Homefront elections in war time, good or bad?

Didn't James Madison's second term begin during the War of 1812? I think the war started in June (didn't it) of 1812? That would seem to make "business" as usual a precedent since he was our fourth President.

 

The same could be said if the wrong person was elected. FDR did have opponents, both civilian and political, and can you imagine what would've happened if he hadn't been re-elected during the war? The new president may not have run the country like he did and may have thrown out the policy of unconditional surrender, not gotten along with our allies, fired generals, etc. I think that during a war like WW2, if the right man is leading, don't risk changing anything. If things are changed, that's when disasters happen and that can affect morale more than not having an election.

 

Lack of elections in wartime equates to one thing....DICTATORSHIP.

The election of 1864 was unique, because it wasn't a foreign war that the U.S. was fighting. Abraham Lincoln is not for nothing considered to be the greatest American President ever to hold office. His administration was remarkably scandal free on a personal level, and he suffered the loss of his youngest son whilst in office, giving meaning to his own personal sacrifice when American mothers were losing sons to the circumstances of the war as well. Lincoln's name wasn't even on the ballet in some states, yet the victory was there for all to see, and after three years of heartbreaking struggle for the Union, with many reversals of fortune.

I don't think there has ever been an election like it in this modern period. I wrack my brain to find an ancient comparison, and come to the conclusion that the 1864 election showed just what a remarkable country and people the United States really is.

Long may it reign!

 

The big problem would perhaps be how you define 'Wartime.'
The coalition & suspension of 'politics as usual' (largely) in the UK during WW2 seemed entirely appropriate given the scale of war that was building, and it's immediate geographical proximity. A form of benign dictatorship worked very well for the UK in those extreme circumstances.

However, if that were enshrined in law then it seems possible that at some point in the future an opportunist government might decide that a lesser conflict is grounds for them to play silly buggers. So business as usual should perhaps be the norm, particularly when a state's taking some sort of stance for democracy in a given conflict.

Edit: sorry, cross-posted. The '45 UK election was essentially a postwar vote (Post VE day anyway). And in many ways a good example of 'the people's will' being expressed, regardless of, and in contrast to, the wartime government's success and the popularity of it's leaders.

~A

 

I think, OP, that Winston was simply seen to be a wartime leader and nothing else.

According to more than one biographer, that particular election defeat was the one that hurt him the most, and this from a man that had been shunned by both sides of politics, thrown aside when party fellows thought he was 'past it". The election by Attlee hit him very hard, convinced as he was that he had guided the British people back from the abyssal chasm of disaster.

My personal fav anecdote of his shows what a truly old world figure he was...

"Clemmie" comes home, spots Winston sitting on a deck chair at the foot of the lawn, playing an old gramaphone, listening to "Soldiers of The Queen." She berates her husband for "..listening to those stuffy old tunes AGAIN," tells him to "turn it off this instant"....
Winston bursts into tears..."I don't know if you realise just how much these 'old' tunes MEAN to my generation!"