Consequential? I Think Not

Nine elections more important than 2024.

“People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war, or before an election.”

Otto von Bismarck

The bulk of my business career was spent in marketing.  I aimed to compel decision-makers to invest their resources into whatever I was touting.  In marketing parlance, we sometimes employed the FUD factor – fear, uncertainty, and doubt.  In healthcare, my products would “help minimize risk.”  I had to be very careful about my claims, however.  Anything implying a causal relationship between what I was marketing and improving patient care had to be scrupulously documented.  That is not the case with our current political messaging, but these people are not exactly strangers to the FUD factor.  

To drive votes and, even more importantly, donations, political operatives resort to ridiculous claims to play on the fear, anger, and angst of Americans’ emotions.  No, Kamala Harris is not a communist, nor is Donald Trump a fascist.  And nor is this the “most consequential election in American history.” Not even the additional “in our lifetimes” gets us to that level.  And forget the campaign managers. Kamala Harris has made this claim. The media, including CNBC, also used the most consequential phraseology.  

As a corrective, we have articles from Barron’s and Columbia Journalism Review questioning the claim.  There is a big difference between “most consequential” and historic.  Only once has a president been elected to non-consecutive terms (Grover Cleveland).  And if Harris wins, the 47th president will be a woman.  But neither of these, although interesting, are not massively influential alone.  However, here are nine elections that are the most consequential to our nation’s history.  

Election of 1788

Republics had existed before ours in places such as Rome, Venice, and Holland.  But none were continental size at their inception, and none were built on a series of ideals.  That word, first, will come up a lot in this piece because there is a correlation between consequential and the first.  1788 was the first time Americans (though a small subset) went to the polls to elect their leaders, and that should make any top list.  

Election of 1800

Adams was not the first president to win the election but was the first to win the presidency, and then to lose the presidency.  His conduct in voluntarily giving up power set a precedent for the peaceful transfer of power that has now occurred (with a few notable exceptions), dozens of times over the past 240 years.  1800 was also the first election in which party affiliations were paramount, the first to be decided by the House of Representatives, and the first to truly employ tactics to demonize one’s opponents.  We think our elections are filled with acrimony and innuendo, but 1800 saw some genuinely scurrilous attacks.  

Election of 1860

The election that directly led to the onset of the Civil War with the secession and reconquering of 11 states, the emancipation of slaves and end of slavery, and the deaths of 600,000 might make this simply the most consequential.  

Election of 1894

It’s the only midterm to make the list.  Before this election, the Democratic Party was pro-business, small government, and for low tariffs, carrying the designation of Bourbon Democrats.  Due to the Panic of 1893, the Democrats lost over 100 seats in the House and a majority in the Senate.  The electoral devastation was so profound that afterward, the Democratic party was completely transformed, briefly flirting with populism before settling 1912 into its current progressive platform.  

Election of 1912

Prior to 1912 and the election of Woodrow Wilson, the Republicans were the party of big spending, anti-business, and pro-tariff.  Under progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt, a sort of proto-Obama complete with the smug arrogance, the GOP held the mantle of Progressives.  But Wilson, who was of the living Constitution and disdain for the commoner, out-progressed the GOP.   As the Democrats morphed into the progressive party, the GOP responded in kind by becoming a party that was much more a home to small government, pro-business advocate Calvin Coolidge than Teddy Roosevelt.   

Election of 1932

With the notable exceptions of Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson, the Republicans, as the party of Lincoln, dominated politics from 1860 to the late 1920s. With the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, that all changed.  In Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Democrats found the exact right politician to exploit the economic carnage.  If Washington and Lincoln are seen as the most consequential presidents in our history, FDR is almost always number three.  Even today, we are still contending with his legacy, ranging from Social Security to the creation of new New Deals.  And FDR was the president who oversaw the United States winning World War II.  

Election of 1964

This election would have been very consequential if Lyndon B Johnson’s landslide victory had led to just Civil Rights legislation or Great Society programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. But LBJ pulled off both.  

Election of 1980 

Being a Gen Xer, I can claim a certain senior age status when compared with my Freemen News colleagues.  This is why the “in my lifetime” addition is somewhat fraught. When exactly do we draw the line?  Forget the Millennials; we have Gen Zers on the Freemen staff.  Though I was not old enough to vote in 1980, I remember the election and was around to watch Ronald Reagan transform the nation.  

The election of Reagan led to the end of the economic malaise of the 1970s, a 24-year economic boom, the end of the Cold War, and a restoration of American exceptionalism.  For 36 years, every Republican cited Reagan as the archetype of what a Republican should be.  The publisher of this newsletter is a founder of the Reagan caucus.  Had Carter somehow prevailed, our politics, conservatism, and nation would be different, and not for the better.  

Election of 2008 

In recognition of Gen Z and the facts surrounding Obama’s presidency, I can reliably add that the election of 2008 has been very consequential for the past 20 years.  After a bruising midterm election in 1994, Bill Clinton pivoted to the center like Jimmy Carter before him.  There was no pivot when the same scenario played out for Barack Obama in 2010. Instead, Obama doubled down on his progressivism, not only altering the Democrats from Clinton’s center-left party of “the era of big government is over,” to a return to the progressivism of Wilson, FDR, and Johnson.  

Every Democrat (and Trump) since then has run a “get out the base” election.  And it is hard to argue with the importance that a nation that once kept four million blacks in slavery elected an African American as president in 2008.  I get that one might say the same about Kamala Harris.  However, I do not see the same accomplishments emanating from her tenure.  

To be fair, I am writing about the past, and perhaps all of those political operatives, the media, and the two candidates themselves will prove me wrong.  One scenario is that the Democrats are correct.  Trump will try to overturn our governmental order and impose some sort of tyrannical rule.  There are many holes in this idea.  First, Trump was president before, and his actual governance was that of a center-right Republican with a sprinkling of populism, not as a would-be Mussolini.  But he will be unbound by an election, say his detractors. Trump will also be a lame duck from day one.  Of Trump’s many nonsensical statements, he rarely speaks of setting aside the 22nd Amendment.  He will also be 78 on inauguration day; to my eyes, he is already showing the ravages of time.  There is a considerable difference between potential successors, ranging from JD Vance to Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis, who want to have his influence and anticipate his being out of power.  

And the Democrats conveniently forget that the 1st class of the Dictator 101 course is to get the army on your side. From Roman Emperors and Russian Tsars to the Ayatollahs, Putin, Xi, and Kim, the army is the difference between absolute rule and a firing squad.  Generals ranging from John Kelly to Mark Milley want little to nothing to do with Trump. I struggle to see Air Force General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Q. Brown Jr. letting, much less enabling, Trump and his sycophants from overturning the Constitution.  

What is a more likely scenario? The more significant threat to our constitutional order will come from the Democrats.  It is likely that if the Democrats gain the Senate, their programs will entail packing the Supreme Court, adding states such as DC or Puerto Rico, ending fracking and the filibuster, and imposing price controls.  But again, consequential.  As was proven when Harry Reid removed the filibuster, Mitch McConnell followed suit, and the same will happen with current Democratic schemes.  We may end with a SCOTUS of 47 justices, and Southern Illinois added as its own state, but that will be more quid pro quo than a permanent Democratic Party majority.  And if the GOP can take the Senate, none of this will happen. Harris will have to govern through executive orders, which will be undone by the next GOP president, perhaps as early as 2028.  

And finally, competence.  FDR and Johnson were master politicians.  Reagan was the Great Communicator.  Obama is the most popular Democrat since the 1960s, and although his intellect is overrated, his ruthless cunning is underrated.  Trump is an undisciplined narcissist who, this past week, instead of spending valuable campaign money on Pennsylvania ads, was hawking watches like some two-bit street vendor revealing fake Rolexes in a dirty trench coat.  Harris is a vapid, inane, ill-informed, empty pantsuit who is in this position from a series of coincidences, not the least of which is the death of George Floyd, that had little to nothing to do with her intelligence, ability, or political acumen.  If Michelle Obama were running, it would give me pause.  Fortunately for conservatism, I do not think she wants the job.  

There are some clear patterns. In 1932, 1964, 1980, and 2008, each president achieved the M-word: mandate. They all claim that today, but those presidents mentioned above had the numbers to justify big actions and, in many cases, the right Congress to see their wish list become a reality. What we have in 2024 is a razor-thin election with two incredibly flawed candidates. If bombast and insipidity translated to influence and accomplishment, Trump or Harris would best Lincoln in the consequential department.  

AD Tippet is the founder and Publisher of the Conservative Historian. Aves has conducted extensive research in Political, Religious, Social, and Educational history across all eras and geographies. He has been writing and podcasting for over 12 years. In 2020, he published his first book, The Conservative Historian. He has degrees in history, education, and an MBA. @BelAves