|
||
Political Legacy and the 2008 Election
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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Nixon:Reagan=Clinton:Obama is a decent analogy.Before Richard Nixon,the GOP won 2 of 9 elections,and those 2 with a war hero moderate.They averaged 192 electoral votes from 1932-1964.Nixon brought them back from electoral wilderness,winning regions of the country they never won before,like the south and rust belt.Nixon changed the GOP message to social conservatism,which earned him these states.Like Clinton, Nixon won reelection.After Nixon,the GOP could always count on the south.Nixon also improved the parties policy image to the country, to make it ready for Reagan.In 1992,the Democrats had lost 5/6 elections from 1968-1988, averaging only 113 electoral votes.Bill Clinton brought to the Democratic party states which we never had really won before in those elections,like CA,PA,NJ,ME,IL,NH,VT,DE,MI,MD,CT totaling 160 electoral votes in today's numbers, almost all of which went Nixon in 68, a few Carter in 76,but ALL of which had voted for Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1980(except MD), Reagan in 1984, and Bush in 1988.All of these states have not gone GOP since 1992, formerly GOP strongholds,like the south being Democratic strongholds.Now, they all vote for us in 2000 and 2004 except NH in 2000.Clinton also solidified the Dukakis states like RI,WV,WA,OR,WI,MN,NY,MA,RI,DC,IA,and HI,all of which also voted Reagan in 84 except MN and voted for Reagan in 1980 except MD, RI, and have now voted Dem every election since 1988 except IA in 2004 which went Bush.We also now average 260 EVs from 00-04.
i meant 1988, not 1992 where I have that
These are different times my friend. Too many people are feeding at the government trough for the paradigm to shift.
Every presidential election is, in part, a referendum on the value people place on where the country was taken by the previous administration. Either Obama or Clinton should be the beneficiary of the disastrous aftermath of the GWB eight year escapade. To suggest that an Obama victory would be a repudiation of all things Clinton is minimally accurate for it infers that if the now eight year old Clinton legacy was entirely positive, Obama would not be as well positioned as he is and the record of GWB and his republican minions would not matter. Being in the right place at the right time coupled with all the other well noted contingencies are the forces behind any electoral victory. If you don't believe me, ask John Kerry and Al Gore.
Hugely opiniated piece that presents a rather obvious observation as a revelation.
Obviously emotional response submitted as a critique of a logical article . IOW, cam can't.
Good assessment. I would add, that 2008 will not only show a failed Bush Presidency, but a complete failure of a Republican legislative branch, reaffirming power corrupts. It also shows the 2006 election made NO difference in the direction of mistakes. 2008 will show the legacy of pitiful Executive and Legislative branches, both parties.
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.
Great and accurate post!
I agree with your assessment of recent political eras and the thoughtful application of that history to the 2008 election cycle.
Too bad that the Clintons cannot see the writing on the wall :-)
With the exception of your overly harsh assessment of the Carter presidency, I believe this post is spot on. I think Dean's 50 state strategy had already proven itself by aiding and abetting Senator Wright's and Testor's campaigns, but this primary season has put an exclamation point on it.
Excellent post!! Thank you for this. I agree we are at critical threshold. We'll either transform to a new level of organization and action - or we'll regress. It is that hope, that appeal, for transformation that especially excites me about the Obama campaign.
Sorry, couldn't get past the bit about Reagan being a revolutionary and glorious cure to the disease of Jimmy Carter.
This is beginning to be a pattern with your comments - a real or well-feigned lack of reading comprehension.
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?
"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."
Legacies and reputations are hard to figure, depending almost as much as forgetfulness as what happens after a politician leaves office. Truman looks better now than he did at the time, shoring up a tired post FDR Democratic Party against the rising Republican tide. LBJ's changes in law match JFK's inspiration. People forget that Reagan was a little kooky. Bush 41 didn't know how to buy his own socks. And so on.
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.'
An excellent, objective post. I'll go one step further, and carry the analysis to Hillary and Barack. You are correct that Obama's small-donor grassroots campaign is more reflective of populism and a sea change in the influence of the party's progressiv base. Clinton's campaign and major donors clearly follow the old way you described, the "big state" argument rather than Dean's 50 state strategy. That may have been why when Dean was threatened by Clinton's major donors over MI and FL he didn't have to give in - the Obama phenomenon of grass roots fundraising is more significant to the party's future than a few wealthy donors pursuing the DLC's failed insider politics and big state strategy.
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.
kennedy was a hawk that won on his war record and argueing to close the missle gap. that along with sleezey chicago elements, won him the presidency. the leftist myth of who kennedy was is in stark contrast to the real man and the real leader. barack wants to chit chat with castro, kennedy tried to assassinate him. there is a big difference in leadership, one was a soldier who inspired with action, the other is a mayor daley-esque media creation with little substance.
Kennedy was not one of yours. Being a "hawk" does not mean being a cowboy like the GOP is. "hawk" kennedy did not invade Cuba or the USSR. Cowboy Bush invaded Iraq, a country he thought was dangerous but wasn't.
Amen Openeyes!
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!!!
Then would you not argue that Clinton is akin to LBJ? Johnson was the one who put Kennedy's fanciful words into practice. After Kennedy's death, he took on his mantle, and saw the opportunity to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. One could argue he was so indebted to JFK's legacy that he continued escalation in Vietnam, in the vein of Kennedy (the number of Americans in military intelligent in Vietnam went from 600 to 16,000 from 1961 to 1963 - hardly what Johnson eventually had there, but not insignificant). Kennedy didn't believe half the things he spoke of. He was an eloquent speaker, with great writers and some good ideas, but he was a pragmatist. (Many civil rights leaders were frustrated with Jack and Bobby's wait-and-see approach to demonstrations in the south, as the Kennedys risked losing the votes of southern democrats if they enforced the 14th amendment.) The man on the moon? Kennedy later wished he could backtrack on that statement. But you know what? NASA did it, less than a year after LBJ left office.
So who are you advocating for after all? Do you think Obama should pick Clinton as his running mate?
why do people keep referring to a return to mcgovernite ideas as 'progressive?' the legacy of the dems will be that of a party willing to run headlong to defeat by nominating the least qualified and most far-left candidate the party has offered up! the party's nominating process, with its absurd 'the winner can be the loser' rules, is about the least democratic process i've seen outside the third world...'make every vote count' used to be a slogan; now it's a sick joke.
its not about liberalism, the new left are not really liberals. they are progressive marxist aiming to create 1-party government, so they can reshape our country from a capitalist society focused on individual rights to a leftist socialist society with a dominate central government controling all aspects of our like from education to healthcare to welfare. they will keep the poor locked into poverty with their welfare state, they will destroy medical innovation with their NHS, they will continue to bow at the alter of the teachers union and increase wages while refusing to eliminatie tenure and increase standards, they will tax us and businesses big and small until the capitalist spirit of our naiton is broken, and they will begin to isolate us from our traditional allies, aligning us instead with other left-leaning governments in iran, cuba, and venezuela. the obama-pelosi-dean triad is one that will end the vision of america the founding fathers built, a rebuke of the nation's leaders such as thomas jefferson, abraham lincoln, franklin roosevelt, and ronald reagan. what will be left will not be america, but instead the new godless marxist society built by the extreme left. hopefully after 4 years of this horror the country will open its eyes to the truth.
Boy Howdy, I haven't laughed so hard in days. Is this meant as satire or do you wear a cap with bells?
Wow, just... wow.
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.
Wow, hopeless, that's one of the most paranoid rants I've ever heard.
hopelessobama: why are you bothering to even enter this web site? If I want this kind of stuff I can always go to FOX News. Scat!
Please when was the last time the Dems elected a truly leftist candidate? Oh yeah - McGovern. Party rules are now such that that sort of thing won't happen again, which is a shame for Americans. Compare the senate voting records of the three current candidates. We need someone like Dennis Kucinich - or even Howard Dean. Or better yet, another party or two in the mix, if we're going to disseminate any real ideas. John Edwards, for his faults, has left a legacy on this nomination process: the major candidates are now talking about health care, trade, and human rights. That's the real kind of liberalism we need, which the "mandatory HMO insurance" both candidates propose at different levels doesn't even come close to.
amazing how an obama win can be described as such an important event, yet the very real possibility of his loss in the fall is not given the same weight.
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!
that depends on the kind of win. if obama squeaks out a tight win, then no, its not a confirmation on anything but the shortcomings of obama, and has nothing to do with bush. if mccain wins, it is a total rejection of progressive thought and confirmation that clinton democrats were right all along. also, 3 straight elections in a row to one party is rare, regardless of the success of the administration. carter, for example, was preceeded by 2 republican wins and was followed by 3 republican wins. the bush-obama impact/legacy will not be realized until 2012 at the earliest. i know patience for history to run its course does not fit your skewed leftist narrative, but its the truth. but like most liberals, you have to twist all things to convince yourselves that this is a progressive/solcialist/marxist country and you try to find any point that fits this preordained story. sorry pal, your little wet dream goes away along with mr hussein obama after john mccain beats him coast to coast in the fall.
With the sorry state of the war, the economy and our basic civil rights IF McCain wins from coast to coast in November then one of two things will be true. The fix is in, or we are indeed a country of greedy, fat, lazy morons that undeniably deserve what ever the ruling class shoves down our throat.
I pray you are wrong about a McCain win, but still believe you are on the wrong web site.
the ruling class? you must mean the elitist left that hopes to create a uber-centralized government that controls our healthcare, education, retirement money, that taxes us like never before, while collapsing states rights with their own national mandates. the left have revealed themselves not as liberal idealists but as power-mad marxist who aim to created one-party government, to have a castro-esque grip on power. veto-proof majorities, huge government programs to control us, a welfare state that makes the weak dependent on the system and incapable of growth, the create an isolationist, protectionist society not unlike venezuela. the aims to unmake our country and rebuild it in the image they deem appropriate, with little consideration for our individual rights.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
