Discussing the Larry Craig scandal leads me to think of what what Republican Presidents have the most baggage in Republican circles today. I can think of five, in reverse order of service: Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, Warren Harding, Ulysses S. Grant, and Abraham Lincoln.
This is a list with large elements of irony as it includes three of the Republicans who most often sought the Presidency (Nixon, Hoover, and Grant) and the one who historically has been most often proclaimed as the model Republican President (Lincoln). But the dominant Republican attitude to each of these men appears to be one of strict avoidance of their historical legacy.
Nixon of course was the President who gave us Watergate, wage and price controls, recognition of Communist China, and a lot of worthwhile pro-labor and pro-environment legislation that the Democratic controlled Congress foisted upon him. He once told an interviewer that he thought he would be remembered as "the last progressive Republican President;" an thanks to the Democrats in Congress and in the country at large, a case can be made for that.
Herbert Hoover gave us the Great Depression and an idea of volunteerism as the solution to major national problems. Of course, volunteers can be very helpful--but they cannot solve major problems all by themselves. Hoover's rhetoric of problem solving was undermined in the Great Depression by the smallness of his effort in terms of the commitment of governmental resources.
Warren Harding gave America the Teapot Dome scandal while he was alive, and sex scandals to amuse history buffs with after his death. Drafted by a deadlocked convention because it was felt that he looked like a President and could beat Ohio Governor James Cox, the Democratic nominee, in Ohio, he served a term truncated by his death and his scandals.
Ulysses Grant's administration was also marred by scandal. But the scandal was overplayed because of establishmentarian dislike of what are now widely considered to be his strengths: he was the President who pushed Reconstruction of the South, and he was the President who as head of the Union forces in the Civil War salvaged victory for the Union side.
Grant was popular enough while alive that he was the first President to try to serve more than two terms, at least twice coming close to a third Republican Presidential nomination. And his memoirs, written with Mark Twain, were a runaway national bestseller, the bestselling Presidential memoirs of all time.
Abraham Lincoln's star has fallen over time, as the Republicans have gradually become the party of the descendants of the backers of Robert E. Lee, while the Democrats have gradually become the party of the descendants of Lincoln.
Once Lincoln's birthday was a magnet for Republican fundraisers everywhere. But that tradition has atrophied in our era of perennial fundraising. Doing a google search of Lincoln's day fundraisers for 2007 led me to find only seven states in the first two pages: Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, Missouri, and Indiana. Bush carried all seven against Kerry in 2004.
Strom Thurmond symbolized the Republican abandonment of Lincoln when he switched to the Republican Party after Goldwater was nominated in 1964. Ronald Reagan magnified the emerging trend when he kicked off his 1980 Presidential campaign in a Mississippi town best known for its support of segregation. Newt Gingrich sealed the trend when he created a Republican House majority based heavily on the old Dixiecrat-Republican coalition. We don't talk about Dixiecrats much anymore, as the Republicans now hold the vast majority of their old strongholds.
A future Democratic majority should look carefully at the record of the discarded Republican Presidents. Lincoln and probably Grant should be embraced for their positive achievements. Hoover's call for volunteerism should be modernized as a supplement to important governmental activity. And the worthwhile and visionary elements of the Nixon Administration should be separated from the corruption and cynicism and meanness associated with him.
At Democratic conventions and rallies, we frequently hear about the achievements of Democratic Presidents. We should in 2008 hear from Democrats what they admire about Republican Presidents, especially those like Lincoln now frequently consigned to oblivion and those like Theodore Roosevelt, who are now favorably mentioned but who actively denounced the prevailing Republicanism of their times.
Democratic President Martin van Buren, President Andrew Jackson's handpicked choice to succeed himself, was defeated for re-election in 1840 in part because of his anti-slavery attitudes. After being defeated at the Democratic National Convention of 1844 in a comeback bid, Van Buren ran as the candidate of the anti-slavery Barnburners and Free Soilers in 1848, getting 10% of the vote.
When the Dixiecrats were a key force in Congress, there was not much Democratic talk about Van Buren. There should be more talk about him in the future. Democratic opposition to the degradation of African-Americans did not become the dominant force in the Democratic Party until after World War II, but it was always present.
And if the vast majority of the Republican Party does not have room enough for Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, Democrats should make clear that his high ideals are welcome in the Democratic Party today. At least a small part of the battle for the future is the battle to make sense of our past and describe and prescribe its relevance for our national direction.