Dear Sophians, here’s a good topic where we can take the lead in generating a national conversation:
If Donald Trump wins the presidential election in November, he would become only the second person ever to be elected president, lose the subsequent election, and win the one after that. The first was Grover Cleveland, a Democrat who defeated Republican James Blaine in 1884, lost to Republican Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and reclaimed the presidency by beating Harrison in 1892.
Focusing solely on Cleveland (not on Trump or on the 2024 election in general), why did the country turn to Cleveland, then reject his reelection bid, only to choose him a second time four years later? What issues and conditions led to such unusual voter behavior?
POSTING/COMMENTING GUIDELINES
We encourage lively, thought-provoking discussions conducted with dignity and decorum. We reserve the right to remove any comments that are deemed abrasive and directed toward any member. No president is off limits, but we adhere to the longstanding tradition of refraining from fully evaluating presidents who have not been out of office for at least 20 years. While negative criticism of specific presidents is allowed, here’s what’s appropriate and what is not.
Appropriate: “I think President___________was an ineffective president because…”
Inappropriate: “President __________ was an idiot!”
In his initial election in 1884, Cleveland was up against James G Blaine, as mentioned. At the time the country was looking to separate itself from a questionable Chester Arthur administration. The memories of the honorable and fallen James Garfield and “what might have been” were still fresh in the minds of the voter. Cleveland, known for his honesty and opposition to corruption, was seen as a refreshing alternative to the political machines that dominated the era. Arthur’s connections to Roscoe Conklin, though strained at this point, plus his history in the New York patronage system, led his own party to reject his attempt to be renominated. Blaine was still associated with past political scandals, so Cleveland was perhaps seen as the lesser of two evils.
In 1888, Cleveland could no longer hide behind the “what ifs” of an unproven candidate. His stance on reducing tariffs put him at odds with business interests and workers who feared the loss of jobs. The GOP capitalized on this fear and ran an effective campaign to promote Harrison. The election was close, and while Cleveland ultimately won the popular vote, the industrial north handed Harrison the White House in the Electoral College.
Perhaps with an element of buyer’s remorse, the electorate tired of Harrison. Economic unrest was rising. Harrison implemented the McKinley Tarriff raising prices on many goods and subsequently increasing dissatisfaction. Labor strikes and unrest in Harrison’s term eroded the slight electoral majority Harrison experienced in 88, so by the time 1892 came around, the Democrats were poised for a victory. Cleveland was viewed favorably and was relatively untouched by scandal. His straightforward approach was attractive to voters and he was able to regain the presidency.
It should also be considered that party loyalty was less important at the time. The issues had a greater influence over the votes. Third party candidates such as James Weaver (who received about 5% of the electoral votes in 1892) were indicators of the growing discontent.
Cleveland’s non-consecutive terms are an interesting note in the history of the American presidency. Time will tell if he shares the distinction with others!
Very interesting point about party loyalty, James, or lack thereof. From what you write, it seems both candidates favored tariffs, to the public’s dissatisfaction.
Third parties were on the rise indeed, and that sentiment became even more significant when Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose Progressive ticket 20 years later and came in second, beating incumbent Republican William Howard Taft.
I’m not very knowledgeable about that era of presidential politics, but I think there wasn’t nearly as much partisan rancor back then. Without knowing for sure, I would think that some of the same people who voted for Cleveland in one election voted for Hayes in the next one, or vice versa.
That type of substitution is more akin to very local politics, where party identification is also not as intense.
One of the misconceptions about why Harrison lost his reelection bid in 1892 is that he was president during the onset of the Panic of 1893 (a deep recession that negatively impacted multiple industries over a period of about four years).
Although Harrison technically was president when the first warning signs of the Panic surfaced, the 1892 election – in which Cleveland beat Harrison – had taken place months earlier. In fact, because Inauguration Day was not yet January 20 but instead March 4, when the Panic set in, on or around February 20, 1893, it was only 12 days before Cleveland’s (second) inauguration.
A substantial number of historians tend to blame Harrison’s policies for the Panic, but as American voters largely were unaware of any trouble when they voted, it doesn’t seem – at least to me – very likely that the Panic itself played a role in Harrison’s defeat, even if the policies that arguably generated it – which were already in place – did.