- Lloyd Bentson and Dan Quayle -- made for some memorable moments in Omaha, NE.

In 1992, Independent candidate Ross Perot added color to the debates between Democratic challenger Bill Clinton and Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush in three nationally televised debates that were crammed into nine days. The settings for the dramas were St. Louis, MO (at Washington University, which hosted a 2000 debate and is hosting a 2004 debate as well), Richmond, VA (University of Richmond), and East Lansing, MI (Michigan State University). Vice presidential nominees James Stockdale (I), Al Gore (D), and Dan Quayle (R) went at each other in one debate in Atlanta, GA, before 51 million TV viewers.

Note this: During each of the three debates in 1992, viewership ranged between 60 and 70 million people, which was fairly consistent with the number of viewers of all previous presidential debates, reaching back to the Nixon-Kennedy debates more than three decades earlier. The exception was the Reagan-Carter debate in 1980, which saw a spike of more than 80 million viewers. That record has not been beaten, despite the presence of more Americans, more television sets, and more news channels than ever before. After 1992 there would be a dramatic fall off in the number of viewers of nationally televised presidential debates.

In 1996, Republican candidate Bob Dole challenged Democratic incumbent Bill Clinton in only two debates, the first in Hartford, CT, and second in San Diego, CA. Only 36 million Americans tuned in -- fewer than watched the VP debate in 1976. And in 1996, only 26 million Americans watched the lone vice presidential debate between Jack Kemp (R) and incumbent Al Gore (D) in St. Petersburg, FL -- half the number who watched the 1992 VP debate.

In the lead up to one of the most contested presidential elections in U.S. history, that of 2000, there were three debates in which George W. Bush (R) and incumbent Al Gore (D) fought it out. The venues were Boston (University of Massachusetts), Winston-Salem (Wake Forest University, its second), and St. Louis (Washington University, its third in all). The length of each debate was one and a half hours -- not long by Lincoln-Douglas standards. Nevertheless -- and despite the headline Al Gore earned because of his visible exasperation in the first debate -- the contests were viewed by fewer than 47 million people. Vice presidential aspirants Joe Lieberman (D) and Dick Cheney (R) battled it out in Danville, KY, before 28 million viewers.

---

*Steven M. Gillon, "Jimmy Carter," in The American Presidency, ed. Alan Brinkley and Davis Dyer (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2004), pp. 457, 465.
**For an overview, see "Debate History," in Commission on Presidential Debates Website: http://www.debates.org/pages/history.html