It is often acknowledged that we cannot truly know what the lasting legacy of political figures will be until substantial time has passed. Harry Truman, for example, is regarded as one of the twentieth century's fine presidents despite having left office with approval ratings in the low 20s. History has been similarly kind to George H.W. Bush, whose presidency seems so measured and competent, his foreign policy so realistic, especially when compared to that of his son.
As the 2008 election proceeds, it is leaving in its path the first articulation of the broader context of recent history.
If Barack Obama becomes the forty-fourth president, President Bush will find, to his dismay, that the closest historical analogies to his presidency are that of Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover. Herbert Hoover presided over the beginning of the Great Depression, proving his leadership -- and his party -- incapable of rising to the challenge that had befallen the nation. The resulting political and economic atmosphere allowed Franklin Roosevelt to defeat Hoover and lay the course for dramatic and lasting change in American politics. Like Hoover's, Carter's administration was ineffectual and non-adaptive, unable to meet the economic and international challenges with which it was faced. In the wake of Carter, a new revolution took place again, this time with Reagan as its champion.
Now, as November nears, it appears that like Hoover and Carter, George W. Bush will have unintentionally laid the groundwork from which a paradigm-shifting candidate can take the country in an entirely new direction, once again.
But President Bush will not be the only one to see his legacy at least partially solidified by the results of November's election. Bill Clinton, too, will see his legacy take further shape; like Bush, he will be particularly disappointed.
That same New Deal that guided Franklin Roosevelt to be elected four consecutive times also created a new coalition of Democratic voters. It was this coalition that helped reelect Truman, and helped make John Kennedy the youngest president in our history. But as Lyndon Johnson worked to further articulate FDR's New Deal agenda with his Great Society, steps toward racial equality would change that coalition forever. Southern Democrats left the party en masse in the wake of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. With a Democratic coalition in shambles, the party seemed destined for presidential exclusion. The only success was Carter's 1976 victory, far more the result of the weakness of his opponent than of his strength as a candidate.
It was in the Democratic defeats of the 1980s that the Democratic Leadership Council, and with it Bill Clinton, was born on the national stage. Their third way philosophy was that Democrats could not win with the same coalition or governing philosophy; they chose instead to co-opt Republican policies and remake them with minor modification. Such a philosophy would be a cornerstone of the Clinton candidacy and later of his presidency.
But if Barack Obama wins the presidency in 2008, it will serve not as a validation, but rather a repudiation of the Clinton "New Democrat" philosophy. Where Bill Clinton was unable to push a progressive agenda, Barack Obama has campaigned on one. And where Clinton believed Democrats could not steer, Obama has been progressive, honest, and persuasive. Clinton's political philosophy -- and perhaps the political climate in which he found himself -- restrained him from following the model of Roosevelt and Reagan. For Obama, it is exactly those models that his presidency is likely to replicate. In the broader context of history, Clinton's presidency will be acknowledged for the economic prosperity it produced; but ultimately, it will be a much smaller blip on the radar. What Nixon's presidency was to Reagan's so will Clinton's be to Obama's.
The 2008 election may also magnify the importance of someone who could have taken an otherwise minor role in our history. Howard Dean was, admittedly, a deeply flawed candidate. He has, to this point, been at best, a mediocre party chairman. But the philosophy on which he based both his campaign and his chairmanship is being proven enormously important in the wake of Obama's success.
In 2003, when then presidential candidate Howard Dean proclaimed that he was "from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic party," he was the first to stand up to the party leadership, proclaiming the Clinton way of governing to be weak, spineless, and ineffective. It is that call that has found itself at the core of this Democratic race, one in which all candidates appeared at Yearly Kos while none attended the DLC Convention. His innovation with internet organizing gave birth to the blogosphere, and has been the cornerstone of Obama's campaign. With over 1,000,000 contributors and an average donation of $109, Obama has been able to credibly argue for a new kind of politics by dramatically decreasing the power of special interests and major donors. Had Dean not introduced the party to the power of online organizing and fundraising, one wonders if Obama's candidacy would have ever gotten off the ground.
Ultimately though, it is Dean's 50-state strategy that has truly been validated by this election. When he first became chairman, he received steady criticism for what many saw as the naïve notion that Democrats could (and should) compete everywhere in the country. Dean's philosophy was simple enough: party organizations can be built anywhere, and can be expanded everywhere so that investments in red states today can turn them blue sometime tomorrow. As Clinton and Obama continue to build excitement and momentum in each of the fifty states, their success at amassing unprecedented turnout has proven Dean right. States like Virginia, Colorado and Kansas are winnable states for Barack Obama. Even Texas finds itself leaning Republican, but no longer safely red.
For Bush, an Obama victory is confirmation of a failed presidency. For Clinton, it is a marginalizing event. And for Dean, it is undoubtedly a moment of vindication. Whatever the outcome, the legacies of all three men have taken much of their shape from the long campaign of the 2008 election.
2008 will also show the people are beginning to tire of these two contrived/manipulated parties and the corrupt politicians that inhabit both major parties. Whom ever is in charge, the people lose. We will have record voting for 3rd parties and a record low turn out in the election. The President will be selected by a record low % of people. Now is time to work on adding "none of the above" to the election choices.
Too bad that the Clintons cannot see the writing on the wall :-)
No where did Dylan say that Reagan was a revolutionary and cure for the Carter disease. What he actual wrote was the perceived failures of the Carter administration led the way for the Reagan revolution, which it was given the percentages of his victories - his main point being that Failed Presidencies Lead to Huge Changes.
Are you saying that Reagan didn't change the country? FDR didn't change the country?
Against this kind of backdrop, the next President might be able to do something better, less than a paradigm shift, but at least more than business as usual. Not even the best ideas are without human and economic consequences, and the toughest job a new President will have is to speed up the flow of of human and financial resources into new problems, without making everything a zero sum game. More taxes, fewer benefits, and more deficit spending will be needed at the same time to reinvigorate the nation's education and training, research , infrastructure, and national security.
The generation born during the Reagan presidency has lived for today, without much worry about the future. Accepting a slower path to prosperity will be a tough thing.
I wouldn't want to be the man or woman leading the nation come next January. The coop may be under new management, but the same old chickens are likely to come home to roost. And if we cook and eat the legacy, there will be no more eggs.'
I've often thought Obama could be a melded Kennedy/Reagan president. Both stressed philosophies of governance and leadership over specific policy. Obama's campaign is more in the line of "trust me, I will lead you to something better." Clinton's campaign is more in the line of "I am something better." One is focused externally, on leading the country, the other internally, on running the country. That also harkens back to FDR vs Hoover.
Obama would be more like to Kennedy, saying for example, "we can put a man on the moon." Clinton would propose a detailed space program to do so. That's not a criticism of Hillary, but it reflects the difference between leadership and management.
Right now, the country seems more hungry for leadership.
Yours is the best description of these two candidates I've seen so far. Thank you so much for putting it so simply. It rings true!
And like you said, Leadership vs Management is not a bad thing at all. In fact, while watching Hillary yesterday in the Iraq hearings with the General and Amabassador, I instantly felt like she is so damn good at that!!! She really should use her Administrative and Management skills to the max and become Majority Leader. Unfortunately, if she ends up feeling slighted at the end of this nomination process, she could really make Obama's life hell should he become President. You know, everytime he tried to get something passed she could really screw things up for him if she had that much power in congress.
Hillary is really strong and well-suited for high management type of positions.
Obama is better suited for high visionary, broader and transformative leadership type postions.
BRAVO Openeyes!!!
If you truly believe the current Democratic party are Marxist in any way, shape or form, you either need a textbook on political ideaologies or a straightjacket.
if its obama/pelosi/reid/dean in full leadership of this country, and they fail, its the end of the progessives in mainstream politics. progressives are on the fringe, and when that foursome of stupidity screws up, the whole thing comes down. this is the apex of the progressive movement. no more complaints, no more excuses, no more republican bogey man or right wing conspiracy, this is it. if obama fails, there will never again be the progressive leadership you so desire. you've peaked, and for your sake, i hope obama does not prove as horrid a leader as deval patrick, because if he does, its over!
I pray you are wrong about a McCain win, but still believe you are on the wrong web site.