Peter Lawler: 8 Elections that Shed Light on Campaign 2008
[Peter Lawler is Dana Professor of Government at Berry College in Georgia. He is the author or editor of a dozen books, including Postmodernism Rightly Understood, Stuck With Virtue, Aliens in America, and Homeless and at Home in America.]
We can learn from comparisons with the past only if we approach them with some — but not too much — irony. Here are some descriptions of past elections. Each is spun in such a way as to heighten its relevance to the one going on right now and in order to produce some enjoyable controversy:
1932: Republicans control the presidency when the economy takes a nosedive of unprecedented proportions. There’s no confidence in the incumbent (Hoover) being able to deal with the crisis; everybody thinks the country is moving in the wrong direction. The attractive Democratic challenger (FDR) wins a largely “negative landslide” and takes advantage of “unified government” to do a lot more than he ever mentioned during the campaign. His eloquent reformist self-confidence reassures the people; his actual policies probably, on balance, prolong the Depression.
1948: The popular, uncharismatic incumbent (Truman) leads a party that’s clearly been in office too long. The other party captures control of Congress in 1946. Polls show a smooth challenger (Dewey) with a substantial lead. Incumbent focuses a “Give ‘em hell” campaign on a “do-nothing” Congress. He surges and confounds the expert s with an upset.
1952: The same incumbent (Truman) has extremely low approval ratings, largely because of an unpopular war that’s dragged on . His party nominates a classy guy (Stevenson) who can’t really distance himself enough from his party’s record. The Republicans nominate a confident, likeable guy (Eisenhower) who promises to do what it takes to end the war. He wins by a landslide. (I actually think there’s a lot to this comparison, although McCain seems more Eisenhower and Obama more like Stevenson.)
1960: The Republican incumbent (Eisenhower) is boring and not rhetorically gifted. People clearly want change, to get the country moving again, without any clear of view of what that means. The Democrats nominate a good-looking young guy (with a beautiful wife) with little experience and a lazy, mediocre record as Senator (JFK). His speeches are inspirational, and he also inspires confidence because most of the party’s establishment experts are advising him. He’s a Harvard guy who appeals to intellectual snobs. He’s a member of a demographic group (Catholics) that’s a key part of the Democratic coalition, but has never had a president. The experienced Republican candidate (Nixon) looks odd — even unhealthy — during the debates. The Democratic challenger very, very narrowly wins.
1968: The Democratic incumbent (LBJ) is unpopular because he can’t end a war that threatens to drag on forever and for failed domestic policies. The Democratic candidate (Humphrey) is a man with lots of experience in the Senate but is clearly sloppy and otherwise undisciplined The very smart and competent Republican challenger (Nixon) promises to have a plan to end the war. The coalition that elected in the incumbent starts to come back together for Humphery, who campaigns enthusiastically until the end. But it’s too little, too late. (The relevance of this comparison is McCain’s best hope.)
1976: The party of the incumbent (Ford) is utterly discredited by corruption. As a candidate, he is experienced and somewhat respected but quite inarticulate and a bit bumbling. The Democratic challenger (Carter) presents himself as an outsider and a wholly new kind of candidate who transcends politics as usual. The Democrat is way ahead for a while. But Ford closes quickly because he creates real doubts about his opponent’s character and temperament. If the campaign had lasted another week, the president would have stayed in office. (I think McCain took this comparison too seriously for a week or two: Obama is far more likeable than Carter.)
1980: The Democratic incumbent (Carter) is blamed, with plenty of evidence, for making America weaker in many ways—and especially for embarrassing ineptitude in Iran, an oil crisis, an economic downturn, and for a general national malaise. The Republicans, seemingly stupidly, nominate one of the most extremely conservative members of their party (Reagan). The incumbent looks like he might hold on, until the candidates, late in the campaign, finally have a debate. It turns out that the voters only needed reassurance that the challenger was not a crazy extremist—and Reagan came off as a calm and reasonable guy—to turn to him as safe and needed change. Support for the incumbent collapses, and Reagan wins by a near-landslide. (This comparison is obviously relevant. Two differences between 1980 and 2008, of course: The economic crisis and the first debate occurring much earlier, meaning the McCain collapse occurred earlier. McCain’s ghost of a chance: He’s not literally dead, only collapsed, and he had the time to come back that Carter didn’t.)
1996: A smart Democratic incumbent (Clinton) seems to have given us peace and prosperity, but character issues persist. The Republicans go with a very old man (Dole) with a most admirable record of service—both in the military and in the Senate. The Republicans decide to focus their campaign on honor. Big-mistake, people vote peace-and-prosperity over character.
comments powered by Disqus