Leftist Victory in El Salvador Closes an Historic Cycle

The apparent victory of leftist candidate Maurico Funes in Sunday's presidential election in El Salvador finally closes out the Cold War in Central America and raises some serious questions about the long term goals of U.S. foreign policy.

With Funes' election, history has come full cycle. Both El Salvador and neighboring Nicaragua will now be governed by two former guerrilla fronts against which the Reagan administration spared no efforts in trying to defeat during the entire course of the 1980's. We will now coexist with those we once branded as the greatest of threats to our national security. Those we branded as "international terrorists" now democratically govern much of Central America.

Funes, once a commentator for CNN's Spanish-language service, comes to power representing the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), a Marxist guerrilla group-turned-political -party, an organization that the U.S. government once described in terms now reserved for Al Qaeda and Hizbollah.

From the late 1970's until a negotiated peace settlement in 1992, the FMLN fought a bloody civil war against a series of U.S.-backed right-wing regimes. Those Salvadoran regimes engaged in horrific massacres and deployed savage death squads, taking a massive human toll. While the FMLN also perpetrated atrocities, all independent analysts agree that the overwhelming majority of the 75,000 who were killed in the war in El Salvador were victims of government-sponsored violence.

This same FMLN which now comes to power in El Salvador was once declared as the primary perpetrator of "international terrorism" by the Reagan administration who deployed hundreds of U.S. military advisors to the tiny Central American country and who quadrupled the size of the Salvadoran Army. In this all-out quest to crush the FLMN, U.S. authorities, at best, turned a blind eye to the bloody excesses of the Salvadoran regime. At worst, it encouraged them.

At the same time in history, the U.S. spent billions creating a "contra" army to destabilize and dislodge the leftist Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) which had taken power in Nicaragua in 1979, overthrowing the dynastic and dictatorial rule of the Somoza family - another U.S.-backed ally.

During the entire eight years of the Reagan era, defeating both the FMLN and the FSLN were the absolute top priorities of U.S. foreign policy as the administration argued that the Texas border was a short hop from the fields of Central America and that all must be done to stop the northward march of hemispheric revolution. The sort of inflammatory rhetoric used to describe the Central American guerrilla movements was an eerie precedent for the overheated war of words against "The Axis of Evil" that would emerge earlier this decade.

The Nicaraguan Sandinistas were eventually defeated by an American-backed opposition in elections in 1990 and democratically and peacefully transferred power (something the Reaganites claimed could never happen). But the Sandinistas returned to power last year re-electing its historic leader Daniel Ortega as president. Almost twenty years of rule from the pro-U.S. coalitions that had succeeded the Sandinistas had failed to implement any meaningful social change.

The Salvadoran FMLN, meanwhile, which has acted as a parliamentary opposition party since the 1992 Salvadoran peace accords, now comes to power ending twenty years of uninterrupted rule by the country's ultra-conservative ARENA party - a political organization born directly from the death squads of the 1980's and, yes, a close ally of the U.S.

All of this raises the question of why so many lives were spent and so many billions in U.S. dollars were burned in an attempt to expunge these leftist forces twenty years ago? Wouldn't it have been possible in 1989 to find some sort of accommodation with these radical forces and not postpone the inevitable for twenty years?

In the case of Nicaragua, the year-old reborn and duly elected Sandinista administration--while far from a model of democratic ethics-- hardly poses any threat to U.S. interests. Though President Ortega, saddled with governing one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, still clothes his actions in revolutionary rhetoric, he has headed up what many think is essentially a conservative regime which recently outlawed all abortion (a move that could warm the deceased Ronald Reagan's heart). Ortega campaigned successfully for the presidency last year by quoting from scripture and has not flinched from pacting with the most conservative of political elements.

In the case of El Salvador, President-elect Funes has pledged to maintain close and cordial relations with the U.S. And while the FMLN--like the Sandinistas - clings to some of its Cold War revolutionary rhetoric, no one expects any radical moves by the incoming government. Fighting widespread poverty aggravated by the global slump and a chilling crime wave, the FMLN will have its hands full just keeping the government on keel. President-elect Funes holds distinctly moderate views and in an American context would be little more than a liberal Democrat. In any case, the FMLN can point to its recent governance of several Salvadoran cities (including until recently the capital of San Salvador) as its democratic bona fides.

The resurrection of the FMLN and the FSLN at this time in history raises a troubling irony regarding U.S. foreign policy. Yesterday we were told they were our greatest enemies. Today, now in power, they hardly garner any U.S. press coverage, let alone much attention from Washington. Likewise, the right-wing forces we bankrolled with blood and treasure and who we were told were a bulwark of Western Civilization, utterly failed in solving the basic existential questions that bedeviled their respective countries. Twenty years from now, we have to ask, what will Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria look like? Might we find ourselves peacefully co-existing with the same undefeated forces who today we proclaim our mortal enemies? Might we be better off using our soft power, our economic and diplomatic clout to force negotiation and moderation with those we perceive as irrational and radical enemies? Or do we only reach that conclusion after the dissipation of prolonged, bloody and ultimately unsuccessful armed intervention and war?

Comments

[chuckzzz]

Marc Cooper could not be more wrong in his attempt to put the FMLN victory in
historical perspective.

Both the FSLN and FMLN were defeated by landslide margins in elections closest to the war.

There is nothing democratic about Ortega's rule today in Nicaragua.
Ortega wasn't "Saddled" with 2nd poorest country in hemisphere, he engineered that poverty.
His distruction of a thriving economy in 80s was compounded by 16 years of FSLN sabotage when out of power.

Ortega regained power by a sleazy deal called "El Pacto" with corrupt ex president Aleman.
His abortion ban was a cynical move only done just before the election to gain the support of the
sellout Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo. He had voting age lowered to 16 and used "El Pacto" to pass
law allowing 35% victory to require no runoff. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest any pluralism in his rule as Mr. Cooper alleges.

Since that victory he's refused international monitoring of the major municipal elections in 2008, which
he is universally accused of stealing. The US Obama administration and EU have cut off aid to Nicaragua. He has unleashed his thug gangs known as "turbas" at peaceful demonstrators killing multiple unarmed civilians and at least 2 journalists.

He has been roundly condemed by both former Sandinistas such as Ernesto Cardenal and Dona Maria Tellez, to ex journalists like Stephen Kinzer of NYT, to activists such as Noam Choamsky.

[GuillermoGodinez]

I agree with AliMB about many things. It is romantic left wing classroom fodder to talk about the FMLN and FSLN in the same sentence. The Sandinistas long sold out and made pacts with the Catholic Church to outlaw abortion and made pacts with imprisoned right wingers to get Ortega to the presidency. El Salvador despite all of its problems has a dynamic private sector as well. I have met Mauricio Funes and he is a remarkably balanced person. Who knows how he will govern, but the immigration and remittance ties with the US make it difficult for him to follow the exact same path as many other izquierdistas. I wish him very luck.

[AliMB]

Part I

I just love these articles on Central America because all the Eighties left-wingers come out in full force. As someone with experience in the region, let me offer the following opinion on Mr. Cooper's article:

Nicaragua and El Salvador have different political situations, thus trying to equate the rise of the Frente movements to power and comparing the contemporary versions to the Reagan era is a display of fallacious logic by the author.

In the case of El Salvador, Mauricio Funes was able to win after years of corrupt and inefficient ARENA rule, but also because he portrayed himself a moderate who would remain an ally of the US. He consistently mentions Lula or Obama, both moderate-left politicians. Mr. Funes constantly talks about respecting the pillars of capitalism and private property, intentionally distinguishing himself from the old leftwing vanguard of the FMLN. It is also important to remember: the FMLN is a far different animal today then it was as an insurgent movement in the Eighties. The FMLN was then controlled by highly ideological Marxists (I've met some); anti-American to the core and ultra violent. Thus, referring to them as the “same forces” is blatantly false. ARENA thru a coalition will also control the legislature, reducing the possibility of radical FMLN policies.

In Nicaragua, the FSLN only returned to power thanks to a corrupt constitutional amendment that made the threshold for winning the presidency 35%, farcical considering that Nicaragua is a presidential system.

[datone]

Great insight and good entertaining work.

[arvay]

:-)

[arvay]

I agree that the Cold War-driven issues of the 80s are scarcely relevant now.

But the article's information about the murderous, neo-colonial role we played is fundamentally correct. Among other things, it makes our "objections" to Russia's actions in Georgia laughable.

And people in the area no doubt haven't forgotten. How many families lost relatives to the death squads we financed? It's going to take some time for the effects to fade: meanwhile we're going to see some more like Chavez and Morales. I hope we keep our hands to ourselves and for once let the people of the area figure it out for themselves. In any case we're tied up in new messes we've created for the time being.

Forward to the present: Many leftists have learned a few things about the value of capitalism, albeit regulated and controlled, like nuclear energy. China is a good example. I suspect Cuba under Raul will make some key changes in this area.

And the world's leading capitalist nation is now learning something about capitalism unbound. As is the rest of the world that's reeling from the ricocheting effects of our financial foolishness and obeisance to "the market."

Many of us who marched on the Pentagon are keeping up with current events, and I suspect most of us are more in tune with reality than those who yearn for some new Cold War.

[AliMB]

Part II

Ortega in 2006 gained 38% of the vote, which is almost the same amount of support that the FSLN always gets i.e. there has been no significant rise in the Sandinista's popularity. But thanks to a divided Liberal Party (Rizo and Montealegre), Ortega snuck his way into office. He has so far proven himself to be the same anti-dem0crat he always was, highlighted by his unsophisticated r0bbery of the municipal elections this past November. Every country in the world (save for the p a r i a h s) recognizes this t h e f t and have frozen international cooperation to the FSLN Government. In the eighties, the Sandinistas were full-fledged allies of the Soviets and the Cubans, receiving weap0ns, and funds from the latter.

Remember, Reagan's policies were designed to rollback c0mmunism and diminish S0viet influence. His br0ke from his predecessors in that instead of containing the S0viets, he would actively look to foment the collapse of the C0mmunist system, thus supporting hostilities from Afghanistan to Nicaragua. The administration implemented these operations because it correctly viewed the USSR and its proxies as the enemy of the US and the Democratic free world. Reagan's policies were successful: the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan a disintegrating empire, the Sandinistas were forced to hold multiparty elections, and FMLN agreed to end insurgent activities in the peace accords. In 1991, the USSR evaporated, rendering the Cold War policy approach to Central America outdated.

[sticksnstones]

US interventionism in Central and South America predates Reagan, the USSR, and the Cold War by over one hundred years. A glaring omission on your part, no ?? We GET it that you opt to dislike the direction politics is taking down there now. Perhaps your time would be more wisely spent by personally going down and making the changes you see as needing to be made. You know, that would demonstrate the real courage of your convictions, although, like your hero Cheney, you likely prefer to let others do that grunt work for you. Maybe you could reconstitute the Contras. Let me know how that works out for ya ...

[AliMB]

"US interventionism in Central and South America predates Reagan, the USSR, and the Cold War by over one hundred years. A glaring omission on your part, no?"

You are right, but I only mentioned Reagan because that specific administration and timeframe was a topic of Mr. Cooper's post.

"Perhaps your time would be more wisely spent by personally going down and making the changes you see as needing to be made"

I've been to the regional several times, including very recently.

"...like your hero Cheney"

How is he my hero? I said in my profile that I thought he was a "patriot", not that I think he was 'heroic' or a great VP. The terms are not synonymous. Read carefully

"Maybe you could reconstitute the Contras"

The former contras (particularly the northern peasants) are fairly well-organized themselves. If given the reason and the means, they could carry out their own actions

[ErikW65]

Glad you brought up Afghanistan as it relates to Central America, that is, by way of the Reagan Doctrine. Whereas the US got off relatively easily in terms of blowback from uselessly backing the eventual losers in El Salvador and Nicaragua, in Afghanistan our support for the winners, the anti-communist rebels, sowed the seeds of al-Qaida. Isn't it wonderful how that blowback has flowered into a stateless enemy, like a new antibiotic­-resistant virus that keeps coming back?

If it's one thing that binds modern-day neocons to Reagan, it's their similarly arrogant disregard for the long-term consequences of implementing their crazy schemes. Your posts bring up another: consisitently learning errant lessons from history that always point toward US hegemony and exceptionalism.

[Paulo1]

Oh bah!

You claim to have knowledge of the region but speak in generalities based on Cold War rhetoric. The same rhetoric that drove the funding of military thugocracies into murdering their own people to demonstrate that they were actually achieving something with the millions in US aid they received to "fight communist insurgents" when if fact they were fighting a rural land reform movement and a few leftest who fled the cities and took up arms to avoid death squads.. Do you happen to remember the massacre of El Mozote ? Wouldn't be surprised if you didn't Republicans did everything but self lobotomies to forget it.

El Salvador like many countries in the region has a historic problem of addressing the needs of its poor. It is a problem that has been with them since colonial times and remains to this day. US interference does little but make things worse. Best to just wish the new President well and promise to NOT give them "Aid and Advice"

[AliMB]

"You claim to have knowledge of the region but speak in generalities based on Cold War rhetoric."

Please re-read both parts of my post, because it contains several "details" on why the contemporary political situations differ. The "Cold War rhetoric" is because the author specifically mentions the Reagan era.

"...fighting a rural land reform movement and a few leftist who fled the cities and took up arms to avoid death squads"

That is standard left wing pr0paganda. The eighties-version FMLN was controlled by vi0lent Marxists, while the Sandinista government's own Marxist collectivization policies caused massive backlash among highlander peasants and indigenous people. Certainly the ELSAL government committed a plethora of abuses (El Mozote being the most atr0cious), but your attempt to make this a partisan issue is off-base. The year with the most death squad killings was in 1980 while President Carter was in office. The US did a lot to try and moderate government abuses while simultaneously protecting the country from falling to a Marxist insurgency (a difficult balancing act). In the 1984 elections, the Reagan administration openly backed the Christian Democrat (moderate left) over the Right wing candidate, particularly because of human rights.

"Best to just wish the new President well and promise to NOT give them "Aid and Advice"

I disagree. Funes appears to be a moderate-left leader (far different from the old FMLN vanguard), and thus the US government should engage him, offering "aid" and “advice” when appropriate.

[Mexitli]

This is probably the best commentary I've read on the Huff Post, or at least in the top 3. Thanks Cooper for upping the bar. Very nice read!

[victorsays]

All those of years of being exploited by Western corporation with nothing to show for, it is no surprise Leftist government are attractive to hopeless people.

Stability is the best course toward democracy. Too bad, the West only believes in their own stability with total disregards for other countries sovereign course in their own national affairs.

[datone]

I think the right to forward remittances is their US right. Will their intended receipients get the $$$ is in doubt right now. These remittances account for a significant percentage of untaxed funds in El Salvador, but not for long.

[indyleftist]

Trent Franks of Arizona and Dan Burton of Indiana said Salvadorans living in the U.S. could lose their immigration status and the right to send remittances home if the leftist FMLN party wins the vote.

[ErikW65]

Thanks for writing this article. I protested against the US involvement in the conflicts in El Salvador and Nicaragua in the late 80's and early 90's. Looking back, we didn't have the word "neoconservative" in our vocabulary at the time, but that's what Reagan was. The struggle to interfere with sovereign nations, using political ideology, either by resorting to covert funding of armed rebels to overthrow leaders, or by bombing civilian infrastructure and invading, is something that these Central American wars have in common with US/Iraq relations in the last decade.

At that time, Saddam was our ally. But once he fell out of our favor, he similarly became a terrorist boogeyman like the FMLN and the Sandinistas had been. Too often America has looked for a country to save from itself, lest it become a threat to the free world in one way or the other. It's hard to believe it's mere coincidence that in every case, there is a natural resource that US Corporations want to exploit, control of which is threatened by "the enemy." Now, we inherit a world in which the trust we once had amongst the nations of the Earth is almost completely gone, and has to be rebuilt from scratch.

[Mexitli]

You lost me on your last paragraph. It's one thing to seek justice and equality on your own land and to seek and end to Euro-colonization as in Central America and South East Asia and another thing thing to seek justice and equality and an end of euro-colonization in Palestine.

"Islamic extremists," although a product of that same old failed U.S. foreign policy, have god on their side as opposed to socialism and or communism. We can see today that socialism and communism were just veils to hide behind and that the real goal was and is independence, self-determination and nationalism.

If white Europeans have a "right of return" to Israel, when they were never from there in the first place, and yet Palestinians have no such right to return to their homeland - Palestine, then there will never be peace.

Israel's ethnocracy, fueled by Zionism and not democracy, is as much a "god" thing as the Jihadist's holy war against them.

Unless the U.S. stops supporting the Zionist administrative regime in Palestine there is little hope that there will be any change, even in twenty years in this case.

But I can assure you, the Justice that the Palestinian people seek is the same justice that the Viet-Namese, Nicaraguans and Salvadorans sought.

[ErikW65]

I'm not surprised the last paragraph threw you. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is NOT a useful metaphor in the general discussion of US aggressive involvement in the internal conflicts of sovereign nations. Hopefully I don't have to explain why. The differences are so numerous, and the situation so much more historically complex, the subject could be it's own article here. But if you are focusing in general on the plight of the Palestinians, you have my sympathies.

[Mexitli]

Not a problem. The confusion was my fault. I should have put "@ Marc Cooper" atop my post.

-Dan

[ephoenix5]

Very interesting article. A lot of lesson to be obtained from what happened in Central America. The FMLN was truly a resistance movement against the oppression of the government and it would have won the revolution had it not been because of American backing.

As far I know, the FMLN was actually a force for good to the people -- but everything turned horribly violent when the death squads emerged. The Salvadoran Army committed horrendous acts that just forced the FMLN to respond in kind. It was bloody. But you know what this teaches us? That we wasted our money for nothing and got involved in the internal affairs of other countries -- created bad blood, helped to spill tons of blood and for what? The country in the end is autonomous and our military aid was not wanted nor needed, apparently. Perhaps more open dialogue could have spared the bloodshed and could have saved the democracy in the same way that talks created the peace agreement in 1992 that ended the civil war.

[zaz33]

Very good article.

There is another piece by the Washington Post on HP which is more consistant with the MSM's treatment of leftist governments around the world and especially in Latin America. The immediate accusation is that El Salvador would transform ' into a hard-left satelite of President Hugo Chavez'.
I'm surprised they didn't call him a dictator.

There are complaints from the left that Ortega, Chavez and other newly elected 'leftists' have not been aggresive enough with socialist policies. I suspect there is some truth to this. I believe there is a good deal of welcomed capitalist activity going on in these countries. Just do busness for the benefit of all and adhere to our laws.

I read recently that the Obama administration was taking a neutral position on the El Salvador elections. If this is true, it's a welcomed change.

i don't believe Chavez and other leftist leader are interested in taking on the US. They just want to be left alone and pursue an economic system that their citizens have demanded. Neo-Liberal economics benefited only the ruling class. Sound familiar?

Good luck to President Funes in these difficult times. Hopefully he won't be blamed for problems that were not his doing. Right wingers don't like being out of power.

[Thermodynamics]

Many of the Neocons who were so prominent in W's administrations were recycled from the Reagan years. Back during Reagan they were busy promoting brutal manipulation in Central America. The list of bad things they did is long. "Fighting Communism" was the justification then.

I first learned what our country was doing from a talk by group of Catholic nuns back in the early 80s. You can check out numerous stories on Democracy Now or Mother Jones. And yes, our guys did permit the importation of cocaine into the US to fund their efforts. Someone got a Pulitzer for reporting that.

The 80s in Central America were a trial run, a learning experience for the Bush creeps. Then they employed their talents more fully in Iraq and even in domestic operations.

[holeybuybull]

Let's not forget that Negroponte was the architect of the Central American right wing death squads during that period. Was it just a coincidence that the death squads appeared in Iraq after he was posted there? I think not. For me, it's difficult to believe, in this case, that Reagan was the originator of this policy. It smacks of a CIA type connection, and that would indicate "Poppy" Bush.

[Perla]

We can blame Negroponte for giving Battalion 3-16 free reign in Honduras when he was ambassador there, but the Salvadoran deathsquads were largely the work of Roberto D'Aubuisson, founder of ARENA. D'Aubuisson was also the intellectual author of Archbishop Romero's murder.

[datone]

Agree 100% as to Major Roberto D'aubisson being the architect of the death squads and of ARENA, the right wing party.

[VikingQuest]

Funny, Maurico Funes worked for CNN . . . who said the media wasn't biased.

[theclosetconservative]

Agreed Maurico Funes worked for CNN. And he's a leader fronting the leftist party. No bias there. Especially from the network who kept unfavorable stories to themselves so that Saddam wouldn't expel them from IRaq. And Ortega, I don't know what to say about that.

The reason Reagan was against these parties was that because their backup was spelled Fidel C-A-S-T-R-O. Not an icon of democratic reform despite what CNN would have you believe. Maybe committed leftist guerrillas can change their stripes. If you believe that, I've got some land in southwest Dade County to sell you cheap. You'll only have to share it with a few alligators. Oh! I forgot. That might be considered "inflammatory rhetoric." http://theclosetconservative.com

[sticksnstones]

So, because Funes was at one time a CNN commentator on its Spanish-language Service, you leap to the conclusion that the entire CNN corporate management is a leftist tool AND an historical apologist of Saddam in Iraq. By any measure, that's quite a stretch, Sparky.

As for Ortega, perhaps you don't know what to say because you didn't bother to read the article. " Almost twenty years of rule from the pro-US coalitions that had succeeded the Sandinistas had failed to implement any meaningful social change. " The key words here are MEANINGFUL SOCIAL CHANGE. If a national party of any country cannot deliver on these goods, then it loses its legitimacy and mandate to rule. Look no further than our own recent national elections for a validation of this stark reality.

And finally, here's another reality check for you. The electorate is no longer irrationally spooked by the word Socialist. What the electorate is specifically interested in is social change, whether in El Salvador or the US. Pretty frightening concept, no ??

[Mexitli]

"Maybe committed leftist guerrillas can change their stripes. If you believe that..."

Huh?

I recommend you read Deng - A Political Biography by Benjamin Yang.

Deng completely undid all of Mao's Marxist reforms and introduced the market system into mainland china.

Another example is Viet-Nam.

As for Centram...

Ortega never siezed any private lands, except those owned by the Somozas, which were all ill gotten in the first place. There is a BIG difference between Castro and Ortega. Ortega lost to Chamorro and stepped down.

Not the same thing.

[RandVictims]

My apologies for the spelling.

[RandVictims]

Are we ever, as a nation, going to to have open and honest discussion about the REAL legacy of the Reagan Administration or are we just going to keep sweeping all of his epic mistakes and abuses under the carpet out of respect for his charisma and mythical public persona?

Reagan scrapped an economic system with a 60 year positive track record, killed ALL labor rights and perpetrated an extremely violent, reckless and costly world conversion to corporatism without debate or dialogue but we focus ALL of the blame squarely on Bush.

Since Reagan, the U.S. has knowingly, willingly sponsored the systematic assinations of *unarmed* labor organizers in South America and the most violent, pro-corporate dictators are rewarded with riches on the backs of U.S. tax payers.

When are we going to talk openly and honestly about this?

[ephoenix5]

Maybe had the U.S. been more willing to sit down and help bridge a peace agreement in 1988, the worse of the civil war could have been avoided. That's when the Salvadoran Army stepped up it's efforts to finish off the FMLN, but they severely understimated the FMLN's capabilies and the war spilled from the rural areas into the cities. May be these are lessons we should take to heart. Unless we are willing to invade Pakistan, sacrifice many more American lives to completely root out and wipe out Al-Quaeda and the Taliban -- we are just wasting our time and money kicking it on the border with Afghanistan. We either finish the job or the Taliban will find its way back to power in 20 years or so.

[RandVictims]

Why are we even interferring in the first place?

[Perla]

The U.S. never had a good reason to fund counter-insurgency in El Salvador. It was about protecting a lucrative investment climate for our corporations. The lesson I think we should "take to heart" is to be ruthlessly honest with ourselves about what drives our foreign policy.

It was none other than State Dept "dove" George Kennan who noted -- back in 1948 in an internal document called Policy Planning Statement #23 -- that the United States had a mere 6.3% of the world population, but fully 50% of its wealth. Kennan declared: "In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. ... We should cease to talk about ... human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts...."

Kennan was speaking most directly about Asia, as I recall, but what he suggested has been implemented throughout most of Latin America, by Democrats as well as Republicans.

Will Obama break new ground? Remains to be seen, but we cannot assume it from the historical record.