There is no joy in watching the divisions with the Republican Party. Some are forecasting the end of the party as we have known it—conservative leadership at times, loyal opposition at others as the parties have swapped national leadership for more than two centuries.
But it is easy to project the death of either of our political parties. And times have shown that such projections have been wrong. Let us hope that Jon Meacham’s recent book that we often wrote about during last year’s campaign remains true: that Americans, when on the brink of destruction of our democracy, have coalesced and not gone over the cliff.
The other day, your noble researcher was going through some old newspapers looking for something else when, as often happens, something else caught his eye.
There was this cartoon at the bottom of page one of the June 23, 1912 edition of the Galveston Daily News:
The Republican Party was so badly divided that there was talk of a third party materializing out of the severe division.
And in 1912 that is exactly what happened.
The Chicago GOP convention nominated William Howard Taft for a second term. The third tier of the headline speaks of resentment, “wild enthusiasm” for a losing candidate to threatened to form his own party, and did. Teddy Roosevelt was the Bull Moose among Republicans. In fact that became the nickname of the Progressive Party under whose label he ran in 1912, complaining that Taft’s policies were too conservative.
Times obviously were much different in 1912.
And this leads to another sidetrack. When the Progressive Party met in August, it referred to its platform as “A Contract With the People” (so Newt was not particularly original all those years ago). Roosevelt told his followers, “Our cause is based on the eternal principle of righteousness; and even though we, who now lead may for the time fail, in the end the cause itself shall triumph.”
That’s an important thing to recall in these days when those in the progressive win of the Democratic Party are being ridiculed for promoting causes that are criticized as radical. Her are some of the “radical” issues promoted by TR’s Progressive Party:
The Progressive Party had its own version of “Drain the Swamp” in its platform when it said, “To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”
They called for such outlandish things as registration of lobbyists and disclosure of and limits to campaign contributions. They wanted a national health service that included all of government’s medical agencies. They wanted a social insurance program that provided for disabled, unemployed, and elderly citizens. They wanted to limit abilities of judges to limit strikes. They wanted to establish minimum wages for women, an eight-hour workday for everybody, and a workers compensation system for people injured on the job. They also promoted an inheritance tax—the “death tax” contemporary Republicans have targeted for years. And they wanted a Commissioner of Federal Securities. They said citizens, not legislatures, should elect United States Senators, letting women vote, and holding primary elections for state and federal office nominations. They favored giving citizens of the states the rights of initiative, referendum, and recall.
We haven’t read enough old newspapers to see if these terrible ideas were branded as “socialist” by non-progressive members of the two established parties. But they do show that today’s “progressive” ideas have a tendency to prevail through time.
Getting back on-topic:
The second page of the Daily News reported the 1912 Republican convulsions were hardly new:
Different people look at the 2021 convulsions within the Republican Party through different lenses. Some worry that the party is self-destructing or that the Party is headed down the road that Germany headed down in the 1930s, or that the party will so badly divide and that so many members will defect that Democrats will become even more dominant.
An excellent question.
Predictions of the deaths of either of our two major parties have proven to be remarkably inaccurate. Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the 1912 election with 41.8% of the vote, carrying forty of the forty-eight states. Roosevelt carried six and had 27.4% of the votes. Taft carried two states and got 23.2% of the votes. There was a fourth candidate. A Socialist. Eugene V. Debs got six percent of the votes.
Wilson was re-elected in 1916 as this country hurtled toward a war he knew we could not stay out of, knowing that the popular campaign phrase, “He kept us out of war” was false.
In 1920, Republican Warren G. Harding got 60.4% of the popular vote.
In 1924, Republican Calvin Coolidge got 54% of the vote.
In 1928, Herbert Hoover got 58.2% of the vote.
It is reasonable to express grave concern about the future of the Republican Party and the sizeable and noisy segment of it that reminds many of a cult. While it is dangerous to dismiss the cult-culture segment of the party, it also is dangerous to declare the Republican Party cannot survive its latest division, and it is dangerous to laugh at the internecine warfare within it.
Remember 1912. Then remember 1920. And 1924. And 1928.
And also:
Don’t forget the “radical” ideas of Roosevelt’s progressives.
Time doesn’t heal wounds. It becomes the history that just records them. People overcome them. Or, at least, they have up to now. And, we hope, they will again.