Standing at Armageddon: Roosevelt, Wilson, and the Battle for Democracy in the Presidential Nominating Process

Wednesday, April 11th, 2018

Follow this link to watch Dr. Parshall’s Presentation on YouTube

The TR Site’s March Speaker Nite featured Dr. Lisa K. Parshall, Associate Professor of History and Political Science at Daemen College. Her presentation, Standing at Armageddon: Roosevelt, Wilson, and the Battle for Democracy in the Presidential Nominating Process, explored the history of the popular presidential primary system and the impacts of its current structure on American politics.

Dr. Parshall began by explaining the concept of a national primary and some of the myths that have surrounded its adoption. Unlike our current system, a national primary would allow all voters in all states to cast their votes for their respective party’s candidates on a single day. This would in effect democratize the system because every vote would have an equal amount of influence over the outcome. While it has been suggested that a national primary is the most frequently offered reform proposal and that is has been thoroughly vetted and rejected by Congress, Dr. Parshall pointed out that isn’t exactly the case. Numerous primary reforms have been suggested, but very few call for an event that is national in scope and uniform in its timing and participation.

To help the audience better understand our current system and any potential reforms that could be made to it, Dr. Parshall explained the origins of the direct primary as part of the nominating process. It began where all good reforms begin, in the Progressive Era. As the nominating process for presidential candidates is entirely outside the scope of the Constitution, what emerged between the ratification of the Constitution and the Progressive Era was a nominating convention ruled by the iron fist of the party bosses. However, changes to state level offices and the passage of the 17th Amendment (providing for the direct election of senators) made many realize the direct election of a president made no sense so long as the nomination of the candidates remained in the hands of the party bosses. It was around this time that states began experimenting with the idea of primaries. Between 1910 and 1913, a string of states (including New York) began holding presidential primaries. However, these early attempts lacked uniformity and were too small to have any discernible impact on the nominating process at the national level. Additionally, these were often subject to ‘party raiding’ where voters of one party voted for the least electable candidate in the opposite party’s primary. These issues -- paired with fears regarding the cost, madness, and divisiveness of primaries -- made their future as a nominating mechanism uncertain.

However, something rather unexpected happened in 1912 and the presidential nominating process was brought into the spotlight. After four years of watching the Taft presidency from the sidelines, former President Theodore Roosevelt decided to re-enter political life--and not with a fizzle, but with a bang. He announced his intention to challenge Taft for the Republican nomination. Taft, the now sitting president and obvious choice for the nomination, did not take the challenge lightly and a mammoth battle ensued. Roosevelt knew the Republican Party bosses would be against his candidacy and chose to take the question directly to the people. He began to champion popular democracy in the form of the nominating primary and is even quoted as saying, “I hope that so far as possible the people may be given the chance, through direct primaries, to express their preference as to who shall be the nominee of the Republican Presidential Convention.” Taft had a rather anemic response to the idea of popular democracy. He was not inherently against the idea, but said, “I do not favor changing the rules of the game while the game is in progress. To propose the ‘recall of conventions’ in the midst of a campaign is contrary to the dictates of fair play.”

While Roosevelt had ample ideological reasons to support direct primaries, he also had a slightly more practical reason: he kept winning them. Roosevelt was enormously popular and either won or received electors from nearly every primary between April and June of 1912. Coming into the Republican National Convention, Roosevelt was clearly the people's choice. However, Roosevelt knew the party bosses were against him and made the unprecedented decision to physically attend the nominating convention in Chicago. Of the 1078 delegates, 540 were required to win the nomination. When Taft managed to squeak out the nomination with 561 votes, the convention erupted with shouts of ‘liar’ and ‘steam roller.’ Roosevelt bolted the convention and formed his own political party, the Progressive (or Bull Moose) Party. The divide created by that split effectively handed victory to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Dr. Parshall was quick to point out the significance of this moment and its impact on our current primary system. Roosevelt was advocating for direct primaries (plural), not one national primary. The same sentiments were echoed by Woodrow Wilson during his presidency; he specifically advocated for, “[The] prompt enactment of legislation which will provide for primary elections throughout the country at which the voters of the several parties may choose their nominees for the Presidency without the intervention of nominating conventions.” Despite the chaos of the 1912 election and the endorsement of Wilson and Roosevelt, support within Congress for nominating reform was short-lived, due in large part to the technical difficulties associated with implementing a primary system. The idea of enacting a primary system faded from the spotlight and was only resurrected during particularly nasty nominating cycles. The most notable of these were 1952 and 1968. The 1952 election cycle was thrown into upheaval when the unexpected New Hampshire primary results not only prompted Harry Truman to call off his reelection campaign, but the Republican Party’s intended ticket was upset by Dwight Eisenhower’s unanticipated popularity. Sixteen years later, the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention left many calling for reform when then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the nomination even though he had not won a single primary in his own name. Shortly thereafter, the DNC commissioned a panel which ultimately recommended the adoption of new rules to ensure wider and more democratic participation. The Republican National Convention quickly followed suit and both parties implemented direct nominating primaries during the months leading up to the nominating convention.

The result of this primary season is our current ‘front-loaded’ system. Since the state primaries occur over a number of months, the national audience watches the first states’ primaries carefully to gauge a candidate’s viability. Additionally, as the season progresses, it’s fairly common for the front runner to secure the delegates required for the nomination before all the primaries have even been held. The extra media attention and the amount of money each candidate and party spends on those early and important elections adds further incentive to be one of the first states to hold a primary. In fact, the national trend has been a general creep toward earlier and earlier primary dates. New Hampshire prides itself on being the first primary and has created state legislation allowing its primary date to be moved up as necessary. Dr. Parshall even joked that New Hampshire would be willing to vote at Christmas, so long as it’s the first to vote. However, this early-bird system raises questions regarding the democracy of the system. With presumptive nominees on both sides often emerging halfway through the process, are the primaries held in May and June even involved in the decision-making process? Dr. Parshall contends that a national primary is the only way to ensure uniformity and equality in the selection process. It would also encourage a more equitable distribution of media attention and campaign funds amongst the states.

Dr. Parshall ended her presentation by coming full circle. She compared the election cycle of 2016 to that of 1912 to demonstrate the impact of the primary system on the nominating process. Just like in 1912, the Republican Party had an enormously popular candidate who was not among the RNC’s top choices. However, as the primary results made the people’s will clear, the RNC again had to choose whether to respect popular democracy or to allow party leaders to make the decision. In 2016, unlike 1912, the Republican Party leaders did not intervene and instead chose to support the popular candidate. That choice demonstrates how much more democratic the nominating process has become. Yet, Dr. Parshall’s presentation demonstrates that there is room to make the system even more democratic by giving every voter an equal amount of say in the nominating process.

- Lindsey Lauren Visser, Public Programming Assistant

*****

Speaker Nite is part of the TR Site’s regular Tuesday evening programming, which is made possible with generous support from M&T Bank, as well as the New York State Council on the Arts (NYSCA), with the support of Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legislature.

Tags: ,

« Back to Blog