Almost President by Scott Farris

Scott Farris has written a book advocating the long term importance of many losing Presidential candidates. In this book Farris opines that several of the losers have had a much stronger impact on the national discourse than that of many men who actually won the Presidency. While I do not agree with all the figures mentioned I believe his case is a strong one. The book also provides brief biographies of each of these figures.

Henry Clay, called the Greatest Legislator of his time is the first to have his career reviewed. Abraham Lincoln's hero, Andrew Jackson's great nemesis, Clay was the nominee three time. Named the Great Compromiser for his efforts to keep the country from sliding into Civil War three times Clay's status is well deserved. He had some horrible luck as well. Losing on election when electors from one state missed the convention, and in a snit refusing the Vice Presidency from William Henry Harrison. When he died one month into this term John Tyler became President.

Stephen Douglas, known for the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates with Lincoln in 1958 should also be remembered as the Democratic candidate for President in 1960 who purposely made the choice to blow up his own party by campaigning in the South against secession and secessionist thought. By keeping the Democratic party alive in the North and loyal, he allowed for there to be honest dissent and not totalitarian rule during the war. Indeed Lincoln facing reelection in 1964 had to defeat a Democrat, namely General George McLellan. Misguided as Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska act was he did believe that popular sovereignty would make the states eventually free without the edict of the Federal government leaving a sour taste.

William Jennings Bryan gave one of the most famous convention speeches ever, The Cross of Gold speech in 1896. While losing against the moneyed interests of the East Bryan was a man whose social agenda was way ahead if it's time and was seen as the floor of the New Deal and other liberal programs. A great orator , Bryan had his luster dampened by his taking part in the Scopes Monkey trial. Bryan did not surely believe the Bible as the written word of God but he did believe that loss of the power of religion would lesson the message of his social gospel.

Al Smith is shown as a very strong Governor, perhaps even more so than FDR who followed him in the Governor's chair in New York and won the Presidency 8 years after Smith lost in 1924. The extent of the anti Catholic bigotry shocks the modern reader. Still Smith set the precedent for JFK to follow.

Thomas Dewey the Republican nominee in 44 and, disastrously, in 1948, is shown to be a fantastic Governor, and a man who was really very modern. A man that was a better Governor than he was a candidate Dewey had the misfortune of becoming a caricature of himself. Still his social agenda as a Democrat was very modern, a precursor to what some call the last liberal President who just happened to be Richard Nixon.

The fact that the liberalism of Richard Nixon can be discussed and with a straight face shows that sometimes labels mean nothing.

Adlai Stevenson rant twice for President as the nominee against Eisenhower. Adlai was for many of the Eastern establishment the ultimate candidate. Intelligent, affluent, wordy and effusive Stevenson was a brilliant man. Many also feel however that his candidacy, the first with widespread television coverage, was the beginning of the Democrats loss of the average middle class American worker as Stevenson was perceived by some to be too brainy, too much of an egghead. Still losing two elections can make you a martyr. There was a whole generation of Democrats who raised in the fifties who felt that Adlai was the greatest man of his generation.

Barry Goldwater and George McGovern were both derided as almost killing their party with their far right and far left losses in 1964 and 1972 but most historians now give them both credit for modernizing their parties and setting them up for later victories.

Goldwater gets more direct credit for the later Republican revolution but McGovern choice to reach out to women and minorities framed what might have been the only constituency that could allow the Democrats to still be a national force at that time.

This is not a great book. Farris writes in a clunky way. As a resource for getting a brief picture of historical figures you might want to read more about however the book serves a good purpose