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.
The words "Bush" and "Hoover" don't belong in the same sentence.
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.
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~
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.
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!
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.
The party of divide and conquer - the party of "you're with us or against us" - the party of do as I say, CERTAINLY don't do as I do (no one's allowed to have meth-induced gay sex with a prostitute except me. Noone's allowed to solicit gay sex in bathroom stalls but me. Noone's allowed to sexually harass young male congressional pages under my power except me!) - the party of endless war - the party of "rule by the majority of the majority" - now cries and pees their pants for bi-partisanship!
They make me sick. Not a ONE of them are fit to represent a single person in these United States of America. And yet they're still fucking it up for the rest of us.
I'm sorry, but this makes me really angry! They cheat, steal, lie, spin, and hate - and they and their propaganda machine the MSM pin the blame for all this on the Democrats - and the ignorant idiots in this country suck it up and dutifully repeat their Rushbo talking points of the day and the Country crumbles around us.
And then, after all they've done, they call me a traitor. Screw them. I'm voting my conscience - John Edwards (he's as angry as I am) and the Republicans be damned. If McCain wins, I'm gonna turn gay to avoid the draft we're gonna have to have to fight all those extra wars he's itchin' for.
RIP America 2000.