Why was the New York Times so against Warren G. Harding?

[Bonaventure]

The New York Times has just (controversially) printed its first front-page editorial since 1920. I’m interested in that previous editorial, which was apparently one railing against the Republican nomination of Warren G. Harding.

Why was the Times so upset about Harding’s nomination? Was it that they thought he would lose or was it that their preferred Republican had been shunted aside in favor of a lesser candidate?

[RealityChuck]

Most likely due to the “smoke filled room” statement by Harding’s campaign manager.

@Harry Daughterty

, “I don’t expect Senator Harding to be nominated on the first, second, or third ballots, but I think we can afford to take chances that about 11 minutes after two, Friday morning of the convention, when 15 or 12 weary men are sitting around a table, someone will say: ‘Who will we nominate?’ At that decisive time, the friends of Harding will suggest him and we can well afford to abide by the result.”

Harding wasn’t the leading candidate and the idea that he was chosen in a back room deal could have been distasteful for the Times, which was establishment Republican at the time.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

I can’t find the full text of the editorial online, but this book quotes more than enough of it to give the flavor:

Upon a platform that has produced general dissatisfaction, the Chicago convention presents a candidate whose nomination will be received with astonishment and dismay by the party whose suffrages he invites. Warren G. Harding is a very respectable Ohio politician of the second class. He has never been a leader of men or a director of policies. For years a protege of Foraker, he rose to a subordinate office by favor of ‘Boss’ Cox of Cincinnati… … Senator Harding’s record at Washington has been faint and colorless. He was an undistinguished and indistinguishable unit in the ruck of Republican Senators who obediently followed Mr. Lodge in the twistings and turnings of that statesman’s foray upon the Treaty and the Covenant. . . . The nomination of Harding, for whose counterpart we must go back to Franklin Pierce if we would seek a President who measures down to his political stature, is the fine and perfect flower of the cowardice and imbecility of the Senatorial cabal that charged itself with the management of the Republican Convention, against whose control Governor Beeckman so vehemently protested. . . . And for principles, they have only hatred of Mr. Wilson and a ravening hunger for the offices.

@RealityChuck

Harding wasn’t the leading candidate and the idea that he was chosen in a back room deal could have been distasteful for the Times, which was establishment Republican at the time.

The Times wasn’t necessarily establishment Republican by 1920. They had endorsed Wilson twice, and supported the League of Nations. They went on to endorse Cox in 1920, saying of Harding:

His nomination resulted from operations of the Senatorial cabal at Chicago; it is known that he was the choice of the elements that are most dominating and reactionary in the Republican Party.

[dougie_monty]

This may not matter much, but there was a rumor at the time that Harding had black ancestry.

[Horatio_Hellpop]

My understanding is that the only thing he had going for him was that he looked presidential, and was a compliant front man for the vested interests of the day. The Times’s concerns were well-founded. He died two years into his term a very popular president, but one whose scandals (Teapot Dome) came to light pretty quickly upon his death and his successor, Calvin Coolidge, had a lot of cleaning up to do.

[dougie_monty]

He looked presidential, all right. James Michener once said we will never elect a bald president–thanks to television. Harding was the prototype for that–certainly when compared to James M. Cox.
Nimium ne credi coleri.

[Northern_Piper]

One interesting bit of trivia: of the four names on the ballots (Prez and Veep) in the 1920 election, three eventually were elected President: Harding, Coolidge and Roosevelt.

[Jackmannii]

Warren G. Harding is a very respectable Ohio politician

Well, he got past that rather quickly.

[Jim_s_Son]

They didn’t appreciate a man who who bring prosperity, end the notorious Mitchell raids of Wilson’s Attorney General, end an expensive naval arms race, release political dissidents from jail such as Eugene Debs (Debs got more than 900,000 write in votes in 1920 while in jail), have no American military personnel killed in any wars (last POTUS who can claim that). There were some scandals but a large part of Teapot Dome was the drilling for oil improved the economy of Western states-Eastern establishment hate that as it threatens their power.
It was pretty common until about 1932 for presidential candidates to nominate compromise candidates after several ballots since they often required a candidate to get two-thirds of the votes.
The 1924 Democratic Convention took 103 ballots.

[puddleglum]

From reading the editorial and the later endorsement of his opponent it seems that the Times did not object to Harding as a person or candidate but rather they were very pro-League of Nations and he was not.
In 1920 the leading candidates were General Wood who was the representative of the T Roosevelt branch of the party and Lowden who was representative of old guard. They differed on the League of Nations in that Wood wanted it passed with a small change and Lowden agreed with the Republicans in the Senate that it should not be passed.
Wood was the most popular choice on the first five ballots. Harding was introduced as a compromise candidate because he was so well liked in the party and because he was from Ohio which was electorally important and Cox, the Democrat nominee, was from Ohio. There was a rumor that a bunch of Senators got together in a smoke filled room and decided on Harding. The next day delegates started getting desperate and going to Harding. When Lowden released his delegates the party coalesced around Harding.
The Times seemed upset that instead of a pro-League candidate, Wood, being nominated an anti-League candidate was nominated. They don’t say much bad about Harding but have alot of vitriol for Lodge and the other Senators who supposedly decided on him and had been blocking Wilson about the League of Nations.

[Hari_Seldon]

@Jim_s_Son

They didn’t appreciate a man who who bring prosperity, end the notorious Mitchell raids of Wilson’s Attorney General, end an expensive naval arms race, release political dissidents from jail such as Eugene Debs (Debs got more than 900,000 write in votes in 1920 while in jail), have no American military personnel killed in any wars (last POTUS who can claim that). There were some scandals but a large part of Teapot Dome was the drilling for oil improved the economy of Western states-Eastern establishment hate that as it threatens their power.
It was pretty common until about 1932 for presidential candidates to nominate compromise candidates after several ballots since they often required a candidate to get two-thirds of the votes.
The 1924 Democratic Convention took 103 ballots.

Interesting observations. Just out of curiosity, what wars were Coolidge and Hoover involved in?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Harding released Debs in 1921. Pretty sure the NYT did not base its views on things Harding hadn’t done yet.

[dtilque]

@Jackmannii

Well, he got past that rather quickly.

I assume you’re refering to this

[Mr.Miskatonic]

Reminds me of a wisecrack about hoew Harding did more than any President before or after him to protect the Constitution of the United States.

Because until he gave a presidential order, it was just sitting untended and gathering dust on a shelf.

[Declan]

@Hari_Seldon

Interesting observations. Just out of curiosity, what wars were Coolidge and Hoover involved in?

If I had to guess, the Banana wars.

Declan

[puddleglum]

@Hari_Seldon

Interesting observations. Just out of curiosity, what wars were Coolidge and Hoover involved in?

Coolidge was involved in the occupation of Nicaragua which cost the US 90 combat deaths.
For Hoover it was probably in China, either involvement in the Chinese Civil War in 1930 or the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931.

[dtilque]

@puddleglum

Coolidge was involved in the occupation of Nicaragua which cost the US 90 combat deaths.
For Hoover it was probably in China, either involvement in the Chinese Civil War in 1930 or the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931.

The US occupied Haiti throughout all three administrations. Don’t know how many US servicemen died in each, but I’d be somewhat surprised if none died during Harding’s.

[puddleglum]

@dtilque

The US occupied Haiti throughout all three administrations. Don’t know how many US servicemen died in each, but I’d be somewhat surprised if none died during Harding’s.

According to Wikipedia there were only ten US combat deaths during the entire occupation. Harding was president for a little over two years, it is believable that nine were killed while he was president.