When Barack Obama speaks to the Democratic Convention tomorrow night, many Democrats will be wondering about a question that has been raised repeatedly during the primaries and at the start of the general campaign: will Senator Barack Obama, if elected president, be another Jimmy Carter?
This has been a criticism leveled against Senator Obama by supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton, as well as by Republican John McCain. The critics argue that Obama will be incompetent as a leader and unable to govern in Washington. McCain told NBC's Brian Williams, "Obama says that I'm running for a Bush's third terms. It seems to me he's running for Jimmy Carter's second."
To be sure, there are striking similarities between the Democratic presidential campaigns of 1976 and 2008. Both candidates ran against the Washington establishment and called for a new style of politics. Both candidates used the caucus system and the media masterfully to outflank party leaders. Both candidates refused to adopt the prevailing arguments of the Democratic Party and tried to weave together positions that ended up creating confusion about their core principles. Both candidates were accused of privileging style over substance. Both candidates lacked a significant amount of experience in Washington.
But these similarities overlook two key differences that suggest a better outcome should Obama be elected. The most important is that Obama and congressional Democrats are relatively united on the major domestic issues. When Carter inhabited the White House, congressional Democrats were deeply divided over economics, energy, health care, urban renewal, and more. The Democratic Party consisted of multiple, well-defined factions: southern Democrats, northern urban liberals, and western suburbanites who didn't see eye to eye on most issues.
Moreover, Carter and congressional Democrats didn't get along personally. Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill later wrote, "Carter rode into town like a knight on a white horse. But while the gentleman leading the charge was capable, too many of the troops he brought with them were amateurs. They didn't know much about Washington, but that didn't prevent them from being arrogant."
Obama faces a better situation. He and the Democratic congressional leaders are relatively united on most domestic issues. As I wrote with Michael Kazin in the Washington Post, Democrats have focused on a series of social policies that address the insecurity that middle class Americans now face, from higher education subsidies to health care reform.
Equally important, as Carter himself would be the first to say, Obama has a good rapport with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who informally supported his candidacy over Hillary Clinton. Having Senator Joseph Biden in the administration, who is a favorite veteran on Capitol Hill, would only help him in this pursuit.
The second reason that Obama would be in better shape than Carter has to do with the opposition. When Carter became president in 1977, the conservative movement was gaining full steam and starting to take control of the Republican Party. The 1978 midterm elections brought in an aggressive group of young conservatives, such as Georgia's Newt Gingrich, who were unwilling to compromise with Democrats and determined to shake up Capitol Hill. These conservatives had developed an elaborate grass-roots movement as well as a strong organizational network of interest groups, think tanks, and non-profit organizations.
As Carter tackled difficult issues like a SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union, he found that he was outflanked by conservatives who were better prepared organizationally than his administration. They were much more successful at tapping into voter sentiment than was the administration. Carter's defeats were not just a reflection of his weaknesses, but also a result of the strength of his opponents.
Obama does not face this problem either. The Republican Party is badly divided, far more than any tension that the Clinton-Obama rivalry can cause Democrats. As a result of the policies of President George W. Bush, the various factions of the conservative movement have entered into open warfare. Libertarians lament big government conservatism. Fiscal conservatives are at odds with administration's sizable budgets. Neoconservatives are in conflict with foreign policy realists in the GOP, who reject their ambitions for nation-building.
Nor are conservatives really excited about John McCain. They will vote for him, they will stand by him, but they are not enthusiastic about him. In stark contrast, building on Howard Dean's vision, Democrats have been able to construct a powerful national movement, connected from the netroots that fill the blogosphere every day to the grass roots activists who brought out voters in the caucuses, to supporters in the mainstream media. As president of the U.S., Obama would be able to tap into this network as conservatives struggle to regroup.
Finally, there is the role of President Bush. When Jimmy Carter came into office, the country was deeply distrustful of all politicians. Richard Nixon had resigned in 1974, replaced by Gerald Ford who seemed in over his head, and though he may have angered many by his pardon of Nixon, he was not nearly as polarizing a figure as Bush. Democrats were still reeling over divisions of the 1960s and they had not developed a clear sense of their party's core beliefs.
Today, Bush has provided Democrats with a potent rallying cry. As Paul Begala recently wrote in the Huffington Post, "No matter what minor difference Hillary and Barack had, they pale in comparison to the corruption, incompetence, dishonesty and criminality of the Bush-McCain Republicans."
The deep resentment and distrust of President Bush will offer Democrats a certain amount of momentum in 2009 and 2010 to work together and define their party.
Neither of these differences guarantees that a President Obama would not be another President Carter, but they should give Democrats some hope. Politicians with similar styles or messages can encounter very different outcomes at different moments in time.
Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is the co-editor of "Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s" (Harvard University Press). He is writing a book on the history of national security politics since World War II and another book about the presidency of Jimmy Carter.
For more Huffington Post coverage of the Democratic National Convention, visit our Politics @ the DNC page, our Democratic Convention Big News Page, and our HuffPost bloggers' Twitter feed, live from Denver.
I really wanted to believe, but he has proven to "seem fair, yet be foul". He is one scary dude. Beware the Obama.
Jimmy Carter
The press transformed Carter into a strawman, a cartoon character. Rather than debate the merits of his arguments he presents of the Middle East he has to defend himself against the vicious personal attacks.
Obama should avoid being another Jimmy Carter? Hardly the public should avoid being played into believing what the media portrayed Carter into being.
Obama has indicated his willingness to re-create programs (which are not right-wing talking points, but Obama's own talking points) that led to double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment during the Carter Administration. So, if his presidency is deemed to be a failure it will have everything to do with his perceived similarities to Carter.
Senator Obama gives an impression of a lack of determination and strength in dealing with threats to America. 9/11 showed America could be attacked directly It is a lesson that will not be lost on either the Islamists or Russians.
I feel an article by Professor Zelizer on how to deal with this challenge would be of importance.
However, I don't believe that Obama has the good heart Carter has. He is part of the machine, which is why he came out of nowhere and into the nomination. The machine didn't want Hillary Clinton, who is still a Beltway outsider. They chose someone who is part of the machine, then a VP who is another long-term insider with a record that should have true liberals screaming in horror at the decision.
The Democratic party is just as corrupt as the Republicans, more interested in getting and maintaining power than in actually doing good for their constituents. You can say that having power is important to getting things done, but if they have the power and still do nothing, as they have for the last two years, then it's time to found a new party.
The Clintons were and are not part of the Beltway. They got the support of the DNC when it was recognized that Bill was doing extremely well. They never, however, became part of the same machine that includes Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. If they were, we would never have heard about Monica Lewinsky, or the story would have disappeared in a few days.
unemployment: 5%
inflation: 5%
mortgage rates: 6%
Final year of JC presidency:
unemployment: 9%
inflation: 21%
mortgage rates: 19%
"The Bush administration is the worst in our history." - Jimmy Carter, 2006. A very humble man.
W made enemies or opponents virtually of ALL countries in the world.
Although Jimmah's "achievements" like loss of Iran, giving away of Panama canal and arming of Al Qaeda in A-stan also speak for themselves.
Losing our world credibility or making "enemies or opponents virtually of ALL countries in the world" is a liberal myth.
JFK would be a better example for Obama to follow. JFK would have been overwhemingly re-elected. Obama will not if he follows the Carter blueprint.
IMHO, they should have started rationing gasoline then. (And today would also be a good time to start.)
If Obama gets there his band of "yes we can" followers will turn on him in rage when they experience the way it is in the real world of politics. Obama may do a better job of holding his troops together when the bullcrap fades, but I doubt it. Bullcrap is bullcrap and young idealists always come unglued when that reality sets in.
Hillary could have saved the day for a return to democracy, but the "children's crusade" led by the pied piper destroyed the opportunity. God, I hate to think what will happen if the Manchurian Candidate and a right wing lady nut case from the tundra prevail to stop the less harmful disillusionment of an Obama political debacle.
Barack Obama is not a centrist Democrat. He has no concern for the Constitution as a document written and adopted to protect the inherent rights of individuals since he is a collectivist from the left-wing of the Democrat party. He rejects the principles of individual liberty in favor of collective actions.
Carter was our most incompetent leader in memory, but Obama, with Reid and Pelosi supporting may lead us to even lower performance.
Gosh, I just can't wait until BO gets elected. My life will be so much better with the federal government government taking over the oil companies and managing my health care. I just know it will.
Imagine a world where we are all equal and no more wars.
I just can't wait.
Too staid for my tastes. What about a giant plaster Lincoln head descending from the sky with Obama inside, and once it hits the stage he breaks through out of the top hat like the Hulk? Or how about the lights come up to reveal statues of Jesus, MLK, Gandhi, and The One — except his isn’t a statue, it’s really him and he was just standing perfectly still. Then he comes “magically” to life as the camera hits him.
Of course the music would have to be the Battle Hym of the Republic. But of course, no fireworks, too violent. Plaster head, don't know about that, not really that environmentally friendly.
Lincoln, republican, no good. Jimmy Carterand Clinton are still allive, so would have to go with the last great Democratic president, LBJ.
Imagine the today's problems with the addition of double digit inflation and a completely uncertain oil supply.