Arguing with Alonzo Hamby ...

I'm ordinarily inclined to defer to the judgment of other historians who know more about a subject than I do. That's especially the case when it is a careful and thoughtful historian like Ohio University's Alonzo Hamby, who is one of our foremost experts on the American presidency. According to the University's Public Relations Office,

Hamby wonders if the nation is on the verge of a return to a trend that surfaced in the late 19th century, when the 1876, 1880, 1884 and 1888 elections all had tight margins.
"I don't think this is anything to look forward to," says Hamby, a specialist in 20th-century American political history who has written several books on the presidency from the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt forward.
Tight races add to contention in the nation, Hamby says."When a country is so bitterly divided, it isn't good." (Hat tip to Tom at Big Tent)

Hamby's belief that bitter national divisions are unhealthy for the country is an honorable instinct. The bitterness feeds all kinds of ugly encounters. On the other hand, I take comfort in the likelihood that there will be no landslide in November's presidential contest.

Since World War II, there have been 14 presidential elections. The winning candidate in six of those contests polled less than a majority of the popular vote: Truman in 1948, Kennedy in 1960, Nixon in 1968, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Bush II in 2000. Three of the contests were won by candidates with popular majorities far short of a landslide: Carter in 1976, Reagan in 1980, and Bush I in 1988. There have been only five presidential elections since World War II in which the winner prevailed in what is commonly considered a landslide, 55% or more of the popular vote:

Eisenhower in 1952, 55.3%
Eisenhower in 1956, 57.4%
Johnson in 1964, 61%
Nixon in 1972, 60.7%
Reagan in 1984, 58.8%

It is noteworthy that four of the five results were for second term re-elections. Think back over Eisenhower, II; Johnson, II; Nixon, II; and Reagan, II. They will not be recalled as great moments in the history of the American presidency. In fact, I dread landslide re-elections of American presidents. Go back even further: Roosevelt II featured troublesome overreaching for power.

I respect Alonzo Hamby's reasoning as that of an honorable and knowledgeable historian. But I disagree with it for two reasons:
First, the analogy to the presidency of the late 19th century is suggestive but misleading. American presidents in the late 19th century headed a national government which was of much less moment both in world affairs and in the lives of ordinary citizens than late 20th and 21st century presidents do. The nation could afford the second and third rate presidents those contests yielded because they had, by comparison, little power and authority.
Second, there's a more recent record of landslide re-elections leading to disastrous second term presidencies. There is a sense in which I do not want the man who is inaugurated on 20 January 2005 – whoever he is – to do so with a sense of mandate. Now, more than ever, because the United States plays an outsized role in world affairs and because its government has a huge role in the lives of ordinary citizens, I hope our president has no large sense of a mandate. The temptations of pride are too great; the risks of no restraint are too serious.