Sunday, November 15, 2020

Elections Have Consequences: 1844 and 2020

James K. Polk, the 11th President, was born on November 2, 1795. As mentioned in my Oct. 30 post, Polk’s 125th birthday anniversary in 1920 was the day when Warren G. Harding celebrated his 55th birthday—and was also elected the 29th POTUS.

Polk, elected in November 1844, was a successful President. His four years in office clearly indicates that elections have consequences—as they all do. 

Polk: One of the Best Presidents?

Presidential historian Andrew Bergen ranks Polk as the seventh best President of the first 43 in the history of the U.S. (see here). That is higher than what is found in most rankings, but Polk is regularly ranked in the top one-third. And yet, he is not widely known—although ten states have a county named for James Polk.

(Polk County, Missouri, where June was born and where we were married, was named after James’s grandfather. And now we live in Clay County, Mo., named after Henry Clay, whom Polk defeated in the election of 1844. My 4/20/17 blog post was titled “The Feats of [Henry] Clay,” and mentions his loss to Polk.)

Harry Truman summed up Polk’s legacy in these words: “James K. Polk, a great President. Said what he intended to do and did it.” Accordingly, Bergen states, “Polk followed through on every single campaign pledge that he ran on in 1844,” and that included not running for re-election.  

Election Consequences of 1844

But Polk’s “successful” presidency doesn’t mean that we should broadly praise him. Rather, there is much that should be denounced. Elections have consequences, and those consequences from the 1844 election were not good for many people in the U.S.

Polk is regarded as a protégé of Andrew Jackson, instigator of the deplorable Indian Removal Act of 1830, and that is one reason the consequences of the election of 1844 were not good for many. He was a strong advocate of “manifest destiny” (a term coined in 1845) that resulted in the extermination of many Native Americans.

Further, the annexation of Texas, which he strongly supported, was linked to the strengthening of slavery in the U.S., for annexation gave slavery room to expand. Subsequently, one indirect consequence of Polk’s election was the Civil War, which started just twelve years after his presidency ended.

Election Consequences of 2020?

The guest host on the Nov. 9 Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC kept repeating the words “radical normalcy” with reference to President-elect Joe Biden. That is one of the hoped-for consequences of this month’s election—a reversal of the abnormalities I wrote about in my 10/30 post and that this very lengthy WaPo Magazine article details.

Just as he promised, President-elect Biden has already set up a panel of experts to draw up plans on how best to find ways to control the covid-19 pandemic. And as an indication of the “radical normalcy” in that move, there were no family members or cronies selected for the team.

As a Nov. 9 WaPo article says, Biden’s appointed task force is “a group made up entirely of doctors and health experts, signaling his intent to seek a science-based approach to bring the raging pandemic under control.” This will surely lead to one very positive consequence of the Nov. 3 election.

Further, according to this Nov. 11 WaPo article, another encouraging consequence of the recent election is how “Biden aims to amp up the government’s fight against climate change.”

Of course, some evangelical Christians see negative consequences resulting from the election. For example, on Nov. 10, a conservative Christian Post reporter declared, “Biden planning to reverse Trump’s pro-life policies by executive order.”

It remains to be seen, of course, what all the consequences of the 2020 presidential election will be. I am hoping for, and expect, mostly positive ones that will, indeed, help save the soul of the nation.

12 comments:

  1. Thanks, Leroy. This is interesting. You say that Polk is typically rated among the best presidents, but you talk about his support of the addition of Texas increasing slaveholding geography and of Manifest Destiny wrecking the communities of and exterminating Native Americans. So, what are the criteria used to rate him so highly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your question, Anton--but I don't really know the answer to it, but one main factor in Polk's high ranking is the sizeable expansion of U.S. territory during his presidency. One website I consulted stated, "During his tenure, America’s territory grew by more than one-third and extended across the continent for the first time."

      Yesterday I happened to see a new link to CBS News's ranking of the first 44 Presidents, and Polk is ranked 14th in it--two behind Obama.

      Their explanation (in full) for the ranking:

      "Polk ranked highest for his vision and agenda-setting abilities.

      "Under Polk’s leadership, the U.S. acquired more than 800,000 square miles of western land, extending its boundary to the Pacific Ocean."

      The ranking is reflective of the evaluation of the dominant culture. Native Americans would without doubt evaluate him differently.

      Delete
  2. I was happy to receive these helpful comments from local Thinking Friend David Fulk:

    "I’ve read three biographies of Polk. The best being by Wm. Borneman. It’s worth reading. Rising to the presidency from being Speaker of the US House and Governor of Tennessee, Polk seemingly accomplished a lot for his time...and in only one term. Winning a war and US territorial expansion were the main things...from Oregon to the southwest...securing the continental US as we know it (Texas and California). The expansion came mostly as a result of the Mexican War. He gave approval for a staged skirmish which convinced Congress to declare war on Mexico. As a result, thousands of Mexican citizens were killed. He’s also known for his leadership/involvement in directing that war effort. You’re right, Leroy, there’s much here to denounce. I don’t think anyone decries one of his last acts as president...creating the Department of the Interior."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for posting your comments, David; it was good to hear from you again.

      You clearly know more about Polk than I do, for I have not read any of his biographies, although I regretted not planning to read Borneman's book before writing the blog article. I had seen references to it as the best book on Polk.

      And with reference to your last point, even "bad" Presidents often do good things. I think, for example, of Nixon, who in spite of all his shortcomings meritoriously opened up U.S. relations with China.

      Although I didn't take the space to mention it in this blog post, as you may (or may not) remember, Polk was a friend of Fanny Crosby and visited her and the school where she taught at least twice, as I mentioned in my March 20 post:
      (https://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2020/03/remembering-fanny-crosby-queen-of.html

      Delete
  3. And here are pertinent comments, as usual, from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:

    "Thanks, Leroy, for a more balanced view of Polk's presidency.

    "For me, the election was bittersweet. I am pleased that Biden won, but dismayed that the Republicans gained some House seats and they may very well retain control of the Senate. They also did fairly well in down ballot races at the state level.

    "What I find galling is that Trump received ten million more votes this time than what he received in 2016. To me, he is probably the worst and most corrupt and mendacious president in U S history with an appalling record, and yet millions still voted for him. Do these voters not care about truth, civility, and integrity? Are they oblivious to the very serious problems we are facing as a nation?

    "Biden will have a difficult time implementing his agenda if the Republicans retain control of the Senate and we will waste another four years, especially with respect to climate change. (I am afraid the Republicans will gain more seats in the 2022 midterm elections if history is any guide.) Remaining hopeful has been a challenge."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Eric, for your comments. While I would like to be more optimistic about the years just ahead, I am afraid your rather pessimistic comments are, in fact, quite realistic--although I am a bit hopeful that with perhaps only a 51-49 split in the Senate the Democrats will be able to get at least one reasonable Republican to agree to pass important legislation.

      My biggest worry about the future of the country is with the more than 70,000,000 who voted for Trump. Even though he will soon be gone from the White House, those voters will still be around--and Trump will possibly still be around enough to keep their anti-Democratic Party animosity and his wrongheaded views alive.

      Delete
  4. Local Thinking Friend Chris Sizemore sent these comments, to which I will respond tomorrow:

    "It is difficult to predict what Trump and his more supporters will do, as Jon Meacham pointed out yesterday on the Truman Library Bennett Forum. However, now that Trump has apparently settled on a face-saver (Biden won because the election was rigged), I think he will become quieter. Any forum he has after January 20, he will have to generate and/or fund, and he has a huge loan payment coming due."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Chris, for your comments--and for mentioning Saturday evening's Bennett Forum. June and I also "attended" that (as we have done for most of the last several years) and we were interested in hearing Meacham's candid comments. It was gratifying to hear a scholar who is probably the most prominent presidential historian in the U.S. and who has been non-aligned politically speak so clearly about the aberrations of the Trump presidency.

      Delete
  5. My guess is that a key slice of voters was saying a loud "NO!" to both parties. Clearly Biden's election was a repudiation of Trump, but Trump got over 70 million votes, and Republicans gained at all levels below him. Somehow Biden won by over 5 million votes, yet had negative coat tails.

    We force voters to make binary choices in most elections, we will have to mull over what the 2020 split might mean. My personal estimation is that the voters watched Bernie Sanders get mugged by the Democratic establishment for the second primary season in a row, and concluded the Democrats did not want really do anything serious about the economic devastation afflicting much of America. So they did their best to punish both parties. Trump at least talked about American carnage. Neither party did much about it.

    Since Trump did so much to make it worse this year, he lost. Still, Democrats should ponder this, if Trump had not totally botched COVID-19, he might well have won in a landslide. Just as we can look back at the Polk administration, and dissect its strengths and failures, maybe someday historians will unravel our mess. If anthropogenic global warming has not made all us of history by then, that is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Craig, I don't see how American voters were saying NO to Biden, where he got more votes than any candidate in USAmerican history. And as for Sanders, I don't know what evidence there is that he got "mugged"--and while I like Bernie's ideas, my guess is that if he had been the Democratic candidate we would be talking about now what is going to happen in Trump's second term. 

      Delete
  6. Here are significant comments from Thinking Friend Michael Olmsted in Springfield, Mo.:

    "The aftermath of this election confronts us with the certainty that many people consistently believe only what they wish were true ... selfishness is just a nicer word for hatred, dishonesty, prejudice, ignorance, and lack of moral character. This election (time in our history) confronts us with the truth of 'original sin,' the idea that without the love and grace of God we are lost in a darkness of our own invention. Put aside the arguments about which political party is right or true to our history and face up to the truth that 'we the people' are failing or ignorant of our 'better angels.'

    "When the pulpits of our churches fuel the inequalities and lies as 'truth' we have lost our way in a wilderness that is as dark and dangerous as Israel's wandering. The question is will we even hear the message of God's grace and find that new land where we can begin again?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael, thanks for your comments. I take it that you are referring mainly to the fact that DJT received more votes than any presidential candidate in USAmerican history except for Joe Biden.
       
      While there will, no doubt, be aspects of the Biden administration that I will disagree with, I am hopeful the new President will lead us back to the "radical normalcy" I mentioned in a previous post and that the country will, again, move, however slowly, toward becoming a more perfect union.

      Delete