YEAR OF THE RAT – 2020, PART 2

In the first part of our Year of the Rat discussion, we considered the predictive value of certain political and economic matters over the ten presidential elections that have occurred in Rat Years since 1900. Of course, each of those elections was unique and was not decided by a single variable, so in this second part we will try to add some context by looking briefly at each election. The Rat Years, all of which were election years, are 1900, 1912, 1924, 1936, 1948, 1960, 1972, 1984, 1996 and 2008.

1900

Republican William McKinley had defeated William Jennings Bryan in the 1896 election, and the same men were nominated in 1900. During McKinley’s first term, the economy had been improving and the United States had won the Spanish-American war. When McKinley first took office, the country was coming out of a severe depression that the voters had blamed on his predecessor, Grover Cleveland. Europe was also experiencing a depression that lasted much longer than the one in the U. S., so by 1900 this country had more than ¼ of the whole world’s manufacturing capacity and its industries were booming. The former vice president, Garret Hobart, had died in 1899, and he was replaced on the ticket by war hero Theodore Roosevelt. McKinley again defeated Bryan, receiving more than 51% of the popular vote and 292 out of 447 electoral votes. McKinley was assassinated in 1901 and Roosevelt became president.

1912

Republican William Howard Taft was running for re-election, at a time of serious differences among members of his own party. During his first term, the party had split into two groups – the conservatives headed by Taft and the progressives headed by Theodore Roosevelt. The split became so profound that after the nominating convention Roosevelt and his followers started a third party and Roosevelt actually ran against Taft. This situation caused a split in the Republican votes, so the election was won by Democratic nominee Woodrow Wilson. Wilson received only 42% of the popular vote, but he carried 40 of the 48 states and had a huge margin of victory in the electoral college.

1924

Calvin Coolidge had assumed the presidency in 1923 following the death of Warren G. Harding. During his short time leading the nation, the economy had boomed, with stocks up some 20% and there were no significant foreign crises. There had been a mild recession in the early summer of 1923, but that quickly ended and a bull market in stocks began that lasted for the next six years. The American economic boom continued to be led by manufacturing with the methods of mass production that had been in place since the end of World War I. Coolidge won the election in what was considered a “landslide.” he took over 54% of the popular vote and 72% of the electoral vote.

1936

Incumbent Democrat Franklin Roosevelt sought re-election at a time that the United States was beginning to see some improvement from the worst of the Great Depression. The stock market rose about 25% that year from extremely low levels, the unemployment rate dropped from more than 20% to less than 17%, and some of his New Deal programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance had proven to be very popular. Consequently, Roosevelt was re-elected in a “landslide,” carrying all but two states. Roosevelt did die while he was in office, but only after he had been re-elected two more times.

1948

When Roosevelt did pass away in April of 1945, at the very end of World War II, he was succeeded by his vice president, Harry Truman. The economy and the stock market had done very well under Roosevelt, and that success continued under Truman. Although there was little change in the market during 1948, it had essentially doubled in value since the beginning of the war. Truman was nominated for his own term by a deeply divided Democratic Party. After the nomination, a block of Southern delegates walked out of the convention to protest the civil rights plank that had been adopted in the Democratic platform. Those delegates started a third party, the State Rights Democratic Party (“Dixiecrats”) and nominated South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond for president. Meanwhile, the more leftist Democrats opposed Truman’s Cold War policies, so they started a new fourth party, the Progressive Party, and nominated Henry A. Wallace, who had been one of Roosevelt’s vice presidents. Since the Democrats were so splintered, most thought that the election would be won by Republican Thomas Dewey. He proved to be an inept campaigner, though; and Truman won with about half the popular vote and 60% of the electoral vote.

1960

Dwight D. Eisenhower had served two terms and was prevented from running again, so the Republicans nominated his vice president, Richard Nixon. Eisenhower’s terms had been a good time for the American economy, with the stock market rising steadily, but that growth stalled in 1960. The country experienced a mild recession and the market stayed essentially unchanged. This was a fairly good time, especially for the middle class, and economic matters were not the major focus of the campaign. Rather, the main issues were the fact that Democratic nominee John Kennedy was Catholic and the Cold War. Kennedy argued convincingly that the Republican administration had let the USSR obtain a military advantage over the United States. The Democratic Party was still split over civil rights issues, but Kennedy managed to secure a very narrow victory. He finished about 100,000 votes ahead of Nixon out of 69 million votes cast. Because of the internal problems of the Democratic Party, some uncommitted electors actually cast their votes for Virginia Senator Harry Byrd; but that was not enough to keep Kennedy from winning. President Kennedy was assassinated before he completed his term.

1972

Richard Nixon would not go away, though. He was elected president in 1968 and was pitted as incumbent against Democrat George McGovern in 1972. The Vietnam War was starting to become very unpopular, and McGovern made bringing an end to that war his main issue. However, the economy was booming, with stocks up more than 15% that year. Nixon emphasized the economy and his success in foreign affairs (other than Vietnam). Nixon won the election in a landslide,” with McGovern earning only 17 electoral votes. However, within two years both Nixon and his vice president, Spiro Agnew had resigned in disgrace – Agnew for tax evasion and Nixon for matters disclosed in the investigation of the Watergate Scandal. History has proved that McGovern was correct in his view of the Vietnam War.

1984

This election saw another “landslide” victory for a Republican incumbent – Ronald Reagan. Reagan was running against Former Vice President Walter Mondale, who ended up receiving only 13 electoral votes. The stock market was flat leading into the election, but it had risen steadily during Reagan’s first term. Mondale’s platform was quite progressive. A woman, Geraldine Ferraro, was chosen as his running mate and he supported a nuclear weapons freeze and an Equal Rights Amendment. Reagan simply ran on his record. Voters gave him credit for the economic recovery and a strong foreign policy. Also, some middle class voters saw the Democrats as a party supporting the poor and ethnic minorities at the expense of the white middle class.

1996

A vigorous economy allowed incumbent Democrat Bill Clinton to easily defeat Republican Robert Dole in both the popular and electoral vote. The Democrats had lost both Houses of Congress in the midterm elections due largely to a faltering economy, but that soon came roaring back. The stock market was up more than 10% in 1996 following an even larger increase in 1995. The voters gave Clinton credit for that turnaround. Dole, who was more than 20 years older than Clinton, argued that his generation was more capable of governing than were the “spoiled” Baby Boomers. While some older voters may have agreed with him, the vast majority did not. Republicans still controlled both the House and Senate, but the parties were able to work together to pass some meaningful legislation like the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (“SCHIP”) and the Financial Services Modernization Act during Clinton’s second term. Clinton was impeached during his second term for charges of obstruction of justice because he lied about having a relationship with a 22-year old White House employee. He was acquitted after a trial in the Senate, however.

2008

The sitting president in 2008 was George W. Bush. However, he was term limited and the Republicans nominated Senator John McCain to run against Democrat Barack Obama. Obama won a majority of the popular vote and more than 2/3 of the electoral vote. In many ways, McCain could blame his loss on Bush, who was extremely unpopular. The economy was a mess. The unemployment rate had risen from 5% to over 7% in less than a year. Stocks were feeling the ravages of the Great Recession that sent share prices falling more than 50%, with the biggest losses coming just before the election. Bush had dragged the country into an ill-conceived war in Iraq by lying to the American public, the Congress and the world community. Obama took advantage of those shortcomings by claiming that the policies suggested by McCain were merely cosmetic changes to Bush’s failed policies – “like lipstick on a pig,” he said. There were substantial policy differences between Obama, who would be the first African-American president, and McCain, who was over 70 and more than 25 years older than Obama. The voters were ready to try something new.

2020

We shall see.

2 thoughts on “YEAR OF THE RAT – 2020, PART 2

  1. As always, a fine, well-researched perspective, Louis. Thank you!

    Two things jumped out at me on my first reading. In 1960, 69,000,000 votes were cast in the US Presidential election. In 2016 the tally was 129,000,000. It was surprising to learn that our voter population had grown so much.

    I am still digesting this information, but have begun to speculate about the amount and quality of discernment present in each of those populations in their respective eras. I suspect a reasonable rationality was more present in 1960, if only because our country was satisfied with the felicitous political and economic status engendered in the 50’s and voters were able to concentrate on moral values rather than gut-level ire inspired by pocketbook issues.

    The other thing which struck me was the revelation that all our presidents elected in the year of the Metal Rat died in office – one due to illness, the other two due to assassination. It’s a remarkable coincidence. I have come to strongly suspect that we live in a universe where there are no coincidences, so this constitutes yet another opportunity to see if the pattern holds true and my suspicion is supported by yet another piece of evidence.

    I’m a Wood Rat myself (1948) and share that year with a variety of personalities including Sir Terry Pratchett (my personal favorite), Shakespeare, Buddy Holly, Louis Armstrong, and Samuel L. Jackson. Also – unfortunately – George Bush. I guess there’s a bad rat in every woodpile.

    I have to confess a basic antipathy toward Metal Rats. On some level I sense their wily personas and manipulative halcyon years may lead to the construction of more than the usual number of traps – something we other more amiable and thoughtful rats regard with suspicion and loathing. It appears to me there may be many traps present in 2020.

    I will be back to reread this again – there’s much to think about. Thanks again, Louis.

    • Thank you for your comment, Bob. Concerning the increase in the number of voters from 1960 to 2016, I did some quick census research and learned that during that period the population of the U.S.A. increased from a little over 179 million to just over 323 million. Also, citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 could not vote in 1960, but they could and did in 2016 (to some extent).

      The figures show that in 2016 the population included more than 29 million people between the ages of 18 and 24. About 45% of those folks were not even registered to vote. If and when that demographic decides to participate in the political process, it is going to have a great deal of power. And, as I said in Part 1 of these Year of the Rat essays, I don’t think that group is going to be very Republican.

      Looking at your list of Wood Rats, you can add me, too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *