The 1952 and 1956 presidential elections between Republican Dwight Eisenhower and Democrat Adlai Stevenson might stand as the last time that the American people had a choice between two capable candidates with clear and reasonable philosophies of government.\u00a0 During World War II, Eisenhower had been Commanding General, European Theater of Operations.\u00a0 Somewhat like Colin Powell following the Vietnam War, Eisenhower did not have an affiliation with a political party and both the Democrats and Republicans were ready to hand him their nomination in 1952, almost regardless of his views.<\/p>\n

Eisenhower did not declare himself a Republican until shortly before entering the presidential race in 1952.\u00a0 Ike and the GOP seemed like a good fit.\u00a0 It may be hard to understand now, but back then, Republicans liked their candidates to be reserved, cautious, thoughtful, deliberate and amiable.\u00a0 That was Ike.<\/p>\n

Democrats preferred a cerebral spark.\u00a0 Franklin Roosevelt inspired Americans with unorthodox policies in the New Deal. Harry Truman \u201cgave \u2019em hell\u201d while steering America back to prosperity.\u00a0 Adlai Stevenson had been a reformer while governor of Illinois and was ready to protect, preserve and continue the New Deal.<\/p>\n

The 1952 election was of an era very different from today.\u00a0 It was two years before Brown v. Board of Education and 12 years before meaningful civil rights legislation.<\/p>\n

For most Americans, 1952 and 1956 presented a choice between two fair and competing philosophies of government.\u00a0 Each in its own way reflected viewpoints that characterized the approaches of previous presidents.<\/p>\n

Eisenhower won handily in both 1952 and 1956.\u00a0 As an affable paternal figure, it was more than coincidental that he received the electoral endorsement of the American people three years after the \u201cFather Knows Best<\/a>\u201d program became a popular radio show and before it became a mainstay of American television.\u00a0 Ike was the battle-tested grandfather; America had a long history of electing military generals.\u00a0 His victories made him the last in a line of 12 former generals elected to the Presidency.\u00a0 Perhaps this is part of the reason why the 1956 election reflected the end of an era.<\/p>\n

In 1948, four years before the first Eisenhower-Stevenson election, Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina had walked out of the Democratic convention and formed a third party, the Dixiecrats.\u00a0 The signature issue of the Dixiecrats was racial segregation.\u00a0 The party actually carried four states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina).\u00a0 But the South came back into the Democratic party in 1952, and we had an election that essentially reflected the two prevailing lines of political thinking in the U.S.\u00a0 Republicans presented cautious compassion with fiscal restraint.\u00a0 Democrats were more fervent in their compassion and saw an activist federal government as the key to meeting people\u2019s needs.<\/p>\n

The Eisenhower-Stevenson races presented clear-cut choices, very capable candidates, and connection by both parties with mainstream thinking in America.<\/p>\n

In 2010, the concern is that the third-party aberrations of 1948 and 1968 may soon become the norm.\u00a0 The 2010 Florida senate race pitted Tea-Party backed Republican Marco Rubio against Independent Charlie Crist (the \u00a0moderate governor who left the Republican party after losing the primary to Rubio) and progressive Democratic Congressman Kendrick Meek.<\/p>\n

What is happening to the stability of our two-party system of the 1950s?\u00a0 Quite possibly the problem is that 1956 was the last time that America was presented with two personally stable candidates with clear agendas that were compatible with America\u2019s mainstream.<\/p>\n

Beginning in 1960, each election seemed to have at least one candidate with significant character flaws, serious intellectual limitations, or ideas that were too radical for America. \u00a0Here\u2019s a quick list:<\/p>\n

\n
1. 1960: Richard Nixon<\/li>\n
2. 1964: Barry Goldwater<\/li>\n
3. 1968: Richard Nixon and George Wallace<\/li>\n
4. 1972: Richard Nixon and George Wallace<\/li>\n
5. 1976: POSSIBLE EXCEPTION \u2013 Gerald Ford vs. Jimmy Carter<\/li>\n
6. 1980: Ronald Reagan<\/li>\n
7. 1984: Ronald Reagan<\/li>\n
8. 1988: George H.W. Bush (with Dan Quayle as V.P.)<\/li>\n
9. 1992: George H.W. Bush (with Dan Quayle as V.P.)<\/li>\n
10. 1996: POSSIBLE EXCEPTION \u2013 Bill Clinton (pre-Monica) vs. Bob Dole<\/li>\n
11. 2000: George W. Bush (with Dick Cheney as V.P.)<\/li>\n
12. 2004: George W. Bush (with Dick Cheney as V.P.)<\/li>\n
13. 2008: John McCain (with Sarah Palin as V.P.)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Many saw the presidential election of 2008 was as a mandate for resuming the progressive agendas of the New Deal and Great Society.\u00a0 \u00a0President Obama has chosen to govern more from the middle of the road.\u00a0 But his desire for harmony may well have planted the seeds of intense discord.\u00a0 President Obama has\u00a0 tried to make his move to the center a reflection of bi-partisan cooperation and collaboration.\u00a0 But the Republicans wanted no part of that, partly because their goal number one was to see President Obama fail.\u00a0 The situation is exacerbated by the frustrations of difficult economic times in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.\u00a0 These factors coincide with the latest incarnation of a new anti-government, anti-intellectual, anti-collaboration party, the Tea Party.<\/p>\n

    What Florida 2010 represented was a somewhat lop-sided three-party system:<\/p>\n

    \n
    1. Intense, fervent, rigid conservative candidate with Tea Party support (Rubio)<\/li>\n
    2. Middle of the road \u201cmushy\u201d candidate with no solid base (Crist)<\/li>\n
    3. A progressive candidate who was abandoned by many in his \u201chome party,\u201d the Democrats, because his chances of winning were slim.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

       If the lessons of history prevail, the Tea Party will come and go.\u00a0 But these are different times; our electorate may have more apathy and less critical thinking skills than ever before.\u00a0 So an intense right wing party could be with us for a long time.\u00a0 The \u201ccentrists\u201d who Charlie Crist represented may actually have a strong following, but currently they have no anchor.\u00a0 The so-called moderate or even liberal Republicans can\u2019t even buy a seat at the table of the Republican Party and the Democrats will probably continue their standoff between \u201cBlue Dogs\u201d (moderate to conservative Democrats) vs. progressives.\u00a0 Progressives no longer see the Democrats as their anchor party.\u00a0 They are looking for ways to regenerate their energy.\u00a0 The biggest asset Progressives have is that they have the most reasonable and cost-effective solutions to the nation\u2019s problems.<\/p>\n

       Our electoral system, with the Electoral College,<\/a> is designed to keep a two-party system intact.\u00a0 But we seem to currently have three very different philosophies of governing, each with a significant number of followers but no clear base within a party. \u00a0We may have to go through the dysfunction and chaos of a three party system for the foreseeable future.\u00a0 If we move back to a two-party system such as in the 1950s, the jury is out on which of two of the current three parties will survive.<\/p>\n

       As an unabashed progressive, I would gladly trim my sails to return to the world of 1956 with a moderate liberal Democrat vs. a stable, mainstream Republican.\u00a0 How we would return to such a scenario is difficult to determine; definitely fodder for more discussion.\u00a0 In the meantime, we would do well to spend a little time reviewing what may have been the last \u201cgood election,\u201d 1956.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

       The 1952 and 1956 presidential elections between Republican Dwight Eisenhower and Democrat Adlai Stevenson might stand as the last time that the American people had a choice between two capable candidates with clear and reasonable philosophies of government. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":5824,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[162,273,172,10,16,573],"tags":[558,229,2492,1293],"yoast_head":"\n