Bush Will Be This Century's Herbert Hoover...Unless the Dems Select the Clintons

Herbert Hoover presided over the Great Depression, did nothing, and was invoked by Democrats for 50 years as the "brand" of the Republican Party. It worked.

George W. Bush believes he will be Harry Truman, unappreciated in his own time, but seen to be great as history unfolds. As I wrote in, "I Knew Harry Truman, Harry Truman Was a Friend of Mine, and George W., You Are No Harry Truman" (February 9, 2007), Bush was and remains tragically delusional.

Instead, Bush will be a modern-day Hoover; Katrina will be his "Hoovervilles". He will be invoked by Democrats as the brand of the Republican party for at least 20 years, as the policies he has pursued (militarism yielding terrorism; gaping deficits ceding economic power to China and others; spread-eagling the differential between the wealthy and the poor; and, on and on) cause continuing damage to our country.

Moreover, the Republicans really do not know who they are, as the unnatural, unholy alliance of social conservatism, unregulated free market capitalism and militarist national defense splits asunder. Thus, a disunited, dispirited Republican party is in the offing.

Unless, that is, the Democrats select the Clintons again. Without remotely trying to suggest it is justified, the one unargued truth of American politics is that the Clintons unite Republicans for reasons that range from irrational to psychotic. The notion promoted by Bill Clinton that Hillary's delivering earmarks to upstate New York Republican districts, that resulted in her winning many of those districts, somehow has muted or mollified the anti-Clinton feeling among Republicans is as delusional as George Bush's idea that he will become as revered and respected as Harry Truman.

As Democrats go to the polls over the coming weeks, they might consider this: after all the damage and all the carnage caused by the disastrous policies and arrogant belief system of George W Bush and his cronies, the only saving grace is that he paves the way for a progressive revival, and consider whether they are willing to give that up, as they surely will, if the Clintons are selected to return to the White House.

This is not to say that the Clintons might not be elected. Their electoral skills are prodigious. Nor is it to suggest that they would not pursue more-or-less the same policies as Obama or Edwards. The policy differences among them are small, and exaggerated for campaign purposes. The question, though, is whether Republicans in the Senate (if they, as they are likely to do, hold 41 seats) will be allowed by their base to make any compromise with the Clintons to enable them to show "success".

Moreover, while Obama has the chance -- not the certainty -- of transcending the divisions of the past, and creating a new majority consensus from the detritus of the Republican party, selecting the Clintons is a virtual guarantee of the return and sharpening of those divisions. Again, irrational or even psychotic, but a toxin flows in the blood of the body politic.

It might be satisfying to select the Clintons as an "in-your-face" statement to the radical righties. But, Democrats need to consider whether that feel-good statement compensates for 20 years of a vanquished right-wing that selecting the Clintons will reinvigorate.

With the truly experienced candidates -- Bill Richardson and Joe Biden -- out of the race, and the policy differences among the candidates small, the big issues are authenticity, personal connection, electability and, as this suggests, the impact of the selection of candidates on the overall electorate.

A party that wants to take the only positive contribution of the Bush Presidency, the dissolution of the Republican coalition, and employ that to create a new progressive era, ought to consider carefully before it jettisons that opportunity.

Comments

[broilinginhouston]

There's a big difference between Bush and Hoover -- Bush will have earned the reputation Hoover didn't deserve. Unlike the wimpy, mollycoddled Bush, Hoover was a great man, a brilliant engineer, an accomplished businessman, a devoted humanitarian, and an able administrator. When the depression struck, he accelerated public works spending and raised taxes on the rich to pay for it. In the 1932 election, FDR ran to the RIGHT of him, all but branding him a socialist -- then promptly coopted Hoover's relief policies once he was in the oval office.

The words "Bush" and "Hoover" don't belong in the same sentence.

[DocSarvis]

I had thought Bush would be the 21st Century's Warren G. Harding or James Buchanan, but now I believe he has surpassed those presidents in incompetence and will be the new standard for terrible presidents. Buchanan? Harding? Hoover? Almost as bad as Bush.

Unless, of course, Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Then McCain will win and salvage the Bush Doctrine from ignominity.

But not to worry. I predict that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee and the next president of the United States (though I'm rooting for Edwards in the primaries; Edwards will be the AG in the Obama admin). Hillary will spend her career in the Senate, eventually being a committee chair, and if she works for it, Majority Leader.

[WilliePilgrim]

I forgot how Hoover started a pre-emptive war costing trillions or how Bush was a qualified engineer. Thanks for the history lesson. In retrospect I find out that Hoover was blamed for a lot of corruption that he inherited from his predecessor and I guess that is sorta like Bush. At any rate we should keep it in mind as an example of both reaping as you sow, and getting the government you deserve.

[truthbrigade]

Never the less, he was put in the White House twice by the US system and population. This country deserves no better than this moronic Goober.

[musselmanm]

As the all time worst possible President, Bush should retire into the darkness he favors.
The film of him doing the oil dance should be broadcast each day until the November election. No voice over is needed, just fade to an oil derrick.

[AnotherHuddy]

That's quite unfair. Hoover had a very successful career at various government posts in the 1910's and 1920's, but he is only remembered now as "the depression president."
Meanwhile, Bush has never done well at any job, whether at the Texas Air National Guard, Harken Energy, Arbusto, Spectrum Seven, Governor of Texas, or the Presidency.
Though I do not discount Hoover's hubris as president, It should be noted well that he and Bush are very different characters.
~s~

[realpolitic]

Even if the Democrats elect Mr. McGoo, Bush will still be this century's Herbert Hoover. The man is irredeemable.

[Tankan]

You're not wrong about that Paul!

[Rocku]

I'll tell you what was a "dance of the macabre", the dance Bush was doing with his Saudi buddies on TV last week as they celebrated the rise in oil prices because the spigots of the competition are being shut off in Iraq by the blood and blown off limbs of our American kids as they struggle there in an illegal war.

[vbond]

Very many respondents to this post (and many others) have the mistaken belief that Obama's strategy of forging a "governing majority" is naive, as if he believes that either the partisan hacks in congress will either knuckle in to his soaring rhetoric or sing "kuumbaya" in the aisles of Congress.

We expect neither.

You often further cast FDR and LBJ as "realists" who - with partisan glee - wrestled their Congressional opponents to the ground with their competitive attitudes alone.

What you have completely forgotten - or discounted - is the electoral clout that FDR and LBJ brought to the table, with landslide victories preceding their legislative triumphs.

Without those victories, neither would have succeeded as they did (or, probably, gotten into as much trouble, as FDR did with The Court and LBJ did with The War).

Obama is seeking a transformation of politics primarily by forging and ruthlessly using the same tools that these Presidents used: the power of the population.

Without it, there will be no governing leverage - for Obama, Clinton, Edwards, McCain, or anyone else.

The only remaining lever would be the momentary unifying power of catastrophe - natural or man-made (or both, as in global warming).

Even this fades quickly, as we saw the post-911 collective passion for unity degenerate into virulent partisanship in less that two years.

This is not "kuumbaya"... this is "realpolitik" of the most ruthless (that word again) and necessary sort.

The only practical question is: "Who can forge the "govering majority"?

The bottom line - and there are no guarantees whatsoever - is that Obama has the best chance.

And if you're thinking Bloomberg... think again. He does not have the political and rhetorical (yes, rhetorical) skills to carry his brand of cross-party governance beyond the seven boroughs of New York.

Obama is the guy.

[GeorgiaOrwell]

There really are two Americas - as John Edwards says. Tuning into Fox business shows, you see the pundits wringing their hands over their 401Ks, wailing about how crucial tax cuts are, measuring every stock point drop, and predicting where to place their money on stocks or bonds in this election year. They're scared to death they won't max out on every nickel and that the Democrats are going to turn the US into a socialist state and they might be deprived of their very comfortable lifestyles. They don't really give a damn about the rest of the country and it's all just a financial game with them. They will use religion and fear tactics to NOT keep it real - you contrast that with all the rest of the country who are living from paycheck to paycheck and it's not a pretty sight. Actually, when I watch one of their shows, it strikes me as just a little microcosm (kind've like Boulder, CO) in the middle of a large maelstrom of brewing problems for everyone else - but they don't care.

I want the Republicans to specifically spell out what 'family values' is. I want them to stop with their checklists of classic conservatism - it's enough to make you throw up. They hate gays, they hate pro-choice and reproductive education, they hate healthcare for all, they hate different spiritualities, they hate progressive reform - who are they? I think they are the Aryan nation!

[PaulAbrams]

Important:

I completely agree--and have written before---that the Dem/Progressive positions and dialogue cannot be controlled by what the Republicans might do. That is, what the leadership or echo chamber might do or think.

This article, on the other hand, deals with the rank-and-file, i.e., part of the electorate.

[Zaro]

I do want the stinking GOPhers to hate our candidate. Nothing else brings out their essence - for everyone to see on prime time. Also, I think it's a plus that the GOPhers have to worry what a president Hillary may do in going after George Bush, even though he will be clearing brush in Texas.

[thegaygardener]

Does anyone here truly believe that if Hillary Clinton is the nomineee & ultimately, by some miracle, wins that we are not in for another 4 years of being on the losing end of 51 - 49 legislation? PLEASE! The second Clinton administration gave us NEWT GINRICH & The Contract WIth America! Her progressive collegues in the Senate realize this and are endorsing Sen. Obama. Hillary Clinton is the most divisve politican on the national scene in the past 30 years! Nominating her practically ensures defeat, but definitely guarantees gridlock! No Thanks!

[FearlessFreep]

Truman himself has gone from an underrated president to an overrated one. For example, his use of the A-Bomb was almost certainly unnecessary.