By Kevin C. Murphy, Copyright 2013. All Rights Reserved.
The Triumph of Reaction
Progressives and the Election of 1920
VII. The Democrats' Lowden
In other words, like Governor Frank Lowden across the aisle, Cox was for the most part an unoffensive figure to all sides. "[W]ithout having irreconcilably antagonized those who regard the Democratic party as a staunch defender of the status quo," Charles Merz wrote of him in TNR, "he has caught the eye of those who look upon it as the country's most successful instrument of progress." Perhaps even more intriguing, Cox had the added benefit of being "outside the shadow of the White House, no part of the official family, a man who has neither fought the President nor bled for him." The governor was similarly agnostic on the League question - Cox had "made a number of orthodox statements" for the League, and his "campaign managers declare him a loyal supporter of the president." But Governor Cox also supported reservations, and thought the League a question unsuited to partisan politics regardless. As Merz put it, "the one most heartfelt thing that Cox has said about discussion of the League was…'The public is sick and tired of it.'"2
To progressives like Merz, Cox - despite his anti-German stance during the war - also seemed to have kept a reasonable distance from the repression that had marked the Wilson administration. Noting with approval that Cox, as Governor, had never called out the militia to end a strike in Ohio, Merz lauded Cox's "considerable courage and a good deal of self-possession…[W]hen representatives of an ostensibly Jeffersonian administration like Palmer and Burleson have bludgeoned public opinion, and other representatives, like Wilson and Baker, have stood by in silence, Cox was willing to hold out against the alarmist press and the persuasive push of the steel companies." Within the party, foreshadowing a schism that would lay Democrats bare four years later, the governor was also a popular choice with urban Wets looking to offset the rural Dryness of William McAdoo and back a wet candidate who would bring in northern ethnic voters to the polls. In short, Cox seemed to be the antithesis of everything people didn't like about Wilsonism.3
The governor further helped his case, for the most part, by laying low: After announcing his intentions to run in February 1920 , Cox - aside from a minor foray into the nearby Kentucky primary - kept his powder dry until San Francisco. "My friends are urging me to open up a vigorous campaign," Cox explained, "[b]ut I prefer to wait. If, when the convention opens, they finally turn to Ohio, all right. We either have an ace in the hole, or we haven't. If we have an ace concealed, we win; if we haven't, no amount of bluffing and advertising can do much good."4
Return to the Table of Contents.
2. Charles Merz, "Two Leading Democratic Candidates," The New Republic, June 2, 1920 (Vol. XXIII, No. 287), 12.
3. Merz. Bagby, 74-76.
4. Bagby, 74-76. Governor Cox won 20 of 26 delegates in Kentucky, which he added to his own Ohio delegation.
If you found this dissertation useful or entertaining, please consider contributing to the tip fund.
Alas, history isn't the wildly remunerative discipline it used to be.