Tag Archives: Libertarian

The End of the U.S. Postal Service?

Posted on by

And so Saturday mail comes to an end. Is anyone really that surprised? No competition = No reason to innovate or improve service. Where’s Lysander Spooner when you need him?

Here’s more on the U.S. Postal Service ending Saturday deliveries at Fox News:

The U.S. Postal Service plans to announce Wednesday that it will end Saturday mail delivery, in one of the most significant steps taken to date to cut costs at the struggling agency.

A source familiar with the decision confirmed the plan to Fox News.

Under the proposal, the Postal Service will continue to deliver packages six days a week. The plan, which is aimed at saving about $2 billion, would start to take effect in August.

(See the rest at Fox News)

Happy Birthday Income Tax (Now, go away already!)

Posted on by

It’s been one hundred years since the modern income tax was created, via the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Back then income tax rates ran from 1% for annual incomes over $3, 000 to 7% for annual incomes over $500,000 (that’s $11.6 million in today’s dollars!). Current tax rates run from 10% to 39.6%. Meanwhile, the income tax code has gone from a hefty 400 pages to a whopping 44,000 pages. My how times have changed. Here’s more from Delaware Online:

Pop Quiz: What book has more than 7 million words in multiple chapters, attempts to influence our behavior toward good ends, is complex and often contradictory, and requires interpretation by learned studiers of its texts to distill its basic principles for the masses of us for who this tome is supposed to provide benefit? It’s not the King James version of the Bible. It’s the current United States Tax Code.

The giveaway: While the U.S. Tax Code has more than 7 million words, The Bible is a relatively slim pamphlet at only 774,746 words. It wasn’t always this way. In 1913, the year the personal incomewe now labor under was instituted, the number of pages contained in the entire Tax Code stood at 400 (most of those dealing with tariffs). The Bible actually was longer at 1,291 pages.

As of 2010, the United States Tax Code stands at a whopping 71,684 pages (according to CCH Standard Federal Tax Reporter, though in fairness, that includes repealed or modified portions of earlier versions of the tax code. The current, live portion runs a mere 44,000 pages.) The original 1913 Tax Form 1040 blissfully topped out at a rate of 7 percent – the “fair share” due of the uber rich in the eyes of then President Woodrow Wilson who obviously never had been a community organizer at any point in his career…

(See the rest at Delaware Online)

Will Spain sell the Black Swan Treasure?

Posted on by

Two months ago, U.S. courts forced Odyssey Marine Exploration to hand over the so-called Black Swan treasure to the Spanish government. What will Spain do with it?

What will happen to the Black Swan Treasure?

Spain’s claim to the treasure was tenuous at best and completely lacking in proof. But as you might expect, international laws regarding shipwrecks are murky and highly tilted toward governments. Regardless, the Spanish government now owns the Black Swan treasure.

We tend to think this outcome, which was possibly influenced by secret back room bureaucratic dealings, will have extremely negative effects on the field of shipwreck salvage for years to come.

“Going forward, treasure hunters will have little to no incentive to report their findings to the world. The black market for antiquities will grow. The treasure hunting field will attract a greater number of reckless and unskilled individuals. Thus, salvage work will be done with more haste and less care.” ~ David Meyer, The Black Swan Heist

The Spanish Culture Ministry has taken possession of the treasure (and to add insult to injury, is suing for legal costs as well). The Spanish government claims it merely wants to divide up the treasure to be exhibited in multiple museums. But since Spain is deep in debt, it seems possible the government will sell some of the treasure instead and use the proceeds to pay its bills. While no hard evidence exists of an upcoming sale, there are some recent clues hinting at it. Here’s more on the Black Swan treasure from NumisMaster:

On Feb. 25 Jose Ignacio Wert, Spain’s education, culture and sports minister made no mention of value, simply saying, “The legacy of the Mercedes belongs to Spain.” It is likely Spain went to all the trouble of fighting for this waterlogged hoard in court due to its value, not due to the treasure simply being a legacy rightfully belonging to Spain.

But, wait a minute. This is treasure trove dredged from the ocean floor. What kind of collector value are we really looking at?

The first hint comes from a Feb. 27 Associated Press story. Within this story is the comment, “After two centuries under water, parts of the trove of coins are stuck together in big chunks, sometimes in the very shape of the chests or sacks they were originally stored in, said Milagros Buendia, part of the specialized team that went to Florida to get the booty.”

The AP story continues that “Spain will now set about classifying and restoring the 594,000 coins and other artifacts involved before it figures out how to display them for the public.”

The word “restoring” is the key, a word that likely goes over the head of the average potential buyer of such coins. This is part of the reverse psychology that has been applied many times when someone is publicizing a hoard of coins in preparation to selling them to the public. (There is no indication at this time that Spain will seek to sell the coins.)…

(See NumisMaster for more on the Black Swan treasure)

Battle of the Presidents: Obama vs. Hayes?

Posted on by

Who’s the better U.S. President? Barack Obama? Or the little-known Rutherford B. Hayes?

Battle of the Presidents: Barack Obama vs. Rutherford B. Hayes?

In what promises to be the strangest President vs. President battle of 2012, President Obama knocked President Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881) yesterday over his apparent dislike of the telephone.

“One of my predecessors, President Rutherford B. Hayes, reportedly said about the telephone: ‘It’s a great invention but who would ever want to use one?’ That’s why he’s not on Mt. Rushmore. He’s looking backwards, he’s not looking forward. He’s explaining why we can’t do something instead of why we can do something.” ~ President Barack Obama

Whew! Pretty low blow there by President Obama, going after someone who can’t exactly defend himself. There’s just one problem…it’s not true. According to Nan Card at the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center, there’s no record of Rutherford B. Hayes ever saying that particular quote about the telephone.

“I’ve heard that before, and no one ever knows where it came from, but people just keep repeating it and repeating it, so it’s out there.” ~ Nan Card, Curator of Manuscripts

Furthermore, an article from the June 29, 1877 edition of the Providence Journal records a very different reaction by President Hayes…

The President listened carefully while a gradually increasing smile wreathed his lips, and wonder shone in his eyes more and more, until he took the little instrument from his ear, looked at it a moment in surprise, and remarked, “That is wonderful.”

Rutherford B. Hayes – Was he one of America’s Greatest Presidents?

Rutherford B. Hayes was the first president to have a telephone, the first one to use a typewriter, and invited Thomas Edison to the White House to demonstrate the phonograph. Rather than being some kind of technophobe, President Hayes appears to have been the exact opposite.

As for President Obama’s slight about Mount Rushmore, I’d point to Ivan Eland’s excellent work, Recarving Rushmore. According to Eland, the four presidents who should be depicted on Mount Rushmore are John Tyler, Grover Cleveland, Martin Van Buren, and…you guessed it, Rutherford B. Hayes. In contrast, he ranks Mount Rushmore’s current occupants as follows: George Washington #7, Thomas Jefferson #26, Teddy Roosevelt #21, and Abraham Lincoln #29.

Eland takes a unique approach to evaluating presidents. Instead of ranking them on the usual stuff, he ranks them on how well they achieved peace, prosperity, and liberty. Presidents earn points for avoiding “wars of choice,” pursuing economic freedom, and respecting individual freedoms as well as limits on presidential powers.

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

President Hayes resisted going to war with Mexico, pursued anti-inflationary policies, avoided intervening in employer/labor disputes, and advocated for voting rights for African Americans. The biggest knock against him is he continued the U.S. government’s shabby treatment of Native Americans. Still, based on the ideals of peace, prosperity, and liberty, (and contrary to President Obama’s opinion), there is a strong case to be made that President Hayes deserves to be recognized as one of the greatest presidents in American history.

The Mysterious Decline of U.S. Whaling?

Posted on by

In 1820, the U.S. whaling industry was just a blip, generating about $1 million in revenue per year. Thirty years later, it had grown nearly 1,000%, making the U.S. the global leader in whaling. By 1900, U.S. whaling revenues had declined an astonishing 90%. What happened?

The Mysterious Decline of the U.S. Whaling Industry?

The rise and fall of America’s whaling business is a fascinating tale. It exploded in the mid 1800s thanks to a series of new technologies and rising worker productivity. Almost as immediately as it came together, the U.S. whaling industry fell apart. Many historians blame its fall on lower demand for whale oil (thanks to the rise of petroleum oil) as well as reduced supply (due to fewer whales in the ocean). But the real story behind the decline in the whaling industry is something else entirely. Here’s more on the mysterious decline in U.S. whaling from The Atlantic:

One hundred and fifty years ago, around the time Herman Melville was completing Moby Dick, whaling was a booming worldwide business and the United States was the global behemoth. In 1846, we owned 640 whaling ships, more than the rest of the world put together and tripled. At its height, the whaling industry contributed $10 million (in 1880 dollars) to GDP, enough to make it the fifth largest sector of the economy. Whales contributed oil for illuminants, ambergris for perfumes, and baleen, a bonelike substance extracted from the jaw, for umbrellas.

Fifty years later, the industry was dead. Our active whaling fleet had fallen by 90 percent. The industry’s real output had declined to 1816 levels, completing a century’s symmetry of triumph and decline. What happened? And why does what happened still matter?

…The thesis of Leviathan, the ur-text of whaling economics, is that the source of our dominance in the 19th century will feel familiar to a 21st century audience: a triumph of productivity and technology…The standard explanation for the decline of whaling in the second half of the century is a pat two-parter consisting of falling demand (from alternative sources for energy) and falling supply (from over-hunting). But according to Leviathan, the standard explanation is wrong…

(See The Atlantic for more on the mysterious decline of the U.S. whaling industry)

The Black Swan Heist?

Posted on by

On May 18, 2007, Odyssey Marine Exploration flew 17 tons of salvaged gold and silver coins to a secure facility in Florida. Now, five years later, U.S. courts have forced Odyssey to hand over this treasure to the Spanish government. What is the Black Swan Heist?

Odyssey & the Mysterious Black Swan Project?

Odyssey is a publicly-held marine salvage company. In other words, it’s a treasure hunting firm. Back in 2007, Odyssey completed a top-secret salvage expedition known as the Black Swan Project, uncovering some 17 tons of coins and other artifacts in the process. The operation is believed to have cost two million dollars and taken numerous years to complete.

Almost immediately, the Spanish government filed a claim on the treasure, arguing that the Black Swan was actually a Spanish vessel known as the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes, which sank in 1804. Five years of court battles and drama followed. At one point, WikiLeaks even got involved. A secret cable revealed the American ambassador to Spain offered to help the Spanish government recover the treasure from Odyssey. In exchange, Spain was asked to compel a museum in Madrid to return a $20 million painting to a California family that claimed it had been stolen by the Nazis.

The Black Swan Heist?

In September 2011, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Odyssey in a highly questionable decision. In February 2012, Justice Clarence Thomas, acting on behalf of the U.S. Supreme Court, declined to hear the case. As a result, Odyssey is being forced to hand over the Black Swan treasure to the nearly-broke Spanish government. And in a slap to the face, the firm won’t receive any compensation for its work (leading many treasure hunters to suggest Odyssey return the Black Swan treasure to the ocean and make the Spanish government pay for its own recovery).

I don’t want to get into the minutia of the case here. The international laws governing shipwreck salvaging are murky and highly tilted toward governments over individuals. Suffice it to say the Black Swan wreck was never conclusively proven to be the Mercedes. And even if it was the Mercedes, that means that the vast majority of the coins were owned by merchants and not the Spanish government. Spain claims it had reimbursed the merchants back in the early 1800s and thus, was entitled to the treasure (interestingly enough, it has yet to provide any proof of this compensation).

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

From my point of view, this is a short-sighted decision that will have long-term ramifications (something I discuss in my novel Chaos). Going forward, treasure hunters will have little to no incentive to report their findings to the world. The black market for antiquities will grow. The treasure hunting field will attract a greater number of reckless and unskilled individuals. Thus, salvage work will be done with more haste and less care.

As I see it, the Black Swan treasure falls under the homesteading principle. There are three possible owners of the Black Swan wreck. The dead (or their descendants), the “community” (supposedly represented by the Spanish government), or Odyssey. First, the dead merchants can no longer claim ownership. In addition, the merchants basically stole the metal for the coins from the Incas making it extremely unlikely the original owners can ever be traced (although some Peruvians are making their own claim). Second, the Spanish Culture Ministry has no legitimate claim to the treasure. Governments cannot legitimately own private property, since everything they have (including tax dollars) has been, in effect, taken at the point of a gun.

Overall, I would argue no one owned the Black Swan wreck prior to discovery. Odyssey, on the other hand, is the rightful owner of its own labor. By salvaging the Black Swan, the company added its labor to the treasure and thus, became its rightful owner.

I’m a treasure hunter. Yet I also consider myself an amateur archaeologist. As such, I’m very sympathetic to the concept of “historical preservation.” However, I don’t think that “stealing” artifacts from the treasure hunters who recover them is the best way to achieve that goal. Instead, I tend to favor the idea of privatizing archaeology.

“In other words, if “archaeological entrepreneurs” were able to sell their wares freely, they would have greater incentive to do better work in order to fulfill the demands of their customers (i.e. museums). Also, in the absence of antiquities laws, private owners would be more likely to share their artifacts with researchers, especially since subsequent research might increase the value of the artifact in question.” – David Meyer, Is Treasure Hunting Immoral

I realize I’m in the minority on this issue. But that doesn’t mean I’m wrong. Freedom has vastly improved the lot of mankind over time. I believe it could do the same thing for the field of archaeology.

Grover Cleveland: The Greatest President?

Posted on by

Who was the Greatest President in U.S. history? Most historians tend to share common ground when it comes to ranking U.S. presidents. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt receive the top honor in practically every single poll. However, recent attention has fallen to a far more unusual candidate…Grover Cleveland.

Who was Grover Cleveland?

Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States, making him the only President to serve nonconsecutive terms. He is largely remembered for the economic meltdown that took place during his second term, including the second-worst depression in U.S. history as well as a series of vicious labor strikes. While not ranking as low as President John Tyler, he fares no better than 19th in Wikipedia’s aggregate of various scholarly polls. Who in the world would possibly consider Grover Cleveland to be the greatest President in history?

Was Grover Cleveland the Greatest President in History?

In his book, Recarving Rushmore, Ivan Eland argues that the reason most historians overlook presidents like John Tyler and Grover Cleveland is because of flawed ranking systems. He points out four particular biases exhibited by historians:

  1. Effectiveness: Scholars tend to focus on a president’s ability to enact an agenda without considering the positive or negative results from that agenda.
  2. Charisma: Historians place undue emphasis on exciting personalities at the expense of dull ones.
  3. Service during a Crisis: Many historians will only rank a president highly if he served during a great war or financial crisis, giving little credit to those who avoided war or kept crises from happening in the first place.
  4. Activism: Presidents who did a lot are ranked higher than those who preferred minimal government.

Eland takes a unique approach to evaluating presidents. Instead of ranking them on the usual stuff, he ranks them on how well they achieved peace, prosperity, and liberty. Presidents earn points for avoiding “wars of choice,” pursuing economic freedom, and respecting individual freedoms as well as limits on presidential powers.

His analysis leads to some interesting conclusions that differ wildly from most polls. George Washington is still fairly high at #7. But he ranks Abraham Lincoln (#29) and FDR (#31) far lower than pretty much any other historian. His top five are John Tyler, Grover Cleveland, Martin Van Buren, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Chester A. Arthur. These presidents are barely remembered by most Americans today which, in a way, is the point. Their terms were boring, thanks to their decisions to avoid wars and pursue policies that led to economic success as well as personal freedom.

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

So what about Grover Cleveland? Well, he refused to annex Hawaii and avoided war with Spain over the Cuban rebellion (a policy that would later be reversed by President McKinley). He restored sound currency and avoided the New Deal style programs that lengthened the Great Depression. He was “relatively benevolent” to Native Americans.

As for the depression that marred his second term, it was largely caused by the actions of his predecessor, Benjamin Harrison. During his term of office, President Harrison instituted the McKinley tariff, increased federal spending, and supported the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, which increased the money supply while reducing the government’s gold reserves.

President Grover Cleveland’s record wasn’t perfect. He signed the Interstate Commerce Act which “provided the underpinning of the Progressive movement.” To get lower tariffs, he agreed to bring back the income tax. He also “backed segregation as constitutional.” That being said, in terms of promoting prosperity, peace, and liberty, Grover Cleveland outranks nearly every other President, with the possible exception of John Tyler.

Shortly after his second term ended, the Democratic Party underwent a sea change, abandoning the classical liberal ways of President Grover Cleveland and his fellow Bourbon Democrats. The Bourbons fled the Democratic Party when FDR instituted the New Deal and were eventually absorbed into the Old Right. The Old Right, in turn, largely collapsed in 1952 when Eisenhower effectively stole the Republican nomination from Robert Taft. Since then, President Grover Cleveland’s legacy has appeared all but dead. However, the rising popularity of Dr. Ron Paul – who counts Grover Cleveland among his heroes – seems to be changing that. Will future historians cast a kinder eye on President Grover Cleveland? Only time will tell…

Grover Cleveland was a principled classical liberal. But even while serving as president, his own Democratic Party was deserting him as the forces of statism and unlimited democracy, unleashed by the death of states’ rights in 1865, were beginning to dominate American politics. He was the last American president in the Jefferson/Andrew Jackson/John Tyler tradition, and the last good Democrat to serve in that office. For the most part, his successors (in both parties) have ranged from pathetic panderers to dangerous, megalomaniacal warmongers, or both.” ~ Thomas DiLorenzo, The Last Good Democrat

The Anti-Conspiracy Conspiracy Theory

Posted on by

The Internet has given a voice to millions of people, allowing for a Golden Age of information that is unprecedented in history. But not everyone likes an unregulated marketplace of ideas. Is there a conspiracy to control the Internet and thus, rid the world of conspiracy theories?

The Conspiracy to Control the Internet?

The answer, at least in certain quarters, is yes. For several years now, various high-profile academics, government employees, and reporters have called for the U.S. government to control the Internet by regulating or assuming control over its information. But how does one control the Internet? Some people call for indirect measures. For example, Cass Sunstein, the current Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, once recommended that government agents go undercover on the Internet and raise doubts about conspiracy theories and the like.

Some individuals call for more direct measures to control the Internet. The other day, Evgeny Morozov published an article on Slate complaining about sites that “undermine scientific consensus, overturn well-established facts, and promote conspiracy theories.” He wants browsers to mark “disputed information” in red (danger alert!). He also suggests Google manipulate search results so people won’t be able to find “sites run by pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists.”

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

Wow.

Whenever someone wants to limit your options on what to think, look out. At the core of Morozov’s paranoia is the collectivist idea that individuals are incapable of thinking for themselves since they might arrive at so-called wrong conclusions. Thus, we need a guiding hand (presumably, belonging to the government) to help us sort out right from wrong. And to do that, government must control the Internet.

Of course it’s all bunk. Sometimes consensus science gets overturned, well-established facts get called into question, and conspiracy theories are shown to be true. That’s the brilliance of the Internet. It’s the greatest marketplace of ideas ever invented. We would be wise to keep it free.

You can read Morozov’s bizarre thoughts on government’s so-called responsibility to control the Internet here:

[The Internet] has been tremendously useful, giving us Wikipedia and Twitter. But it has also spawned thousands of sites that undermine scientific consensus, overturn well-established facts, and promote conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, the move toward social search may further insulate regular visitors to such sites; discovering even more links found by their equally paranoid friends will hardly enlighten them. Is it time for some kind of a quality control system?

People who deny global warming, oppose the Darwinian account of evolution, refuse to see the causal link between HIV and AIDS, and think that 9/11 was an inside job have put the Internet to great use. Initially, the Internet helped them find and recruit like-minded individuals and promote events and petitions favorable to their causes. However, as so much of our public life has shifted online, they have branched out into manipulating search engines, editing Wikipedia entries, harassing scientists who oppose whatever pet theory they happen to believe in, and amassing digitized scraps of “evidence” that they proudly present to potential recruits…

(See more on government’s so-called responsibility to control the Internet here)

The Drug War’s Strange Origins?

Posted on by

Today, the Drug War is a part of American life, just like the War on Terror, the War on Poverty, and any other number of “Wars on Concepts.” But how did the Drug War originate?

The Origin’s of America’s Drug War?

Few people realize the Drug War is a very new invention, launched in 1914 with the highly-questionable Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. Here’s more on the dubious and racist origins of the Drug War from Jacob H. Huebert over at Lew Rockwell…

Bigotry and xenophobia were another major factor leading to drug prohibition. Chinese immigrants were partly responsible for spreading opium use in America, so prohibitionists found a receptive audience among whites who feared the prospect of their daughters being lured into the Chinaman’s opium den. Early anti-opium laws in western states explicitly discriminated against Chinese immigrants.

Absurd fears about cocaine-crazed blacks fueled support for cocaine prohibition. Dr. Hamilton Wright, the leading anti-drug crusader during the Theodore Roosevelt Administration, told Congress that cocaine “is often the direct incentive to the crime of rape by the Negroes,” despite a lack of evidence for this or even for the proposition that blacks used cocaine more than whites. Still, Southern Senators especially bought into the widespread myth that black men on cocaine essentially became crazed zombies who were – yes, some people believed this – invulnerable to .32 caliber bullets.

Professional and industry groups, most notably the American Pharmacological Association, also helped enact drug prohibition. Big pharmaceutical companies did not like competition from patent medications, and pharmacists did not like it that people other than themselves could sell drugs. Regulation of drug distribution, even if it imposed costs on pharmaceutical companies and pharmacists to some extent, could be worthwhile to them if they could bear the costs while their smaller, less diversified competitors could not.

(See the rest on the Drug War and its strange origins at Lew Rockwell)

Did Eisenhower Steal the Presidency?

Posted on by

According to popular legend, Dwight Eisenhower was a shoo-in for the Presidency in 1952. He won the Republican primary on the first ballot by a large margin. He then proceeded to crush Adlai Stevenson in the general election. But in truth, he came very close to losing the primary race and only prevailed thanks to some questionable tactics. Did Eisenhower steal the nomination and thus, the Presidency?

General Eisenhower versus “Mr. Republican”?

In the aftermath of World War II, General Eisenhower was immensely popular with Americans and both parties courted him as a Presidential candidate. Initially, “Ike” showed little interest. However, that changed when he met Robert Taft, aka “Mr. Republican.”

Taft was the leader of the Old Right wing of the Republican Party (a mantle now carried by Dr. Ron Paul). He believed in reducing the size of government and supported a policy of non-interventionism. But his opposition to the Cold War didn’t sit well with Eisenhower. At the same time, the Democrats looked particularly vulnerable thanks to public disgust with corruption in President Truman’s administration. Many people thought that the Republican nominee, regardless of who it was, would easily win the Presidency.

Although Eisenhower had yet to commit to the race, his name was put forth on the New Hampshire ballot by Thomas Dewey, Taft’s arch rival. He didn’t campaign. He hadn’t even expressed his opinion on political issues. And yet, he won convincingly. Shortly afterward, Eisenhower decided to throw his hat into the ring.

The Race for the Republican Nomination?

The campaign that followed was one of the most bitter and hotly contested races in history. Eisenhower enjoyed tremendous popularity and attracted tons of new voters to the party who were derisively referred to as “Republicans for a Day.” But Taft was popular as well. In addition, he faced a structural advantage. Back then, the majority of convention delegates were chosen by caucuses. And most of those caucuses were controlled by Taft supporters. As the Republican Convention neared, Taft had 530 delegates to Ike’s 427. Still, although Taft was in control, he was short of the 604 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

Eisenhower’s team swiftly accused Taft of stealing delegates from Texas, Louisiana, and Georgia. Supposedly, Taft supporters had kept Eisenhower voters from participating in these caucuses. The voters proceeded to form their own pro-Eisenhower delegations, which resulted in conflicting delegations being sent to the Republican Convention. Taft’s team offered a compromise split of the delegates but Ike’s people refused, believing that they could use the issue to their advantage at the Convention.

The 1952 Republican Convention?

In July 1952, the Convention opened. Taft had every reason to be optimistic. Besides his lead in delegates, the committees were largely controlled by his team. But Ike’s people were prepared. They quickly proposed the “Fair Play” rule, which would forbid contested delegates from participating in roll call votes. Taft’s team badly mishandled the parliamentary issue and as a result, lost the fight. This vote remains controversial today as many people believe that third-place candidate Earl Warren’s decision to support “Fair Play” was influenced by Eisenhower offering him a position on the Supreme Court.

With Taft’s delegates forced to sit on the sidelines, Eisenhower had the numerical advantage for the remainder of the roll call votes. This led to a series of votes in which Taft’s contested delegates were rejected and Eisenhower’s were approved. Still, Taft thought he had a chance. Even with the newfound delegates, Eisenhower seemed likely to garner just 560 votes, well short of 604. But during the first roll call vote, Ike took 595 votes to just 500 for Taft thanks to the support from several uncommitted delegations. Recognizing a patronage opportunity, Minnesota party leaders quickly switched their 20 votes to Eisenhower and the battle was over. Others followed suit and Eisenhower ended up winning on the first ballot by a vote of 845 to 280 (with an additional 77 delegates supporting Earl Warren).

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

So, did Eisenhower steal the primary election and thus, the Presidency? He didn’t do anything illegal. Still, his victory can be attributed largely to parliamentary trickery that kept Taft’s delegates from having a voice at the Convention. It’s possible that Eisenhower deserved those delegates in the first place although Taft vigorously denied any wrongdoing. It should also be noted that Taft won the popular vote handily, with 2.8 million votes to just 2.1 million votes for Ike. Still, he wasn’t the clear favorite since this represented just 35.8% of all votes.

The various Republican factions were clearly divided over their choices in 1952. But after the Convention, they joined forces and thus propelled Eisenhower to the Presidency in a landslide. As for Taft, he fell sick soon after the Convention and passed away in 1953. His death, coupled with Ike’s victory, marked the end of the Old Right wing of the Republican Party and the subsequent rise of the Conservative movement.