The Coming Liberal Cycle

Barack Obama says he's running for president because "we find ourselves in a moment...that comes along once in a generation." Hillary is running because "we need a fundamentally new direction." John Edwards is running "to end the corrupt system in Washington, and return the power of this government back to the hard-working people of America." All three know one thing for certain: most Americans feel the country is on the wrong track. Each of them has spent the past year or longer making the case that he or she is uniquely qualified to reverse that trend.

Consider the 2008 presidential front-runners from both parties. Beyond the many possible demographic "firsts" (woman / African-American / Italian-American / Mormon), think about a deeper question: could one of the current crop have the potential to set in motion a lasting transformation of the political landscape? Fifty years from now, will the name of one of today's candidates be used to describe an entire political age?

History strongly suggests that is the right time to ask. As twilight sets on the Bush administration, we are witnessing the end of the second of two great ideological cycles that have dominated American politics over the past 75 years. For the sake of simplicity, call them the Liberal Era (1932-1968) and the Conservative Era (1980-2008). If the pattern holds, a third cycle may be right around the corner.

What Goes Around Comes Around

Attempts to characterize the nation's political history in terms of ideological cycles are nearly as old as American historiography itself. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. examined this propensity in The Cycles of American History, beginning with Henry Adams and Schlesinger's father, Arthur Sr. He went on to define a cycle "as a continuing shift in national involvement between public purpose and private interest," and concluded from Ortega y Gasset that a cycle is the same length as a generation's political life, or about 30 years.

Schlesinger's definition and timeframe offer a good starting point for interpreting the Liberal and Conservative Eras. Looked at through the lens of the presidency, however, each follows an even more clearly defined pattern characterized by five distinct stages.

Crisis of Confidence

Each cycle was precipitated by a crisis of public confidence. In the case of the Liberal Era, the Great Depression represented the most profound failure of government in American history besides the Civil War. The late 1970s, while nowhere near as dire, still rank as the hardest times of the last half-century. At home, Americans faced double-digit inflation and interest rates and waited hours in line for gasoline. New York City teetered on the verge of bankruptcy, while the Rust Belt rotted. In foreign affairs, the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan served as harsh evidence that the world saw the U.S. as a paper tiger.

Standard Bearer

The crisis set the stage for the emergence of a standard bearer with a new vision and a mandate for change. By 1932, the country was ready for anything that was not more of Hoover. FDR arrived with a plan to put the country back to work, one that would give a much bigger role to the federal government. At the dawn of the 1980's, Ronald Reagan brought the mirror opposite vision to Washington: government was not a solution to the problem -- government was the problem. He also espoused a staunch anti-Communism that manifested itself in a military build-up and a renewed emphasis on American strength. While in one sense FDR and Reagan were ideological opposites, both restored a fresh sense of optimism to a weary public.

By the time the standard bearers each left office, they had succeeded in getting the country back on track, and in doing so won the love of the majority. In a democracy, of course, love is never unanimous. Some always suspected that the cult of personality surrounding them was evidence of a fraud (Reagan) or demagogue (FDR). In the rear-view mirror, though, it was clear that each understood the public's mood in its moment of need, and consequently each was able to shift the political landscape in a way that cast a very long shadow for his successors.

Heir Apparent

Each standard bearer was followed by an heir apparent who continued in more or less the same ideological direction as his predecessor. The heir, of course, had the misfortune of playing after the main act left the stage. (Think of John Adams following Washington.) Faced with the impossible task of filling the void left by the standard bearer, the heir, lacking the same charisma, brought a more down-to-earth presence to the office. Disappointment was almost inevitable.

Harry Truman was virtually unknown outside Missouri when he was plucked from the Senate for the Vice Presidency. Eighty-two days later, he found himself succeeding the only four-term president the nation would ever have. By 1948, with his favorability ratings in the mid-30s, he was widely expected to lose his bid for re-election. Though he went on to confound the pollsters with a dramatic come-from-behind victory, his resurgence was short-lived. Four years later, with the nation stalemated in the Korean War, he chose not to seek another term rather than go down to almost certain defeat.

George H. W. Bush faced a different dilemma. He scored a dramatic foreign policy victory with the success of the Persian Gulf War, and his approval ratings briefly shot up to the highest ever recorded. Even so, the glow of the war receded nearly as quickly as it had emerged, and the public turned its mind from foreign affairs to the recession at home.

(Graphic credit: Mario Loundermon)

Midcourse Correction

The failure of the heir apparent to sustain the standard bearer's legacy led in each case to a midcourse correction. To a certain extent, the correction can be explained as a matter of status quo fatigue as much as anything. It is important to note that the corrections did not lead to a fundamental change in the ideological direction of the country; in many respects, both Eisenhower and Clinton spent their entire administrations fighting on their opponents' turf. Midcourse presidents had to be pragmatists.

Consider how each fared on tax policy. When Ike left office, marginal rates for the highest tax bracket were ninety percent, hardly the legacy of a two-term conservative Republican. Clinton raised taxes for the highest bracket to 39.6 percent from 31 percent, an increase to be sure, but not exactly a wild-eyed liberal approach designed to soak the rich. In short, neither proposed a radical change of the rules of the game. Clinton's "triangulation" tactic, for which he was (and still is) roundly criticized on the left, was perhaps the most savvy survival skill that he could employ as midcourse president. He wasn't just battling a conservative Republican Congress; he was flying into the prevailing conservative winds for his entire presidency.

Return to Glory and Overreach

After each midcourse correction, the ground stood essentially even. The Nixon-Kennedy and Gore-Bush races were the two closest in modern history, and the sitting Vice Presidents from the midcourse administrations (Nixon and Gore) both nearly succeeded. In the end, though, the winners for the history books represented a return to glory for the party of the standard bearer. Though elected by narrow margins, these presidents governed as though they possessed broad mandates for bold leadership.

This boldness made big initiatives possible but also carried the seeds of recklessness and hubris. Kennedy called for the United States to put a man on the moon within a decade, but he also stumbled in the Bay of Pigs and laid the groundwork for Johnson to expand the war in Vietnam. Johnson's boldness in domestic affairs manifested itself in the Great Society, a direct descendant of the New Deal, and the expansion of civil rights. In Bush's case, some recognized his boldness as evidence that he was the true "Son of Reagan," rather than a more moderate conservative as his father had been.

In both cases, though, the return to glory led to an overreach featuring both a war of choice and a domestic agenda that exceeded the public's appetite for change. Johnson was well aware that his courageous leadership on civil rights would cost his party dearly in the South. Bush's attempts to remake the domestic landscape in his own image, most notably his attempt to reform Social Security, proved dead on arrival. The political fallout from the overreach made each administration toxic within its own party during its last years in office, and marked the end of the ideological cycle that began with the standard bearer.

Mind the Gap

So how to explain the 12-year gap between cycles? The answer lies in the three conditions that enabled the standard bearers to emerge: they arrived on the scene at a crisis point, articulated a new vision of the role of government, and possessed enough personal charisma to make the sale. All three -- crisis, vision, and charisma -- had to come together at the same point in time.

Consider 1968. Nixon assumed the presidency at a crisis point in public confidence, but that's about it. He brought a midcourse president's approach to the office, rather than a new narrative -- remember, this is the Republican who founded the EPA and set wage and price controls. And as for his lack of charisma, think of the famous televised debate with JFK in 1960. The man was no Jack Kennedy.

As a member of the same party as LBJ and FDR, Carter was an even less likely standard bearer in 1976 than Nixon had been. On the heels of Watergate and Vietnam, the country sought honest, competent government, not radical change. (The only major candidate who signaled a departure from the status quo for either party was Reagan, who would have to wait in the wings another four years.) Carter was mocked for being a micro-manager who ran the schedule for the White House tennis court, and his megawatt smile and folksy manner proved a thin veneer when the going got tough. By the end of his term, he was the malaise president who had teed up the crisis in public confidence that kicked off the current conservative cycle.

The Coming Cycle

If the notion that we have reached the end of the conservative era proves correct, the question still remains what will replace it. Has the public reached a crisis of confidence where it is ready to embrace a new standard bearer? While polls show great public dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, Congress, and the direction of the country, the current predicament bears little resemblance to 1932 or 1980. The issue this year is not the economy, stupid. Ours is a time of insecurity, not mass deprivation.

Assuming the public is ready, can one of these candidates articulate a coherent vision to lead the country into a new era? All of them come armed with plans: plans for health care, plans for troop withdrawal from Iraq, plans for restoring the middle class. But standard bearers bring more than an armful of three-ring binders to the Oval Office: they bring an overarching concept of the role government should play to address the challenges of the day. One defining characteristic of the age of insecurity is our interdependence on others. We are tied to a relentlessly competitive global economy that creates winners and losers among us. We face global threats like terrorism, pandemics, and environmental catastrophes. We are at the mercy of increasingly tight global markets for oil and gas. Our insecurities are also home grown, of course, as health care and the subprime mortgage meltdown spell disaster for increasing numbers of Americans. The politician who can synthesize these problems within a big picture and offer a positive way forward is the one who may become the next standard bearer.

Finally, he or she must have the personal magnetism to inspire the American people to follow. Charisma alone is not enough to make a standard bearer -- Bill Clinton and Jack Kennedy both had plenty -- but it's hard to imagine FDR or Reagan pushing through their sweeping agendas without it.

Much as liberals would like to believe that the next cycle will begin in November 2008, they should note that it took 16 years from Goldwater's emergence as the national firebrand of the new conservatism in 1964 to Reagan's election in 1980. Will Howard Dean one day assume Goldwater-like stature as the cranky godfather of a Second Liberal Era? (Before you laugh, contrast Goldwater's standing in 1968 with more recent reappraisals of his importance to the conservative movement.) Do the seeds of a new liberalism already live somewhere among the "netroots" movement, or the Truman progressives who seek to reclaim the mantle of vigorous liberal internationalism? Is the time just not right?

Think back to what the leading Democrats say about why they're running. Of the three, only Obama clearly acknowledges the present opportunity in visionary terms: "We find ourselves in a moment that comes along once in a generation." It sounds like the rhetoric of an aspiring standard bearer. If he overcomes the current odds and wins the presidency, he will get his chance to make the most of this moment.

Comments

[poopdeck]

Matthew, I have long been a fan of your writing but this time I doubt your analysis. A "new liberal cycle" in America requires deep fundamental changes in our governance which can only be brought about by a Constitutional Convention. At a very minimum the "winner take all" and the Electoral College for presidential elections must be abolished. I live in Texas. My vote and those of millions of other Texans will be thrown in the historical garbage can in 2009. Why should I care who our next president is going to be if I have no say in the matter? If that does not change, there will not be any new liberal cycle. My prediction is that the percentage of eligible voters actually voting will double once these two changes are brought about. None of the presidential wannabes seems to understand this. I even believe that they would be scared by the prospect of having to deal with a simple plurality (or for that matter majority) vote. Their call for change is like smoking cigarettes. It looks chic but is less dangerous when you do not inhale.

[DavidByron]

I don't think you should start seeing patterns by comparing a single datum with another datum.

[mbaty]

I agree with a lot of people that this isn't a typical political swing, but rather an entirely new movement that is transnational--a realization that our economies are tied together, and we share a planetary biosphere, aside from that we have many philanthopists working to solve real problems in other countries. But right here at home we have many issues that have been largely ignored in favor of relatively unimportant hot-button issues (do I even need to name them?) And people's focus is moving towards those issues that actually impact people on a day-to-day basis. It's not a swing to the left, after all, was abolishing slavery a "liberal left-wing" thing to do? No, it's about compassion, about growing up to the mature position that we are all in this together...liberalism is, relatively, inevitable. And let's hope the next president is up to their big messy task.

[gblair]

So Matthew, I read your treatise with interest. Interesting ideas, and I agree with a lot of it; esp in regards to Reagan's ascendancy after Carter's well intentioned, but disappointing term. While on the surface it may be counterintuitive to believe we are headed into more liberal times, since we've lived under a theocracy for the past 7 years, I think we may soon start to see a more aggressive push back from secularists who are tired of religious views being legislated, and their presidents having a hot line to Jesus.
One of the things I love about this blog is the number of atheists and agnostics out there who are fired up about the religious right's domination of the debate. Why is agnostic also unAmerican? Isn't there a place in our government for the agnostic perspective?

[NABNYC]

From your lips to God's ears. But I think you're wrong.

The Republicans are dead-set on finalizing fascism as the rule of the land. The corporations will choose the political leaders, who exist mostly as figureheads to cut ribbons and go out in public to look good and make cheerleading-style speeches about better days to come.

But every single law, every decision, every policy, will be made by the few top corporate insiders. The major oil corporations will meet with the administration, like they did with Cheney, and tell him what they want to do for oil, namely have the U.S. military invade and occupy Iraq so they can steal the oil. The only question the politicians will ask is "Okay, but how much money do I get for pushing this thing through."

And so on. Rupert's girl Hillary, if elected, will finish the job her husband started in eliminating all restrictions on media ownership, so that maybe 2-3 people in the country will own every single tv, radio, and newspaper. The news will be whatever Rupert says it is. The good news for us is that we won't have to worry about so many campaign commercials, because only the "selected" candidates will be allowed to run ads.

The good money is betting on fascism. Even if the Dems win, Hillary is in the pockets of the neocons, Obama seems uncertain, and Edwards is strongly against them but the owners of the media refuse to let the public know anything about him, so he won't win.

And Jeb will be waiting in the wings to re-take control in 2012.

That is, unless the people throw these politicians out of office and start electing real people. No millionaires. No lawyers. Just real people. Until that happens, I think we're looking at darker days.

[outnow]

I read the post but came away feeling that the pendulum itself is broken. We live in a different age than Americans of the past. As a child, I lived down the street from President Truman. I met him several times and talked to him. I then moved to the home town of Nixon. We knew the Nixons. These are not great men.

My wife and I are both attorneys with as much of more experience than the Clintons. We are not impressed there either.

Maybe Mr. Obama has a "vision of the future." He and his wife are attorneys as well, as are John Edwards and his wife, ironically.

I'm used to those people who score in the top one-tenth of one percent on their aptitude tests such as the SATs and the LSATs. Truman wasn't one of them. Brains alone are not the answer.

We have to renew the "social contract." It is a "we" world as you say, not a "me" world, as the Republicans claim. We are all in the same boat. We are all linked in our fates, metaphorically and metaphysically, speaking.

The media is the message nowadays. The corporations run the media. That's the big change, that and the rise of the Christian Right.

Whoever has a "bigger vision" indeed will lead us into the future. I asked my son. Here's what he said.

"White kids are focused on education on the East Coast. Black kids are focused on Snoop Dog and rappers. Mexicans are not educating themselves. There are not enough Asian kids. The middle class is going to disappear. But the bleeding heart of the East Coast will provide the leaders."

He agrees with you that the country needs is a Black guy than a woman. Women already have rights. It's the Blacks that need a leader, we've already had many.

[eplatypusunum]

I don't know...

Something tells me that we ARE living in one of those pivot points in history. Not so much for the USA alone but for the whole shebang. Climate change, water wars, maybe some truly biblical famines thrown in for good measure. I can't shake the sense that future oral historians will chant odd mythological tales about the before-times of the Denim Age...

epu

[avergejoe]

"Kennedy called for the United States to put a man on the moon within a decade, but he also stumbled in the Bay of Pigs and laid the groundwork for Johnson to expand the war in Vietnam. Johnson's boldness in domestic affairs manifested itself in the Great Society, a direct descendant of the New Deal"

Perhaps you should rephrase, let me help:

"Kennedy called for the United States to put a man on the moon within a decade. While he stumbled in the Bay of Pigs, he masterfully avoided certain nuclear war during the Cuban Missle Crisis. He, and Bobby, showed boldness in domestic affairs by starting the end of discrimination by integrating the south and laying the groundwork for Johnson's Great Society. Johnson poured ever increasing US resources into the hopeless VietNam war."

[whimsicalpig]

While this is a compelling arguement, what has significantly changed in the formula is the presence of international corporations.

These are powerful forces in the machinations of our country's economy and society.

Unfortunatley, they have no binding allegience to the USA, only to their international stockholders.

But they wield undue influence on our elected officials through our corrupt election system.

Even if a visionary leader would want to take us to a better place, if it doesn't help the bottom line of these multinationals, it won't happen, no matter how charismatic the president.

[Qbear]

One thing about a pendulum swing, it doesn't just diddle around the center. It swings from far Right to far Left then resettles more midway afterwards.
Americans are fed up to the teeth with being embarrassed internationally with torture, Black prisons, and the one hold out on Kyoto treaty. We are fed up to the teeth of elections won with fear and scapegoats of Muslims, Mexicans, and Gays/Lesbians.
We don't want someone else's Religion running our Justice Department, writting our Laws, or pumping up a presidential candidate.
We want Habeas corpus restored, we want Government off our phones, off our bodies, and off our internet.
I will be interested to see if the 2008 election swings Full Tilt...I hope it does...my teeth have ached for 8 years.

[BadChristian]

Very interesting.

But, as a liberal, I don't think we are anywhere near a liberal resurgence. We seem to be moving into a time of corporate control, whether the people want it or not.
Suburban and rural people don't go to cities, they go to work, which might be in a city. The welfare of cities, as viewed by Americans, is best represented by New Orleans. The urban renewal movement is now naked Gentrification, and no one will notice until the condos are built and the news (a subsidiary of one of the holding companies of the construction company that built the condos, which divide and destroy a community) comes for the big party at it's opening.

Liberalism has never been less popular, despite what people SAY about their personal beliefs.

[bethinCary]

and I am certain that he will make the most of it.

[imusintheevening]

It's an appealing argument, but how to account for the fact that we have had a President that stole the last two elections by corrupting free and fair elections.

[Politihal]

What an incisive, thought-provoking and well-researched blog. Thank you. However, I think it would suit you to eliminate the last paragraph. Sometimes political references diminish the importance of our ideas.

Again, thank you.

Halli Casser-Jayne
www.ablahblahblog.com

[realitytrumpsbull]

Why can't we have an Independent Cycle, you know, curb your politician? All these people
have all these grandiose ideas about how
they're going to help americans and all that
stuff, what if what people mainly want is
to be left as they are, generally, and not
be put on the hook for billions or even
trillions of future stupid spending?
Why don't they try something simple, keep it
at 'life, liberty, and property' and put the
rest of it through the shredder?