Historical Perspectives on 2008
By J A Davis Posted in Archived — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Many of our friends on the left seem to think that this year will usher in a radical change in American politics on the wings of a glorious victory for Senator Barack Obama. This could happen but I think it highly unlikely. Don't get me wrong; Obama could definitely win the election, but I don't believe it will amount to anything remotely resembling radical change.
First, it is highly likely that the next president will only serve one term. If McCain wins, that would be 12 years of continuous GOP control of the White House and make the Democratic nomination highly prized in 2012. If Obama wins, his ill-advised deification of himself will likely come back to bite him in the arse when the reality of life in governance forces him to abandon current positions and and make tough decisions that don't always work out. I think his numbers have nowhere to go but down and he will be Jimmy Carter's second term.
Also, the last time we had three two-term presidents in a row was Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. That was an era of political stability and expansion. Do you really think that Clinton, Bush, and McCain/Obama really match those previous three for an era of political stability? It's really been an era of stark partisanship and government in-fighting. This is not the Era of Good Feelings by any means.
The second historical indicator is that of presidential eras. Popular and powerful presidents always change the status quo dramatically and lead the country in a new direction. His successors always look to capitalize on his strength and try imitate his personality and policy.
I would categorize American political history into six eras of presidential leadership:
Washington: 1788-1828, 40 years.
Jackson: 1828-1860, 32 years.
Lincoln: 1860-1896, 36 years.
TR: 1896-1932, 36 years. (Yes, I know TR came to power in 1901, but he dominated the era that started with McKinley's election in 1896)
FDR: 1932-1980, 48 years.
Reagan: 1980-2012, 32 years.
With the unique exception of FDR, most eras last eight to ten election cycles before the public completely changes course altogether. Also each president that defined an era served two terms, so given that I think the next president will be a one-termer, it is also unlikely that he will be the founder of a new era.
So with that in mind, I think we can breathe easier and not worry so much about what could happen if Obama actually pulls this thing off. As we have all noticed recently the only thing Obama can really change is his deeply held beliefs and policy positions. He will not end the war abruptly just as the Dem Congress elected in 06 did not end the war. Political gridlock (even with a unified Dem government) will accomplish very little of consequence.
Of course, should McCain win in November most everything will continue as it has the past eight years but with higher approval ratings. The downside is that it would set up a Dem victory in 2012 and could possibly start an era of left-wing dominance in America, but then again, a defeat for Obama would completely shatter Democratic assumptions about what it takes to win and govern. We might not recognize the Democratic Party of 2012 at all, and that would be a good thing since the party of today is completely worthless and unfit to lead this republic.
Then again, as history shows us, the future is unpredictable and new precedents can be established. After all, the ancient Mayan calendar says that the world will end on December 21, 2012, so it might not matter at all.
I only personally know two Obama supporters (yes, I know a lot of Democrats, just none of the rest of them are following the Messiah).
What you said applies in spades to the two of them. Both of them absolutely hate Bush, pretty much for no other reason than Jon Stewart tells them to on the Daily Show. Everything they "know" about politics is obviously parroted from the aforementioned comedy show.
Contrast that with my significant other, who is most assuredly not a Republican and doesn't really care much for Bush. She doesn't hate him and actually voted for him in 2004, but that says more about her opinion of Kerry than it does Bush. She voted Hillary in our primary and told me yesterday that the more she sees Obama talk, the more distrustful of him she is. I am pretty certain that she will vote McCain in November.
And you know what sealed the deal for Obama with her? The fake "Presidential Seal" business. For her, that was the epitome of arrogance and disrespect for the office of the presidency and she told me that showed his true character to be woefully lacking...
Obama is so flawed that I think the only reason most people would consider voting for him are either ignorant (which isn't intended as an insult) of suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Ignorance can happen if you get your news from Comedy central. I personally believe history will vindicate President Bush eventually. He has conducted a multi-front war with an all-volunteer military after the worst terrorist attack in modern history.The American military has nearly single-handedly gutted an entire worldwide terrorist organization and liberated 2 entire countries from underneath ruthless Islamic rule while simultaneously preventing another coordinated attack on our own soil. (most likely several attempts)
Ignorance can be healed...BDS is another matter. The only cure for BDS is a democrat president I fear. Maybey, just maybey, if McCain gets elected enough heads will explode that BDS will be contained to cities like DC, San Fransico, and the Northeast.
I can only hope, and vote Republican.