The two weeks since the Biden/Trump debate have been the best of times for presidential historians when it comes to media exposure. Among the panelists on all three major news networks, you can find the likes of John Meacham, Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss. The program hosts consistently seek enlightenment on the following questions. “Are there historical precedents for the current situation where an incumbent president faces an intra-party challenge? If so, what can we expect from efforts to replace Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket?”
In fact, there have been three such occasions beginning in 1968 when Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy took on incumbent Lyndon Johnson. Ronald Reagan v. Gerald Ford in 1976. And Ted Kennedy v. Jimmy Carter in 1980. The lesson? In each case, the candidate who eventually secured the nomination lost the general election. Pretty strong evidence for those who believe a change at the top of the ticket will guarantee a Trump victory in November. As they say, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it’s a duck.
However, a closer look suggests 2024 may be more of a phoenix than a duck. First, we need to understand the context in the three comparable situations. 1968 is easy. The January 1968 Tet offensive blew the whistle on General William Westmoreland’s declaration two months earlier that “The enemy’s hopes are bankrupt.” McCarthy rode growing skepticism about the war, especially among young voters, to a near upset in the March 12 New Hampshire Primary. Nineteen days later, Johnson announced he would not seek nor accept his party’s nomination for reelection.
In hindsight, the 1976 contest for the Republican nomination was more of a “coming out party” for Reaganism which had little, if anything, to do with Gerald Ford. Voters were tired of Nixon administration scandals and an annual inflation rate of 5.7 percent. Likewise, some members of the conservative wing of the GOP thought Nixon had gone soft on communism following his visit to China and similar outreach to Russia. They also questioned his pro-business credentials, particularly following creation of the Environment Protection Agency and issuing an executive order freezing wages and prices in hopes of taming inflation. What better opportunity to introduce an alternative economic philosophy. Unfortunately, that alternative was supply-side economics.
The lessons from Kennedy’s 1980 unsuccessful attempt to oust Carter as the party’s nominee? Politicians enter dangerous territory when they try and have an honest conversation with voters. And, if you’re going to go there, end on a positive note and tell voters what you will do to reverse the situation. I am, of course, referring to Carter’s infamous July 25, 1976 “malaise” speech which included the following.
The threat [to American democracy] is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.
Kennedy justified his candidacy on three tenets. Economic recovery post-inflation during the Nixon/Ford years did not meet voter expectations. Carter’s inability to get the release of U.S. hostages in Iran following the Islamic revolution. And Carter’s lack of a concrete plan to address both these crises, though crisis may be an overstatement. As I pointed out earlier this week, the average annual growth in the gross national product during the Carter years was 3.6 percent, a full point higher than Trump’s pre-COVID rate of 2.6 percent, you know, the economy he trumpets as the best of all time.
Which brings me to 2024 and while it may share some characteristics with a duck, it is not. Unlike 1968, American soldiers are not dying in an ill-conceived war halfway around the world. Unlike 1976, the only scandals the Biden administration is guilty of are free of any evidence and reside solely in the minds of MAGA conspiracy mongers and right-wing media. No one is wearing a “Whip Inflation Now” button because the trend is in the right direction and is now almost half that at the end of the Nixon/Ford era. Unlike 1980, the threat to democracy is not the mindset of the American public but a demagogue unleashed by a runaway Supreme Court. Plus, no one can accuse Biden of inaction, having signed more legislation than any of his predecessors in the last 50 years. And rather than bemoaning a dismal future, Joe Biden constantly reminds voters “I am never more optimistic about America.”
But for once, the past is not prologue. Even though Biden has a strong record to run on, and Democrats are on the right side of most 70/30 issues, Democrats have done a lousy job reminding votes of those facts. Especially when Trump is a fire hose of lies and misinformation. Biden is a perfect example of what doomed Michael Dukakis in his race against George H. W. Bush. Technocratic skills translate into good governance, but mediocre campaigns. Winning campaigns depend on effective messengers. Successful administrations depend on the knowledgeable and experienced team the winner puts together.
Therefore, I now propose Plan Z+1. It begins with everyone who is interested in replacing Biden at the top of the ticket agreeing to the following.
- But for the age issue, based on his accomplishment the last four years, Biden would be a heavy favorite to win reelection.
- Despite the age issue, he won more than 90 percent of the elected delegates to the convention.
- He deserves to be rewarded for those successes.
- The best reward? The right to pick his successor, someone he feels is most likely to carry forth the agenda from his time in office. And someone best qualified to prosecute the case against Trump and Project 2025.
Given this opportunity, I would still encourage Biden to make the case for a Harris/Murkowski “unity” ticket. Second choice is an all-Democratic, all-female Harris/Gretchen Whitmer ticket. Not far behind is a Harris/Andy Beshear ticket. If we, in fact, face the most existential internal threat to the United States since the Civil War, we need not ask presidential historians for their advice. We have it straight from the horse’s mouth.
A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.
~Abraham Lincoln/June 16, 1858
If Lincoln delivered this speech today, the second sentence would describe a choice, not about slavery, but democracy and autocracy. He would argue there is no scenario where the United States would have democratic states and autocratic states. To repeat Lincoln’s warning, “I do not expect the house to fall–but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.” Ensuring that the “all one thing” be a nation without slaves depended on Lincoln’s re-election in 1864. To do that he replaced his first term vice president Hannibal Hamlin of Maine with a southerner Andrew Johnson of Tennessee. Ballots listed the Lincoln/Johnson ticket as nominees of the “National Union Party,” a coalition of Republicans, War Democrats and the Unconditional Union Party.
Bold and decisive actions such as the one to replace Hamlin with Johnson explain why Lincoln was recently ranked #1 among all U.S. presidents by 154 current and former members of the American Political Science Association. For the record, Joe Biden tied for 13th with John Adams and Donald Trump was last at #45. This was the third such ranking going back to 2015. Let me assure you, if Biden and the Democrats do not do whatever it takes to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office next January, Biden can kiss that #13 ranking goodbye. And that’s no malarky.
For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP