Andrew Sullivan says that Barack Obama, if reelected, will become the left’s Ronald Reagan. He’s right about that. It should be obvious. The only Democratic president to be reelected since Franklin Delano Roosevelt died is Bill Clinton, and he was promptly impeached. Even though Bill Clinton is now wildly popular, and not just among Democrats, he was tarnished by his tawdry affair with a White House intern. Among Democrats, he is revered for his communication skills but not for his policies. His greatest legislative successes were not bills that Democrats could wholeheartedly support, and some of them were downright terrible. Democrats hated NAFTA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and the Defense of Marriage Act, and the Iraq Liberation Act, and the deregulation of the banks. Welfare reform was a worthy issue, but the actual bill that Clinton signed was so bad that he had to promise to fix it at the same moment he signed it. He never did.
These are the reasons that Bill Clinton will never be the left’s Ronald Reagan. But, if Barack Obama is reelected, he will be the left’s Ronald Reagan for a whole host of reasons. Most obviously, he will have created a new winning majority, just as Reagan did by completing Nixon’s Southern Strategy. As a multiracial man with exotic roots, he will be an indelible symbol of the rainbow governing majority that emerges in the early part of this century. And he will not leave a legacy of poor compromises that immediately become ripe for repeal. The project of the left will be to strengthen his reforms, not repeal or water them down. We will attempt to build on ObamaCare and the Wall Street Reforms rather than working to fix NAFTA or repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and DOMA or re-regulate the financial services sector.
Like Clinton, Obama will be immensely popular on the left for the simple reason that he won, twice, but he will be much more likely to serve as the model for future candidates than Clinton. People will definitely be naming roads and schools, and perhaps even airports after Obama, just as they have done with Reagan.
Reading Sullivan’s column, it is interesting to see that he believes Reagan’s positive legacy was mostly accomplished during his second term. I’d disagree with that. For me, the Iran-Contra affair and Reagan’s descent into dementia in 1987-88 made Reagan’s second term a failure. His tax and immigration reforms were lasting legacies, but neither are why he is revered on the right. Likewise, Obama is likely to be revered on the left not for any deal he makes on the budget next year, but for winning with a new coalition and for passing health care reform, saving the auto industry, stabilizing the economy, and making investments in new energy.
And, although they will remain very controversial on the left, his foreign policies and national security stances will be revered because he was the Democrat who finally won over the trust of the American people and made them stop looking to the right for protection.
Provided that Obama doesn’t let the American people down in a second term like Nixon did, and like Clinton did, he will immediately join the upper echelon of American presidents. And, I’d argue that, on the left, he will sit just below FDR in the pantheon of heroes.
Like Reagan, whether he deserves it or not, this is what will happen.
I’d disagree with that. For me, the Iran-Contra affair and Reagan’s descent into dementia in 1987-88 made Reagan’s second term a failure.
Remember there are two Reagans – you’re talking about the historical one, and Sullivan et al. are talking about the one who says whatever present-day conservatives believe.
Hate to get my schoolteacher on, but I think you mean “The only Democratic president to be elected twice since Franklin Delano Roosevelt died is Bill Clinton.” Truman and Johnson were both reelected.
No, they were not reelected. They were elected.
To be reelected, you have to be elected twice.
Oops.
Still, the distinction is valid, even if you described it with a solecism.
Yup. Johnson decided not to run for a second term. I remember watching that speech as a soph in HS.
So did Truman. And for the exact same reason.
Actually Boo, they were elected twice, it’s just that the first time they were elected vice-president.
Do you think I don’t know that?
There is another Obama legacy that will continue and that is all of us ordinary people who have been given unprecedented training (advanced training!) in fundraising, organizing, coalition building, public speaking, use of digital/social media, coaching, leadership development.
As someone who has been a part of the 2008 campaign, OFA throughout, and now the reelection campaign I can say that I will not be stopping in 2016. I am part of a huge local, regional and national network of highly trained citizens who will continue to use what we have learned to organize around the issues and people we care about.
Being an organizer, you can’t tell me that Barack Obama doesn’t know the potential of what he has inspired and created.
I agree with this. as an African American, I can’t tell u how much more engaged in the political process my people have come. from my youngest cousins who aren’t old enough to vote yet, but who follow the superficial life of the Obamas, to older cousins who will be able to vote for the first time & are engaged in the political process, to my sister who’s never been political, but who’s been paying more attention to education reform & how politics affect it, to my older aunts & uncles who never before watched much political news, but who I now find watches MSNBC “liberal” lineup more than I do.
Even though we know the every election matters, with the candidacy and election of Obama people felt like they had more skin in the game & therefore politics finally became personal & I tend to think even after Obama leaves office, there is no turning back from that.
I am seeing it to in my own family–we are more engaged and paying more attention to how federal, state and local level politics affect our communities.
It is exciting to think about using our skills and networks to make changes at the local level. Problems with our local water supply–we are on it! Problems with asbestos at the elementary school–on it! Problems with a local company raiding their pension plan–on it! It is already happening but I can imagine citizen organizing really taking off in the near future.
This is truly Obama’s only actual contribution. Too bad Herman Cain didn’t win the GOP nomination!!
Obama himself said in the 60 Minutes interview on Sunday, September 23 that he would succeed in working with the Republicans in Congress in a second term.
“How will you get them to do it?” he was asked.
“The American people will do it.”
He says, explicitly that he can’t change the Republicans, but that the American people can be led to compel Congress to do our will.
If he does accomplish this–and he’s perfectly capable–it will rectify the one great failure of his first term. After his inauguration he had 1,000,000 trained, experienced, successful and confident political activist leaders working in concert in a high tech equipped network that knew no equal in American political history.
He disbanded them and sought to compromise with the Republicans.
Really? He disbanded them? OFA continued the whole time. We met during the transition. We made thousands of calls just in my small state on the Recovery Act, then we went on to work on Healthcare reform, Financial regulation, etc.
We never stopped. We had organizers, trainings, webinars, meetings, phone banks, rallies, etc–the whole time!
you are letting the working progressive reality interfere with the Hamsheresque poutrage of the couchbound “professional” left.
The couchbound professional left sign a few online petitions and then feel so “disappointed” when they didn’t get everything they wanted.
I just don’t have time for that nonsense.
Sadly, Rolling Stone‘s archives, even from just 2 years ago, are only available to subscribers. This goes for Booman too. Is Rolling Stone‘s Tim Dickinson a Hamsherite too? If you can find the article titled “No We Can’t” from the February 17, 2010, issue, let me know.
Look, no president can keep a campaign organization together. A campaign organization exists for a specific, time-limited purpose.
When Obama was first elected to the state senate, he talked about keeping his campaign organization. It didn’t happen. Winning an election is a different political goal than enacting a law or changing a regulation or passing a budget.
Elected politicians may not be clear on the differences, or they may have perfectly legitimate reasons for saying they’ll keep their campaign organization going, but that doesn’t mean we have to go along with them.
The problem, as that RS article made clear, was they didn’t even fold OFA into the DNC. My point is that we shouldn’t let down even after November. Instead of the old “Remember the Maine!!” we should “Remember 2010!!” And that falls now upon a corrupt tool named DWS.
Actually OFA was part of the DNC. On the website, on all the materials it said right at the top “Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee”
That RS article was really poor. I remember reading it right after finishing that day’s volunteer recruitment calls for an all day training we were holding.
Truly an excellent point, MomSense.
And, although they will remain very controversial on the left, his foreign policies and national security stances will be revered because he was the Democrat who finally won over the trust of the American people and made them stop looking to the right for protection.
So you are buying an artificial TradMed construct? Interesting.
The Democrats have trailed in polls on which party will handle national security better for my entire life, outside of a tiny window in the 2006-7 portion of the Iraq War. It’s not a TradMed construct. It’s reality.
Obama has changed that.
Yay! — back to 1960 and 1964 when JFK and LBJ beat Nixon and Goldwater on a militarily robust foreign policy because that worked out so well.
Yes, just because Obama is trusted by the American people on national security, including overwhelmingly on keeping Gitmo open (which he doesn’t even want to do), doesn’t mean that the Democrats will pursue good foreign policies. It doesn’t mean that Obama has his policies right, either.
But it means that we don’t have to overcome people’s fears that we aren’t tough-minded enough to be in the White House. And that’s important.
Yes, just because Obama is trusted by the American people on national security, including overwhelmingly on keeping Gitmo open (which he doesn’t even want to do), doesn’t mean that the Democrats will pursue good foreign policies.
Ever ask yourself how this came to be? Was it because people believed TradMed bullcrap? The Republicans didn’t kick Hitler’s ass. Or defeat Japan. Ike was the one who first sent “advisors” to Vietnam. So Democrats didn’t even start that one.
It came to be when the New Left took over the party in 1972 and 1974. The New Left was anti-Establishmentarian, which is a persistent problem to this day within the Progressive Movement.
Distrust of institutions of power is wise, but lethal when it is attached to the ethos of a political party. At least, if that party wants control of those institutions.
It came to be when the New Left took over the party in 1972 and 1974.
What “New Left” is that? When have the DFH’s ever been the Democratic Establishment? Do you consider Mike Mansfield a DFH? Somehow I think that’s as much a myth as HHH or McGovern being extreme leftists.
Pandering to irrational fears is cheap politics and even cheaper statesmanship. And for the Democratic Party over the past sixty years, it has never ended well. The “tough-minded enough” to use military force is what led Truman to send troops to Korea, JFK (ran on that lie of a missile gap) to go ahead with the Bay of Pigs invasion, JFK and later LBJ to increased interference in S. Vietnam. How many lives were destroyed and how much US treasure was squandered as immature Americans cheered on their “tough-minded enough” immature elected officials?
You know, it’s easy to speak of “tough-minded enough” when your home isn’t being invaded by US troops and bombs and missiles aren’t raining down on your head.
JFK, post-BoP, actually showed the model of how to be tough without unnecessarily invoking military might. Then he showed how to begin to make peace with your former enemies — as with the USSR and Cuba in his final year.
And he managed to do all that — essentially beginning to end the cold war — while remaining very popular at home and abroad.
Not a bad record — saving civilization in the missile crisis and then beginning the process of peace in less than three years.
Suppose that’s one way to describe the aftermath of the US precipitation of a nuclear exchange with the USSR.
JFK was very concerned about his re-election prospects; so, “very popular” is a bit of an overstatement.
Then there is that little matter of the assassination of Diem. However, the larger problem with your take on JFK’s aborted tenure would be with his team — “the best and the brightest” — that stayed on with LBJ.
The missile crisis was brilliantly managed by Kennedy averting all out nuke war. Then in the aftermath he and Nikki began talking how to avoid such misadventures in the future. First manifestation: Nuke Test Ban Treaty, against the wishes of the Joint Chiefs.
As for best and brightest Lyndon fired both McNamara and Bundy, effectively, but not b/c they were too hawkish but more that they were beginning to doubt Johnson’s hawkish or no-negotiating approach.
That was all Lyndon’s War. Time to stop blaming the help and start blaming the final decision maker. LBJ doesn’t deserve a pass (the buck) on this one.
Wasn’t giving LBJ a pass. McNamara left office as Sec of Defense on 2/29/68 (that was one month before LBJ withdrew from the nomination) which was very late in the game.
Firing McGeorge Bundy was a bad move? Probably should have fired William Bundy as well. Arrogant pricks was how my former leftie father-in-law described his former Yale classmates.
Not that this is an argument against him/her — I’m completely ignorant of the era — but Brodie is a JFK-defender on virtually everything. Again, I don’t know if what is said is true or not, I haven’t done my homework. Just giving some background for any future discussion with that in mind.
Thx for the gratuitous ad hom seabe. I suppose though it’s similar to calling Booman an Obama defender on virtually everything.
Anyway get back to me when you’ve read up on JFK. May I rec the recent well received book JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass, for a fair appraisal of the FP record and especially what Kennedy sought to do in his final year plus plans for the second term.
Bucking that militaristic trend (internationally and domestically) is very important. That’s why I’m intrigued by President Obama’s insistence that we “lead from behind” the Libya-strike coalition; that Netanyahu cannot set his schedule – even during election season; and that huge defense weapons systems can be killed.
There are lots of problems with the NDAA and the drone program but but seem to be moves away from the 20th century model of massive troop deployments to enforce our often misguided will.
I have absolutely no understanding – and personally reject – the Administration’s wastefu, futile, and foolish quasi-military response to Occupy and the militarized continuation of the already lost “War on Drugs.”
Yay! — back to 1960 and 1964 when JFK and LBJ beat Nixon and Goldwater on a militarily robust foreign policy
LBJ didn’t run to Goldwater’s right on foreign policy. Remember the Daisy ad? He cast Goldwater as a right-wing uber-hawk kook. Unlike 1960, LBJ didn’t out-hawk Goldwater.
Similarly, Obama isn’t running to the Republicans’ right, but is prominently running to their left (notice, I didn’t say to YOUR left), and winning on it.
No he didn’t run to the right of Barry on FP — that would have been nearly impossible. BG talking about using tactical nukes in Nam and breezily suggesting lobbing a nuke into the Kremlin put him easily on the ne plus ultra fringe, by his own doing.
But Lyndon did arrange to run to the right — as with the Gulf of Tonkin Res, arranged nicely to occur just a few weeks after the GOP convention and a few weeks before the Dems met.
So he ended up running both to the right and left (“I won’t send American boys to fight a war Asian boys ought fight themselves.”) and by design. He wanted both flanks covered, to look respectable to both doves and hawks.
Gulf of Tonkin incident 8/2/64
Gulf of Tonkin resolution 8/7/64.
So, starting a war based on a lie in the middle of an election isn’t running on a militarily robust foreign policy?
Brodie’s response fills in the rest.
Boo…it’s my birthday, and I’m on vacation…figures you would wait for today to compare Obama to…REAGAN!!!???!!!???
Really?
If re-elected, Obama’s big Government policies will bury our economy…
Trust me…I’m holding off making any major business decisions until November 7th…If Romney wins, and especially if Republicans hold the House and take the Senate…Katie bar the door!!!…we will get very aggressive with our growth…we’re not the only ones…we’re hoarding cash like every other smart business…
If Obama wins…investments will go overseas…We’regoung to do it, and so will others..if Obamacare is not repealed, we have three choices: 1) ignore the law and hope the IRS doesn’t catch us, 2) pay people less, 3) fire people. We literally have no choice, with a 7 percent profit margin!
Trust me…if your hero is re-elected, this country faces a disastrous next four years.
REAGAN!!!???!!!???
Reagan, the master of growing government by leaps and bounds and creating massive deficits? Policy wise, you are right, Obama is no Reagan, and thank God for that. Otherwise the country wouldn’t survive.
What are you talking about?
If you gave Reagan a Republican Congress, he would have reduced Federal Spending as a percentage of GDP…
Just like Clinton was forced into fiscal sanity after 1994…
The true GOP failure is…and I hate to say this, because I honestly believe the he was a good man and a great leader…
W! Great Commander-in-Chief, poor representative of the values of self-reliance and limited government…
“would have” is jack s#&t compared to “did.”
I trust you Nick. Really.
No, No, REALLY. I trust you. And Mitt. And Reagan.
Oh wait. He’s dead.
Oh well, I guess you can’t have everything.
Can a ghost be elected President?
I answer:
Yes. You just have to expand the “ghost” idea a little.
Take Reagan’s second term…please. His mind was gone. It was really never particularly present even when he was a second-rate movie actor or governor. Does that count?
In both of Gorgeous George Butch II’s terms not only was his mind gone but he wasn’t even the president. Just a figurehead.
That should count too.
In fact, the entire Republican Party from pretty much the end of Eisenhower’s presidency has been nothing but a dead party walking. Bereft of any ideas other than “It was better in the good ol’ days when middle-aged white Republican men ran the world,” it continued to jerk when prodded until this time around, when even its reflexes are gone.
To the tarpits, Nick. G’night. Over and out. Too dumb to survive.
I am not a Dem fan either, really, but I gotta say this about the ongoing Dem coalition.
It ain’t dead and it ain’t brain dead, either.
You guys?
The IQ meter drops like a stone when any of y’all enter a room.
Like a stone.
Go away. Go hide in the bushes until your whole segment of society is nothing but a nasty memory.
Go away, son.
Y’bother me.
AG
Always remember…the lesser of two evils is less evil. Possibly a lot less evil. – Priscianus Jr
And a lot less evil means a lot more good.
Arthur…good to hear from you!
What do you believe is the proper role of Government in our society?
If you answer the question, and rule out Libertarians as a realistic option, you are more Republican than Democrat, and you know it!!
You know that Government is intrinsically coercive…I.e. it has men and women with guns and badges to make you do what they want you to do…and you know this is inherently opposed to freedom…neither Republicans or Democrats fully embrace Freedom, but surely you realize Republicans are closer? Don’t you? Republicans seems to be anti-freedom on “social issues”, but they just do that to ” build a coalition” that includes the Christian Right…
Also… Nice Snark!
Would you like to compare I.Q. Tests? You might give me a run for my money!!
Son!
Nick…
Sorry, man. The only thing to which the current mainstream, dominant Republican Party is closer than the Democratic party is extinction. And “Republicans?” Meaning I suppose those people who actually work for the party, donate money and/or get out the vote? (Excepting the fatcat donors, of course.) They are not for “freedom,” they just want to be free themselves. Free of taxes, free of governmental supervision of any sort and free from the necessities that are inherent in living in a large, multiracial and multicultural nation. One necessity of which is taking care of people who have not yet managed to assimilate into the mainstream working class…making damned sure that they are fed, clothed, housed and educated well enough to actually enter that working class within a generation or two or three. Because if they are not cared for, they will burn the joint down in sheer frustration. But if they are cared for, they will become the Italians, Jews, Irish, Germans, Poles etc. of the present.
You know…like my ancestors and quite likely yours? Fresh off the boat with nothing but aspirations to eat? Give them a leg up and they become the root and basis of the success of this country. African-Americans included. Hold them away from any possibility of success so that they can be used as cheap labor and cannon fodder? Then it’s riots and civil strife eventually. We’re supposed to have learned that lesson already. Give this country lock, stock and barrel to the Republicans and the ’60s and ’70s will just happen again. Only this time the experienced opposition fighters from our last 30 years of so of war will be around to give ’em some lessons. Bet on it.
You want that?
UH oh!!!
You also write:
This is sufficient proof of brain death right there. A “coalition” that includes an entire class that is headed for the tarpits?
Great.
Go to it.
Coalesce for all you’re worth.
Here’s your man.
Go get him and welcome to it.
The Republican mascot isn’t an elephant.
It’s a fucking mastodon.
Ride it to glory, bubba.
To the glory hole where all of the other extinct breeds abide.
What bullshit!!!
AG
You want to help those on the bottom move up?
Then introduce some fucking competition to our pathetic, union-dominated educational system. These sons-of-bitches are more concerned about not being evaluated so they can save their sorry asses and 75k per year salaries instead of teaching our fucking kids!!! Can’t stand it! Alice in fucking wonderland!!
You may as well send your money overseas and fire a bunch of people now. No need to wait until November.
We shall see!
…but we should trust you as you make predictions about what the economy will do.
Happy Birthday, Nick. Enjoy your vacation.
That is all.
Thanks, Randy!
Congrats, Skippy! Can you now drive, vote, or drink?
Ha ha! Thanks! I’m 46…closer to 50 than 40!
Shit!
Trust me…
Why would we trust you?
One thing Reagan didn’t have to deal with in either of his terms is a sizable and outspoken domestic terrorist fringe opposing his every move, and constantly evoking violent imagery and using incendiary language over the public airwaves to stoke rage against him personally.
“Chair lynching” would have been unthinkable in ’80 and ’84.
I don’t want to jump off the concern-bridge just yet, but when Obama handily wins re-election, we’re going to see if all this tough talk from the extreme right about “second amendment solutions” and the like are just bluster that will wither in the face of overwhelming public opposition, or something more dangerous as predicted by numerous gov’t studies of home-grown terrorism.
How the Senate and House races fall will surely affect that reaction, too.
Even if only rhetorical, President Obama will be facing significant, and in modern times, at least, unprecedented, violent blowback just for having prevailed against right wing hate in November.
Depending on the scale, that blowback could potentially severely affect his overall legacy.
Feh. Maybe I’m overreacting. It’s been a creepy campaign, and it’s not near finished yet.
You may be right, Booman, but to me, the correct analogue for Obama would be Nixon (keeping in mind that they are temperamental and ethical opposites — appropriate for men of opposing parties). Nixon was the one who assembled the emerging Republican majority coalition of the day, not Reagan. (Hell, even Jerry Ford was nearly able to ride that roadmap to victory, even after Watergate, the pardon, the WIN button, and the general economic misery of his short time in office.) Nixon, like Obama, preferred to be seen as a man of the center as he quietly tried to steer the country ever-so-subtly to the right (in Obama’s case, the left). He outraged the red-baiting right with his reapprochement with China, as Obama did the left with the Geithner appointment and the willingness to try to pass healthcare reform on the Republicans’ terms. I could keep going, but you get the idea.
Our Reagan hasn’t arrived yet. Not really. When we have a nominee who proudly proclaims his liberal identity and the ability of Americans to better their lives through the instrument of government, we will find our Reagan. Or anti-Reagan, as it were, as Obama is really the anti-Nixon.
If you look at the 1968 electoral map, you will notice that George Wallace won most of the South, not Richard Nixon. And Humphrey carried Texas. It’s true that Nixon won the South in 1972, but he won everything in 1972 except Massachusetts and DC.
If you think the 1972 transformed the South into Republican territory, take a look at the 1976 Electoral Map.
No, it was Reagan who found a way to win with a whole new coalition. Nixon just got the ball rolling.
The 1968 and 1976 electoral maps tell us that people prefer to vote for “one of their own” when given an opportunity to do so even when a significant political realignment in well underway. Kevin Phillips articulated that realignment in “The Emerging Republican Majority” in 1969 — from a review:
Of course, had the Democratic Party heeded LBJ’s words that the south was gone and began the hard work of putting together a new coalition that GOP majority would never have dominated US public policy for four decades and counting.
There’s a case to be made that Democrats did begin the work of putting together a new majority coalition…it’s just that it took a generation to assemble.
Just as Reagan was unashamedly from the right wing of the Republican coalition, and was willing to compromise on how to enact a conservative agenda, Barack Obama is unashamedly from the left wing of the Democratic coalition and is willing to compromise on how to advance a progressive agenda.
If, 30 years from now, we look back on Pres. Obama as “the Democrats’ Reagan”, then it’s likely Obama’s political positions will seem to “centrist” to win, say, the Democratic presidential nomination of 2040. (Just as Reagan’s positions are now seen as too “liberal” for today’s Republican party.)
The key for Republicans is to become the pro-legal-immigration party!
Hispanics are natural conservatives! Hard-working, self-reliant, socially conservative! Leave it to Rubio, Susana Martinez, Brian Sandoval and I to turn it around! Once we make this transition, WE will be the permanent majority!
That sounds good in theory, but it’s hard for Republicans to reach out to Hispanics (conservative or otherwise), when the Tea Party base won’t allow for it.
Bush couldn’t get this done, and the party has moved far to right on immigration in the mean time.
Wrong! True “Tea partiers” are about freedom, opportunity, self-reliance…
True tea partiers could give a rat’s ass about someone’s skin color…
Trust Me…I’m more Tea Party than most Tea Partiers you think you know!
Obama isn’t “unashamedly from the left.” Half the time he speaks, he sounds more like, or even to the right of, Nixon and Reagan than even a moderate Democrat from a couple of decades ago.
The primary objective of the GOP since 1933 has been the destruction of all the New Deal and New Deal inspired legislation that set-up a meager social safety net and stabilized the financial industry enough that ordinary people had some protections from those vultures. Carter, Clinton, and Obama have played or are playing a part in facilitating the GOP goal. Reagan had the solar panels removed from the WH and promoted ketchup as a vegetable for school lunches, but most cleverly imposed higher social security taxes on working stiffs and handed that extra cash over to his wealthy patrons.
Take a look at the argument Michael Grunwald is making in “The New New Deal” (and in recent related pieces around the intertubes): the Recovery Act very quietly created de facto national education standards, jumpstarted the clean energy industry, is transforming medical records—all that in addition to breaking the back of the Great Recession.
Obama may be quiet about his progressivism, and he almost always tries to position himself in the center of a 60% majority coalition, but he’s always looking to find common ground with centrists and conservatives in the service of advancing a progressive agenda.
Reagan was only as centrist as events demanded. Wherever he could pull the country to the right, he did, from tax policy to labor policy to culture war issues (remember Ed Meese’s war on porn or James Watt’s banning of the Beach Boys from the Washington Mall?) to foreign policy. Booman would likely disagree, but I think Obama had much more room to move the country to the left than he decided to use.
There’s no denying, though, that Nixon’s team formulated the Southern strategy. They drew the roadmap. Reagan merely drove the bus down the route they envisaged.
I think Obama has done something similar with his re-engagement of the grassroots via the Internet. Future campaigns will use his innovations as the foundation of their strategies.
I agree with this. Looking back, Nixon was indelibly stamped with the era of post-WW2. That is, even as a Republican beginning the ride of modern movement he saw government as being able to provide big solutions to big problems.
I see Obama as a product of the right-wing domination of 30 years but perhaps may mark the transition forward.
Precisely. Because he’s the Nixon to Obama’s culmination role. Because just as Nixon’s southern strategy made the GOP’s base white men, at the exclusion of others. Clinton’s two terms solidified the Democrats’ shiny new base: women. And they haven’t looked back.
That was the only connecting piece you left out to tie the whole thing together.
Joe, there’s no reason not to tie your political star to women. Unless you’ve discovered an fast, easy way for men to bear babies, women are going to be around for a long time as ONE HALF of the population. As long as the D’s change to meet the needs of women of the time they won’t die out.
Older, less educated, mid 20th century men were never more than 35% of the population, they just voted at a higher rate than any of the other minorities … including the 50% that were women. And they were the easiest to scare into action. Fear, sleight of hand, outright lies lead to Quick victory and tactical thinking. A sure bet to lose the war.
Clinton will be to the GOP what Eisenhower is to us now — in fact, that has already begun to happen. Both Ike and Clinton won deviating elections against prevailing alignments against them, and had to govern with Congresses held by the opposition party.
Nixon and Obama won realigning elections whose effect downballot wouldn’t be fully realized for several years after the fact. Keep an eye on 2020, folks.
My only real concern going forward on the presidential contest is the impact of voter id laws in a variety of states. In PA the numbers of disenfranchised could be very large. Boo, do you think that will matter on election day?
‘Tis a difficult problem.
Apparently, roughly 750000 people could be potentially affected. But in 2008, only 68.7% of the registered voters actually voted.
I’m not sure if there are any data on this, but it would not surprise me in the least if the 30% that didn’t vote included a significant portion of the 750K potentially disenfranchised.
This is not to say that Voter ID should go forward, but it doesn’t HAVE to be the disaster that everyone thinks it is going to be.
Anyone able to find something on this?
We will see about that. The SC seemed quite dubious about the downside of the ID req. I think that it will be put aside for this election. There is not enough time to implement the full provisions of this onerous and unnecessary law.
The law will not be implemented this year. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sent the law back to a lower court with the instructions that they should judge whether there is time to implement the law without wrongly disenfranchising any voters. The answer to that question is ‘no, there is nowhere near enough time.” The law will not be struck off the books, but it will not be used in this election.
OK, Nate Silver at 538 shows THIS where the supposed effect on the PA turnout will be approximately -1.04 for Obama (84.2 vs 82.6 chance of winning).
This totally begs the question of results in down ballot races. However, the effect of the congressional races are probably going to be mitigated by the presence of “safe” congressional seats in the areas most likely to be affected (ie: inner city black precincts). The real danger will be in the senate race. Currently, Casey is well in the lead, but a shift could put the race back into contention.
All told, it’s like I said before. Concerning, but not necessarily deadly. And it won’t matter at all in 2014. By then, sanity will have returned and getting a state approved ID will merely be part of the accepted process.
In the long run, the only thing does is piss people off and re-inforce the “R’s against the people” meme.
Nate also references GoogleScholar which I had not seen before. I don’t know what the difference between it and normal Google, but whatever …
I’m not going to read four pages of Sullivan. The subtitle is enough, with it’s ludicrous claim that an Obama victory will “jolt the GOP back to sanity”. There is no sane constituency left in the GOP. There is not a single prominent republican calling publicly for sanity, and there won’t be one after the election. Maybe Sullivan thinks he’s going to lead the charge, but he has zero significance to the GOP. The only thing that MIGHT get some sanity is 3-4 cycles of profound minority status. But even then, as long as they get consequence-free filibuster veto power, there’s little incentive to change.
Your take is right on. Frum has no credibility because he helped W. foster the worst upon us. The only one with cred is Bruce Bartlett, but the right ignores him now, and there has been no consequences for it.
I love it. Normally Sarah Silverman’s mouth is a little too much in the toilet for me (ummmm…that’s a hint to the kiddies in the audience), but THIS is hilarious:
http://www.upworthy.com/nsfw-sarah-silverman-approves-this-fing-message?c=upw1
Her solution to voter ID laws? Apparently, most places with voter ID laws will allow gun carry permits to be used as ID.
GET GRANNY A GUN!!!!!
Unlike Reagan, Obama is IMO very unlike to have a Iran-Contra scandle mar his legacy… Or any other “ends justify the means” do anything attitude that seems to have been part of the GOP mindset since Nixon.
I think you are right Boo, but I thought that since 04 when I compared Obamas DNC speech to Reagan’s 76 RNC speech.
Booman, I agree with this post 100%. I wasn’t expecting any more heroes in my lifetime, but surprise. It’s a plus that he’s younger, smarter and different-looking from me. Fierce disagreements on some stuff, but this is my guy.
Now, to skim the comments…
I can only imagine Obama as a left hero. I can’t think of anything he has done that actually indicates left tendencies.
Clean coal? Economic advisors like Geithner? Patriot Act2?
no way.