Although I don't believe that democrats are going to go over the cliff with Hillary Clinton, it's still white knuckle time for me until everything is resolved. No sense in making the same arguments about why nominating Sen. Clinton is a colossally bad idea; suffice to say that if it happens, the Democratic Party's chances to win the presidency and build a progressive majority will look like the puff of smoke at the end of a Wile E. Coyote free-fall.
Obviously, it's not necessarily in the best interests of the long-term health of the Democratic Party to join Sen. Clinton in going over the side of the cliff. Let's just hope we all figure it out before we look down and and see that there's no ground beneath us. Democrats have a historic opportunity in this election. Not just in the race/gender context, but rather to build a thirty to forty year progressive coalition. Here's hoping we don't blow it.
I've broken down U.S. presidential elections into three distinct periods within a 112 year time frame. The trend-lines from each of these three periods are dramatically similar.
The first period comprises the thirty-six years from 1896 - 1932.
The second spans thirty-six years as well; 1932 - 1968.
The third comprises a forty year period from 1968 - 2008.
1896 to 1932:
The Republican Party held the presidency for 28 of these 36 years. The only candidate from the Democratic Party that was able to garner election during this period was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was elected to two consecutive terms almost precisely in the middle of the 36 year republican run.
1932 to 1968:
Also a 36 year period except now the party holding the presidency flipped. During this period, the Democratic Party held the presidency for 28 of the 36 years. Much like the previous period, the party not in control of the presidency, the Republican Party, was only able to elect one individual during this period: Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Eisenhower, like Woodrow Wilson was a two-term president elected in the middle of the other party's run of presidential supremacy. Eisenhower's 8 years occurred in years 20 to 28 of the 36 Democratic Party run. This only slightly differs from Wilson, who held the presidency for 8 years during years 16 to 24 of the Republican Party run.
1968 - 2008:
Here, we have a 40 year run from the Republican Party. This 40 year period differs slightly from the previous periods.
First, there was a single one term presidency from the non-dominant party during this 40 year period. Jimmy Carter held the presidency for the Democratic Party from 1976 to 1980. Although this makes this period trend slightly different from the other two, I think Carter's election broke the regular cycle due to the historical anomaly of Watergate.
Again, notwithstanding Carter, the non-dominant party was able to control the presidency for 8 years. In this case Bill Clinton controlled the presidency for the non-dominant party between years 24 and 32 of the Republican Party run; a bit later than the previous two, which I think correlates to Carter's four years.
Now, I would argue that there are striking similarities between all three two-term presidencies of the non-dominant parties.
Wilson, Eisenhower, and Clinton all governed as centrists; sort of dominant party-lite. Each were constricted by a dominant party Congress that had powerful office holders. Wilson had Henry Cabot Lodge; Eisenhower had Lyndon Johnson; and Clinton had Newt Gingrich. Each were circumscribed in their ability to bring about sweeping change.
However, each dominant party had a two-term president that really shifted the political landscape for the others that followed. The first era had Teddy Roosevelt; the second had FDR; and the third had Reagan.
All of that is basically an incredibly long wind-up to make a very simple point: Barack Obama is the Democratic Party's opportunity to place its imprimatur on the presidency for a generation. Barack Obama is Teddy; he's FDR; he's Reagan, each of which were the right person in the right place at the right time.
We are in a period of Democratic Party presidential ascendancy. We have a historic opportunity to shape the landscape for a generation. This is not a moment in which democrats need to hold their nose and pick the best of bad options. This is a chance to be bold.
One of the biggest problems that I see with the Clinton campaign is that she's running for president as if it's 1992. She's stuck in a triangulating, republican co-opting time warp; whether that's voting for the war in Iraq or the absurd "gas-tax holiday" proposal. She cut her teeth on national politics in an era when for democrats to succeed they had to co-opt republican positions.
However, that's not where the country is now. And generally, I'm not one of those people that despises Bill Clinton for the DLC form of calculated politics. I think he did about the best he could given the political landscape he was in.
But, it's not 1992. We have an opportunity to transform the political landscape and build a long-term progressive majority. And we're only going to get it once.
No comments:
Post a Comment