This may be significant, or it may not be significant. But Joe Klein notices an historical pattern in his pro-Hillary column in Time today.
There have been six elections in which control of the presidency has switched parties during the television age. In five of those six, starting with John F. Kennedy’s victory over Richard Nixon in 1960, the less experienced candidate won. The other four were: Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford in 1976, Ronald Reagan over Carter in 1980, Bill Clinton over Bush the Elder in 1992, Bush the Younger over Al Gore in 2000. The one exception to the rule was a toss-up: Nixon and Hubert Humphrey had similar levels of experience in 1968. This sort of pattern may have deep significance. It may mean that when Americans want change, they want a powerful fresh gust of it. Or it may mean nothing at all in wartime.
He also makes a good point, here:
Clinton’s national-security expertise should be no small advantage in an election that may well take place in the midst of a war. But it is likely to take a backseat to a more prominent question about experience–whether eight years as First Lady qualifies one to be President of the United States. And to a more cosmic experience-related question than that: whether, after 20 years of Bushes and Clintons in the White House, we want to keep trading our most precious office back and forth between these two extremely strange families.
I think Klein has hit on the two meta issues that will have the biggest effect on Hillary’s chances. The first is likely to take its toll in the primaries, and the second in the general (if she prevails in the primaries).
Democrats will have to decide whether we want a big plate of change, or we want a restoration. If we decide on a restoration, the country will probably see the Republican candidate as a change candidate, and possibly as the change candidate.
These are indeed meta issues. They lack substance and ignore the unique qualifications of individual politicians. But that doesn’t make them unimportant. Meta issues tend to dominate in most presidential elections.
You mean the kind that caused her to vote for war in Iraq and then whine that she was unaware of all the information that people like, say, myself were aware of because we know how to read newspapers? That kind of expertise? The kind that has her talking about getting out of Iraq, when getting out is not remotely what she has in mind:
Such expertise we can do without.
Klein has a point, though. You know after the famous debate between Nixon and Kennedy, people who listened to the radio said Nixon won, TV viewers gave it to Kennedy. In retrospect, I’m glad Kennedy wore the navy suit that day and won the election. Somehow I don’t think Nixon would have been as cool-headed during the Cuban missile crisis.
It is little wonder that when the Presidency changes parties it goes to the less experienced candidate, because in general when two parties run against each other the more experienced candidate is from the incumbent party. I don’t think that it is a specific demand for a “powerful fresh gust of” change, but both parties putting for their best and the incumbent generally being more experienced since they have been President or Vice President.
Then again this time I do think that the country wants and needs a radical, fresh approach to government: foreign and domestic to eradicate the stench of rot from years of neo-conservative, freedom-limiting, incompetent, divisive shortsightedness.
The second point is much more important in my opinion. We can scarcely call ourselves a democracy if we elect two Presidents in a row who are close relatives of the two prior presidents. Already it is possible to vote and never have had a President not names Bush or Clinton. If Hilary wins and serves for eight years then the concept of family dynasty will be established in the minds of many of our citizens as a phenomena of both parties.
What we are seeing is that name recognition plays a huge factor in these things, especially early in primary season. Sadly this compressed primary will likely ensure that it is a major factor in selecting our nominees on both sides.
Personally I think that negatives are a rather critical measure of support in the general election. Hilary’s numbers are such that it is just barely possible to imagine her winning, and then it will be a very regional victory. Too few people will consider voting for her. If she is nominated then she and the GOP candidate will be fighting over a small handful of swing voters as soon as it clear who the nominees are. This will prevent any real discussion of issues, and just be yet another campaign where most of the country feels marginalized.
I agree with all of that.
In every one of those elections, the better candidate IMAGE won.
JFK just SLAMMED Nixon on TV.
Carter’s fatherly, gentle but intelligent image beat the pratfall artist.
Reagan’s movie star image beat Carter’s by-then-slightly-tarnished-by-NeoCo-machinations image (They didn’t CALL them “NeoCons” then…but that’s what they were.), Bill just testosteroned Bush the Elder out of the ballpark, and Bush the Younger stole the election PLUS was a tad more imagenic than floppy Gore.
Nixon and Humbert Humbert?
No conbtest.
Better bad than weak in the image contest.
Who do YOU want to watch…a strong villain or the guy who keeps squeezing the Charmin?
Simple.
And true as well.
It is ALL show biz.
Believe it.
This election…same same.
And who on the Ratpub side can out-image Ms. Clinton?
She is ALL image, fer chrissake..
Ditta Obama.
Giuliani?
(Sputter…)
He looks like a sickly rat.
McCain?
There is only one camera angle that does not show the ugly, swollen left side of his face. Every time people see him, they will think “Cancer!!!”
Romney?
Looks like an animatron.
Clomp, clomp, clomp.
Fred Thompson?
Please.
Foghorn leghorn in the flesh.
Only Gingrich has the chops.
And his history is…shall we say convoluted?
Meta indeed!!!
Hillary/Obama in ’08.
The fix is in.
Bet on it.
AD
I think of other important factors not that your point about change is not well taken. It is just more complicated by that. And Americans sometimes are scared by change, for example didn’t George McGovern offer change? How about Ralph Nader? There’s some real fucking change? Or the little Texan with the big ears, washisname? Change?
Just a few other complicating factors for example:
1.) The defection of the Southern Dems to the Republican party plays heavy in the subsequent elections. In America so much of our politics is tainted by this race fears and the social issues of a large segment of our population.
2.) IMO Nixon was a man destined to be flagellated from the onset. As with Bush any person with a head on his shoulders with access tho the newspaper in those days could see that Nixon would end badly.
3.) Ford was beat because Carter was able to bring back some of the Southern vote.
4.) Iran beat Carter. Do you remember the Republican rhetoric at the time? “What will Iran look like after Reagan? Flat and it glows in the dark.” Ha ha. No wonder half the world thinks we are a terrorist nation.
5.) Clinton the suckee? Bush the elder had begun to lose interest in the job anyway. Change was the big factor here as you point out.
6.) Bush the younger stole the election, plain and simple. This is the strongest argument for abolition of the electoral college. It is literally a remnant of medieval times, used by the noble class to dilute the power of the vote.
And who know what the future will bring? Another terrorist attack by us or them? How would that position the field?
whether we want a big plate of change, or we want a restoration.
Gore 2008!
Just put him on the primary ballot in your state and vote for him. Whether he wants it or not.