In late May 1864, a convention of Republicans met in Cleveland to determine who should be the standard-bearer for their relatively new party. Clearly it was not incumbent President Abraham Lincoln, who had so badly bungled the Union cause in the Civil War. Already that month, the Army of the Potomac had suffered more than 36,000 casualties in battles in the Wilderness and at Spotsylvania Courthouse. Yet another defeat was looming in the continued campaign to seize the Confederate capital in Richmond. The convention turned to John C. Fremont of California, instead of the unpopular Lincoln.
Just a week later, a competing convention of Republicans who still supported Lincoln met in Baltimore, renaming their gathering the National Union Party. They asked Lincoln to accept their nomination but insisted on dropping incumbent Vice President Hannibal Hamlin, one of the Radical Republicans. Instead, they substituted Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, the only Southern senator who had remained loyal to the Union.
Lincoln’s response is legendary: “I do not allow myself to suppose that … I am the best man in America, but rather they have concluded that it is not best to swap horses while crossing the river.”
Lincoln did accept the nomination, with new VP nominee Andrew Johnson—and together, the National Union Party won the November election. Tragically, Lincoln was killed only five weeks after his inauguration. Andrew Johnson, the only horse that had changed, proved to be a dreadful successor.
Eighty years later, in 1944 while World War II still raged in Europe and in the Pacific, Franklin D. Roosevelt campaigned with the same line from Lincoln: “Don’t change horses in the middle of the stream.” Americans reelected FDR to a fourth term, but with moderate Sen. Harry Truman of Missouri in place of the incumbent populist firebrand Henry Wallace. With the death of FDR in April 1945, the choice of Truman proved fateful: He ended WWII with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and became the first of nine American presidents to manage the Cold War.
Now—once again, 160 years after Lincoln-Johnson and 80 years after the Roosevelt-Truman victory—Democrats are, indeed, changing horses in the middle of the stream.
All Americans—not just Democrats—should be eternally grateful to President Biden for his success in defeating Donald Trump in 2020. We applaud his forbearance in turning over this task now, four years later, to his inspired choice for vice president, Kamala Harris. Democrats are already uniting behind Harris and will make every effort to elect her in November.
The question now is who Kamala Harris will choose to be her running mate in this campaign? Rarely has this decision been so important in healing the nation’s wounded spirit. Seldom has it been so necessary to find a running mate that can win that broad center of public opinion sought by every successful candidate.
Harris should look to the nation’s history to see an example of a presidential nominee choosing their vice president with a view toward that center of the political spectrum:
In his 1900 campaign for reelection, William McKinley had many choices to replace his VP for his first term; Garret Hobart had died of heart disease a year earlier. McKinley sought to capitalize on the immense popularity of Spanish American War hero Theodore Roosevelt, even though “TR” was already widely known to be a reformer completely out of step with the mainstream corporate laissez-faire economics of the McKinley administration.
That ticket also won a hard-fought campaign in November of 1900. TR proved to be an extraordinary choice when he succeeded McKinley after his assassination in September 1901.
Kamala Harris has a variety of excellent choices in the daunting task of selecting her vice president. Governors Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Andy Broshears of Kentucky, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, or Roy Cooper of North Carolina.
My choice: Adam Kinzinger, former GOP member of Congress, now an Independent. Kinzinger is an outspoken veteran of the House Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Insurrection.
This choice would be the equivalent of the 1864 Republicans’ choice to reform itself—and to rename itself—as the National Union Party.
No other choice would send such a strong message of national unity. As the VP nominee, Kinzinger would best demonstrate a resolve to halt our drift toward polarization and political violence.
But if Kamala must choose a Democrat, I’d suggest Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona. As a retired Naval officer and former astronaut, he comes closest to the “war hero” image of Theodore Roosevelt. And Kelly is a strong campaigner, from an important swing state, and fully capable of stepping into the role of president should the worst happen.
Above all, we need to thank President Joe Biden for giving us the opportunity to change horses and place a younger generation in the saddle of leadership. ∆
John Ashbaugh wrote an extra column this month. Send your thoughts on the ever-evolving 2024 presidential election to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Jul 25 – Aug 4, 2024.
While I appreciate the history lesson, I am still in shock at how poorly Mr. Ashbaugh’s last column only 14 days ago has aged.
https://www.newtimesslo.com/opinion/joe-yo…
Maybe a learning opportunity is here, the first would be to update your news sources to be a bit more inclusive about other sources and opinions to also see well before this what other people have known.
Amazingly, many “lifelong” Democrats do not even care that they were gaslit about Biden’s decline and who really makes the decisions. Then, the party claiming to “save democracy” instead does a backroom version with party power brokers to negate the will of the Democratic party voter. Next, despite knowing nothing until it was posted on twitter (sorry, not going to say X), they pivot to a new story–how this is even better than before! The word is put out that a new pail of water heeds to be carried, and talk about how invigorated they are. Sure, call the MAGAs a cult, I agree. But there is another cult on the ballot too. The country is worse off either way this election plays out.
Take a hike, Harris. Your ageism negates any of your progressive posturing. We could have whined like you when the rug was pulled out from under our generation, but despite 40+ year careers under neoliberalism (from both parties) and taking care of the “greatest generation” at the same time as raising you ungrateful brats, many of us still remain politically active.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. We are still running “horses” in our elections, but now seem to be running just the back halves of the political beasts.
Are Democrats truly “uniting behind Harris”? After all, they have just learned that, instead of running the moderate Democrat candidate that they voted for, they have suddenly had the far left progressive Kamala Harris imposed upon them. Democrats may wonder whether their resounding rejection of her in 2020 was a little too subtle for the party big shots who “know what’s best” for them. They may now wonder whether their lack of electoral enthusiasm was too subtle, and should also have been accompanied by a torch lit parade, chanting and the burning of figures in effigy, in order to get the attention of the party power brokers. Need they have to riot to make a point?
The majority of Democratic voters may still be heard on the subject, at the convention, and in November. At some point, Harris will have to disclose whether she will continue Biden’s support of Israel in the Gaza war, or instead abandon Israel in order to satisfy her progressive base. It is not something which can be compromised – we either continue to provide weapons or we don’t. Either way, a big portion of the party is going be pretty upset. Will the loser in this fight sit out the election? If progressives are disappointed, will they riot (er, “mostly peaceful demonstrating”) like they did in the 1968 Democratic convention? And if they do riot, will the Chicago police risk the “optics” of controlling them, or just surrender the streets and reinforce the impression that Democrats are incapable of maintaining public order and safety? Stay tuned.