John Adams vs Tom Jefferson = Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama

If you've been watching the John Adams chronicles on HBO, you know that the birth of the young American Republic was accompanied by enough controversy, bitterness, infighting and rage to sink the project before it ever got off the ground. If it hadn't been for the fact that democracy, rough and tough as it was, produced the right outcome.

There was enough ideological antipathy between the cousins Sam (radical) and John (prudent conservative) Adams to make one wonder how Massachusetts got its act together -- but it got its act together and led the nation to independence.

Ben Franklin and John Adams were at cross purposes in Paris, where they were courting French military support for the war against the British, to a point where it seemed France might bow out. But it didn't, because democracy, messy as it was, worked.

Some even hoped (feared) George Washington would be an American regent rather than the first president, and the presidential campaign of Thomas Jefferson in 1800 for the presidency was greeted with cries of 'traitor' and 'Jacobin, ' making today's swift-boating techniques look like child's-play.

Except that Washington became president not king, and the dour Adams and the "traitor" Jefferson followed him in the presidency.

I dwell on this melancholy side of the American founding because, despite the shenanigans and hi-jinks, maybe even because of them, the country got born, the Bill of Rights was ratified, and here we are today... well, still having at one another in the name of democracy.

So I say "pshaw!" to those who think it's time for Hillary to bow out when her prospects in Pennsylvania are excellent, or for Obama to accept the vice-presidency even though he's got a clearer road to victory than Hillary, or for Howard Dean or Al Gore to step in a declare a winner and hope the superdelegates will follow suit though there are still millions of Americans who haven't yet voted in their primaries.

Let the democratic process run its course. Is the primary season too long? Much too long! Is the contest between Obama and Clinton too hot? Much too hot, yes, but that's the point: the presidency is at stake, and it is only the ambitious who can stay the course (witness the fate of the lethargic Fred Thompson). Do you really expect Hillary to say "After you, kind sir"? or Obama to respond "You first Madam"?

Nervous Democrats fearful they will never get back to the White House want peace now, a release from the tension, move on to the 'big one' with McCain. Sorry, but it's not going to happen. And that will be just fine. Because when a winner does emerge, after Pennsylvania, or Puerto Rico, or maybe at the end of August on the last day of the Democratic Convention in Denver, Democrats will get over licking their wounds pretty quick in order to start licking their chops in anticipation of knocking off McCain. And then things will really get down and dirty -- just as they have in every election for the past 225 years.

Don't believe those 'here-today-gone-tomorrow' poll figures showing this many Clintonites won't vote for Obama and that many Obamite won't vote for Clinton. It's all just part of the dogfight, bluffing by some (elect our candidate or else!), sulking by others (my candidate loses and I'm gonna take my marbles and go home). But March is one thing, November is another.

Let democracy run its course. As Churchill said, it's the worst of all possible forms of government... except for all the other forms. Oh, and by the way -- your heard it here first -- the Hillary-Sturm and Obama-Drang notwithstanding, the Democrats WILL win -- presidency, House and Senate. For which we will all owe thanks to George Bush.

Comments

[valleygent]

When Hillary Clinton becomes a decent human being she may then understand the true meaning of a democracy. As things are presently, I say end the race with a Super Delegate tally of votes now... Howard Dean! The woman is attacking Senator Obama's right to religious freedom in America and she wants to be a U.S. President??? Hillary is a huge disaster for the party and an egomaniac beyond anyone's imagination.

[Hawise]

What is a better example of religious freedom than the right to change or stay with a church when you agree/disagree with the pastor?
What is more destructive to a democracy- letting all the voters have their say or shutting it off because you fear the result? If it goes to a floor fight, so be it. I chose democracy, she may be messy but she's fair.

[PioneerKing]

Unfortunately, Clinton and Obama are not the erudite politicians that Franklin and Adams were.

[yrerbendr]

We see the erudition of Franklin and Adams in long retrospect. During their time in politics, they were just men not "the founders." They were reviled by their enemies. They had all the warts and foibles of other men. Read how Ben Franklin treated his own family, if you think I am mistaken. We don't know how Clinton or Obama will look in the future of if this election will be remembered like the Adams-Jefferson election of 1800, which, as recounted above, was a very nasty affair. The nascent democracy hung in the balance while Jefferson cut very back room deals to seal his Presidency. I hope this election will be remembered for what it should be: an awakening from the nightmare of the neocon fantasy and the deluded GW Bush.

[thinkb4uleap]

Excellent points. Historical perspectives all too often become romanticized nostalgic retrospectives.

[Serfie]

The Obama Thugocrats don't want a president. Instead, they want a God to worship, which is evident by their contempt for democracy.

This is what the Obama Thugocrat stands for:

1. Disenfranchising Michigan and Florida voters.

2. Force Hillary to quit before all state and territories have had their say in primaries and caucuses.

3. Don't ask hard question of Obama, like what will he do to end the war in Iraq, the federal deficit, the immigration problems, energy independence, health care.

4. Allow Obama, a half term first term Senator, to get a free ride in the media, even though there is no track record whatsoever that he can manage the executive branch of the government, be commander in chief, be chief diplomat, and be the head of state.

All we get from the Obama Thugocrats is a lot of Hillary hating nonsense. They don't give us a track record to depend or nor a vision for the future other than empty speeches about hope and change, which just sounds like Werner Erhard jargon. The US doesn't need a Werner Erhard or Tony Robbins; we need a president who is committed to a plan of action and executes the plan. Rhetoric doesn't do shit for anybody.

And when Obama goes off the teleprompter, he sounds like Bush. Lovely.

Man, if John Adams were alive today, he'd pull whatever hair that was left on his head.

[umen]

Is it even worth it to reply? Don't know, but here it is:
-Obama is not disenfranchising MI & FL - he's simply expecting them to abide by the rules of the Democratic Party - the same rules that all 50 states abide by.
-Obama does not have the power to "force" Hillary Clinton to withdraw from the race.
-If you want to know what Obama's stands are on the issues you raise, read his website. The media is not currently in the business of educating the electorate, they are in the business of selling news as entertainment. You must do your own research, like the rest of us on this blog do.
-There is no more track record for Hillary Clinton to "manage the executive branch" than there is for Obama, McCain, Kennedy, FDR, Lincoln, Nixon or any other president ever elected in this country. There is no training manual or course anyone can take to be US president. We the people elect our president based on our assessment of their character and abilities. I've researched Obama's track record and it is impressive - Civil rights lawyer, community organizer, state legislator, US Senator.

[jfullha1]

I like how you spent an entire post rebuking Obama supporters and their "Hillary hating nonsense," by childishly calling them "Thugocrats." That really drives home your point. I mean, I know you are not spewing any Obama hating nonsense by claiming his supporters have a contempt for democracy, and blaming Obama for the DNC's decision to not seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. Of course, Hillary supported that decision at the time, but she was obviously "sleep deprived."

My favorite part was how you decried "Hillary hating" by bashing Obama supporters, and discounting his years of experience as a law professor, community organizer and public servant. The fact that that you did this all in response to an article that had very good things to say about both candidates, really displayed a respectful disagreement with the Senator and his supporters and showed us all that Clinton supporters are the more civil and rational group of people.

[busybeez]

Whoa, calm down. You are ranting mad. Maybe you should take a break from the election for a few days?

[Temperancegirl]

This is a nasty piece of vitriol.

1. Why is Obama to blame for the "disenfranchising" of Michigan and FL voters? Seems to me that the states themselves chose to ignore the rules of the Democratic party. Then Hillary (and the other candidates, including Obama) agreed to honor the decision of the Democratic party. And now Hillary wants to count an election where hers was the only name on the ballot. Explain how this makes Obama and his followers "thugs."

2. No one can "force" Hillary to stop running. The idea that Hillary is running in order to franchise voters is the funniest joke EVER.

3. Obama has answered all those "hard" questions and more. Which leads me to wonder why you are putting forth an image of a Harvard Law School graduate as a stupid thug...this seems like the worse kind of thuggery to me.

4. Free ride in the media? Right--like claiming Obama should resign his senate seat because he went to a church where Jeremiah Wright was the pastor.

Your arguments are completely without basis. To me, the thuggery is in suggesting that anyone who promotes Obama is a Hillary-hater, yet you're the one who has shown toxic contempt for someone who is nothing like the person you portray.

[LeftRight]

wow, I have no response, you've completely changed my mind, I will now go get my lobotomy and become a Hillary supporter, unable to say what GOOD she's done, but always able to point out what they say is BAD about Obama!!

[oafishcad]

Where? Where?

[knerd]

I don't see much democracy running its course as much as I see lies and distortion and the same old politics running THEIRS.

[jmundstuk]

Nicely done piece, Dr. Pangloss. A paean to the workings of democracy which is comforting and inspiring. However.

France didn't back out of supporting the US because democracy worked? What? It was manifestly in France's interests to support the new country. If they didn't back out it was more that diplomacy worked and Franklin got rid of Adams in time.

Did the rough and tumble result in the right choice in 1968 when grief-stricken and angry Democrats abandoned Humphrey in sufficient strength to get Nixon elected; Nixon who had a "secret plan" to end the war? Or was that the right choice because it led to Watergate which in turn led to a reaffirmation of constitutional government.

Did the rough and tumble result in the right choice when slavery was not addressed except to placate the southern states by counting 3/5 of them for their house seats? Abigail Adams refers to the sin of slavery as perhaps the cause of the new nation's difficulties.

I guess the rough and tumble of the Civil War, unpleasant as it was, resulted in the right choice and democracy again triumphs.

Are we in the realm democracy as the Hand of Providence as they might have said in the 18th century, or the hand of God punishing and rewarding this and that, as your modern preachers would have it?

I think Voltaire would have some interesting things to say on this essay.

[ruscle]

We live in a Democracy? I thought that had been replaced during Regan and Gingrich with a corportocacy... controlled by big media, beholden to big business interests.

[Thorn]

No. Actually, we live in a Republic. Look it up.

[ignrnthllblly]

We live in a plutocratic oligarchy. Don't look it up. See it.

[MrWhiskers]

Don't be a pedantic schmuck: you know it's a democratic republic. "Look it up", sheesh.

[realitycheck2008]

Actually we live in a Republic.

[Shaddup]

A democratic republic.

[darthmaul]

This is the 21st Century, not the 19th. You just can't compare these two time periods. Campaigns now are more like modern day wars, and the easiest way to lose a war is to have to fight it on two fronts. While the democrats punch each other out, McCain is free to do as he likes, while he conserves and raises cash, support etc...

[SuppersReady]

First, The John Adams story on HBO is great.......

I didn't think of the ugliness between the principles so much. I thought more about the absence of religion in our new found government.......I was also pleased when John Adams said......GOD DAM THE KING....instead of God Save the KIng.......sound familiar?

Lastly, I am hoping after North Carolina and Indiania that the superdelegates move forward one way or another.

[bas1311]

Only sounds familiar if what Wright speaks of is a thirst for revolution? I don't think he does, but apparently you do.

[thinkb4uleap]

A revolution is occurring right before your eyes - Can't you see it? BTW, It is not being televised!

[vbond]

I actually cannot believe that you are equating John Adams and Hillary Clinton.

Your entire rationale crumbles on this ridiculous equation.

You need to stop watching TV about John Adams and read a book about him...

Any book.

[Thorn]

(It could even be a children's book.)

[Jammer]

This is a good historical analysis which demonstrates our founders had a little more intestinal fortitude than do people today. You could continue this analysis throughout the 1800's (after all, Lincoln was nominated on the third or fourth ballot and was not the first choice of most when the convention began), and you can in fact carry the analysis all the way up to JFK in 1960, who fought it out with LBJ until the convention, and 1968 when the nomination was in doubt until RFK was assassinated. RFK certainly expected a convention fight and he, for one, had no problem with that and did not shrink from it. For 20 years I have heard groans and moans over how boring the conventions have become and nothing happens since it is all determined in advance, to the point where the networks wont even broadcast them. Now we have a little excitement, which our strong Republic can certainly withstand, and people are greatly afraid. These days people not in the immediate lead are told to quit as soon as they are not in the immediate lead. Our history demonstrates that for 200 years we have had the fortitude to go through these hard nominating fights and all come out of it just fine thank you.

So, good analysis and one of the few I have seen this screwy season, and to all of you terrified of a convention with things not predetermined, I think a bit more courage is called for.

[thinkb4uleap]

I agree that the author makes a cogent argument for his premise except that we are almost 2 and 1/2 centuries beyond the birth of our democracy. I'm sure the Founding Fathers would have hoped that after this length of time we might have a more perfect union. Comparatively speaking, given that rate of progress toward a more perfect union, the Iraq 2240 elections should be quite eventful.

[Brettster]

What a terrible argument put forth in this blog. There is absolutely nothing to support the headline besides the two also being politicians and leaders. There really is NO point to the comparison, it's like "well there were these guys way back then who argued a lot, but we're still here doing stuff THUS...don't worry about Hillary vs Obama." Can we say FALLACY? I thought this was going to be a deep, historical analogy. You just failed, hard.

[bmora]

Wow, Dr. Barber, this is a stretch. Don't you think? Party politics at a very brief period in our history and the birth of a nation can hardly be comparable in any meaningful way.
This article disappoints me because the logic is so contorted, but I'll keep reading anyways. Love your books.

[lizwatch]

The only problem with keeping it going is the resources being wasted because Obama has to fight off attacks from his own party members when Hillary has only a 5% chance of winning. Why should we have to endure this? This is all about Hillary and her lifetime ambition of being the President. It's her payback for all she has had to put up with from Bill. I feel bad for her but it's over. Please get behind our candidate and let's win the White House in November!

[Hawise]

So the last states don't deserve the lift to their economies that every other state got this primary season, that is just being selfish lizwatch. You got yours so everyone else can just shut it, for shame.

[NNKN]

The more I read about Obama, the less I am impressed. Except for his initial position on the Iraq war, he has nothing to speak about. His judgement is called into question after seeing his association with Rezko (inspite of knowing that Feds were closing their web around Rezko), then comes his association with his Pastor for 20 years, wherin he lied initially about his presence during the sermons then tried to weave a web talking about history.
He is an Yale and Harvard graduate and should have known better. You don't associate Pastors like that unless he has some objective.
He also supported his relation in Kenya and canvassed for that guy during the recent held presidential elections in Kenya. that guy was promising to bring Islamic sharia rule in Kenya.
Does Obama really care about an individuals personal right of freedom which no Islamic countries offers and also the womens right.

I feel pity that the electorate are not asking hard questions and taking him to task like they do the other white candidates Cinton, McCain or Edwards.
Is it because Obama is a black and getting a free pass....

[conned]

Everything you mention here is sorrid gossip and innuendo based upon falty premises and ignorant speculation. Listen to his speech on racism and the economy; look to his explanations of his votes; listen to his ideas and vision for the country and then tell me if you really believe he is the Black Panther, Muslim, terrorst, infiltrating, communist, double agent that the MSM and the Republicans would like to make you believe.

[thebirdstheword]

I'm sure you're going to sway a lot of Obama supporters away from him with your infinite wisdom. No repub spin at all. Not at all.

[umen]

Dude, at least get your facts right, the few facts that you actually cite. Obama is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law School. Apparently you were thinking of George W Bush when you wrote this.

[Disparaged]

Please, I beg of you, do some RESEARCH. There are a lot of websites you can find true information on if you just take a little time. Apparently you know nothing about Obama except what someone else has told you that may or may not be biased, inuendo, ignorance or just not FACTS. There are too many "facts" available that for you to have no idea about a candidate is unexcusable.