Will Barack Obama be remembered as the Democrats' Nixon?

[osideguy92]

I have my own theory of 40-50 year cycles in American presidential politics. Here is my view of it:

Class 1 (Multi-taskers): Transformative party figure who oversaw a period of economic stagnation/slow growth as well as wound down increasingly unpopular wars and ushered in new eras of international cooperation (14 Points for Wilson, China for Nixon, and Mideast for Obama). These administrations are also defined by peaks of domestic discontent (Suffragette/anti-WWI movement for Wilson, anti-Vietnam/Feminist movements for Nixon, and LGBT Rights/Occupy Wall Street/Tea Party for Obama)

Class 2 (Bunglers): Those who mishandle a promising economy and lead to their party being shunned for generations (Roaring Twenties to Great Depression for Harding/Coolidge/Hoover and Growth to Stagflation for Carter)

Class 3 (Ushers): Transformative figures who usher in new eras of dominance for their party and are remembered fondly by history.

Class 4 (Inheritors): The beneficiaries of Ushers (typically VPs like Johnson, Truman and Bush 41). These figures usually face massive challenges at home and abroad. Will typically undertake massively unpopular initiatives (Reconstruction, Korea War, etc.). These figures are usually viewed more kindly by history than right when they leave office.

Class 5 (Trusted Stewards): Members of the party of Class 2 Presidents who successfully manage to convince Americans to give their party a second look. Typified by a "move to the middle" within their own party as well as economic prosperity during their time in office (Eisenhower Republicans and Third Way Democrats under Clinton).

Class 6 (Epic -Ups): Administrations almost entirely defined by a single tragedy (Kennedy Assassination and 9/11) who ride the wave of popular opinion in its wake, only to have a presidency with potential crash and burn as a result of war or economic collapse.

Class 1: Wilson = Nixon/Ford = Obama
Class 2: Pierce/Buchanan = Harding/Coolidge/Hoover = Carter = GOP 2016 winner
Class 3: Lincoln = FDR = Reagan = DEM 2020 winner
Class 4: Johnson/Grant/Hayes/Garfield/Arthur = Truman = Bush 41
Class 5: Cleveland = Ike = Clinton
Class 6: McKinley/Teddy/Taft = JFK/LBJ = Bush 43

[Frodo]

Chris Christie will be the Republican Jimmy Carter.

Combined with Republicans taking back the Senate in either 2014 or 2016, that would mean we could be seeing the possibility of three new Supreme Court nominations, with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy finally seeing the chance to retire with the certainty that a conservative would replace them.  That would finally spell the end of Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (preferably either in 2019 or early 2020), setting the stage for a feminist backlash that would reverberate for decades to come.  That would be the perfect year for Hillary Clinton to run, riding the inevitable wave of outrage following the decision.  One way or another, the Democratic base will be howling for a woman to be the nominee.    

How plausible a scenario is this?  

[Mr.Phips]

Chris Christie will be the Republican Jimmy Carter.

Combined with Republicans taking back the Senate in either 2014 or 2016, that would mean we could be seeing the possibility of three new Supreme Court nominations, with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy finally seeing the chance to retire with the certainty that a conservative would replace them.  That would finally spell the end of Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (preferably either in 2019 or early 2020), setting the stage for a feminist backlash that would reverberate for decades to come.  That would be the perfect year for Hillary Clinton to run, riding the inevitable wave of outrage following the decision.  One way or another, the Democratic base will be howling for a woman to be the nominee.    

How plausible a scenario is this?  

Whether Republicans take back the Senate or not in 2014, they are almost certainly losing it in 2016.  They have pretty much no Dem targets in that cycle and have three almost certain losers right off the bat(Kirk, Johnson, and Toomey). 

[Frodo]

Chris Christie will be the Republican Jimmy Carter.

Combined with Republicans taking back the Senate in either 2014 or 2016, that would mean we could be seeing the possibility of three new Supreme Court nominations, with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy finally seeing the chance to retire with the certainty that a conservative would replace them.  That would finally spell the end of Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (preferably either in 2019 or early 2020), setting the stage for a feminist backlash that would reverberate for decades to come.  That would be the perfect year for Hillary Clinton to run, riding the inevitable wave of outrage following the decision.  One way or another, the Democratic base will be howling for a woman to be the nominee.    

How plausible a scenario is this?  

Whether Republicans take back the Senate or not in 2014, they are almost certainly losing it in 2016.  They have pretty much no Dem targets in that cycle and have three almost certain losers right off the bat(Kirk, Johnson, and Toomey).  

A lot of things can change in four years, Phips.  If you were here in 2004, could you foresee what would happen in 2008 -and in the intervening years?  

[Mr.Phips]

Chris Christie will be the Republican Jimmy Carter.

Combined with Republicans taking back the Senate in either 2014 or 2016, that would mean we could be seeing the possibility of three new Supreme Court nominations, with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy finally seeing the chance to retire with the certainty that a conservative would replace them.  That would finally spell the end of Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (preferably either in 2019 or early 2020), setting the stage for a feminist backlash that would reverberate for decades to come.  That would be the perfect year for Hillary Clinton to run, riding the inevitable wave of outrage following the decision.  One way or another, the Democratic base will be howling for a woman to be the nominee.    

How plausible a scenario is this?  

Whether Republicans take back the Senate or not in 2014, they are almost certainly losing it in 2016.  They have pretty much no Dem targets in that cycle and have three almost certain losers right off the bat(Kirk, Johnson, and Toomey).  

A lot of things can change in four years, Phips.  If you were here in 2004, could you foresee what would happen in 2008 -and in the intervening years?  

Yes, I did, actually. 

[Frodo]

Chris Christie will be the Republican Jimmy Carter.

Combined with Republicans taking back the Senate in either 2014 or 2016, that would mean we could be seeing the possibility of three new Supreme Court nominations, with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy finally seeing the chance to retire with the certainty that a conservative would replace them.  That would finally spell the end of Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (preferably either in 2019 or early 2020), setting the stage for a feminist backlash that would reverberate for decades to come.  That would be the perfect year for Hillary Clinton to run, riding the inevitable wave of outrage following the decision.  One way or another, the Democratic base will be howling for a woman to be the nominee.    

How plausible a scenario is this?  

Whether Republicans take back the Senate or not in 2014, they are almost certainly losing it in 2016.  They have pretty much no Dem targets in that cycle and have three almost certain losers right off the bat(Kirk, Johnson, and Toomey).  

A lot of things can change in four years, Phips.  If you were here in 2004, could you foresee what would happen in 2008 -and in the intervening years?  

Yes, I did, actually. 

Link, or it didn't happen. 

[Peter the Lefty]

Interesting Daily Kos article on this analogy.  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/06/1176482/-Lives-of-the-party-Looking-past-Obama-for-a-progressive-Democratic-coalition

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Interesting Daily Kos article on this analogy.  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/06/1176482/-Lives-of-the-party-Looking-past-Obama-for-a-progressive-Democratic-coalition

Good read (as was the Krugman editorial it linked to).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nixon would be a RINO today. Obama would be a DINO in the 1970s.

[Skill and Chance]

If Obama is in the Nixon position in the cycle, the next Republican winner should be the last gasp of the Reagan-Bush SoCon coalition, not a Northeastern/Western moderate.  Maybe a McDonnell/Rubio or Jindal ticket?

[bballrox4717]

I've always imagined the Repubs winning in 2016 and then getting destroyed in 2020 by a really charismatic politician like Booker or somebody when the vast majority of the nation realizes that their policies don't actually work.

[ShadowRocket]

So under this scenario could the next three presidents be:

45. Chris Christie 2017-2021
46. Elizabeth Warren 2021-2029
47. Michael Bennet 2029-2033

[bballrox4717]

So under this scenario could the next three presidents be:

45. Chris Christie 2017-2021
46. Elizabeth Warren 2021-2029
47. Michael Bennet 2029-2033

Hmmm, I want to try!

45. Marco Rubio 2017-2021
46. Cory Booker 2021-2029
47. Lisa Madigan 2029-2033

[Peter the Lefty]

The only thing that complicates this a bit is Hillary, though I could actually see her loosing to Christie. 
Possible Democratic Reagans:
Elizabeth Warren
Tammy Baldwin
Kyrsten Sinema
Van Jones (maybe when Pelosi retires he can run for her seat)
Ben Lujan

Boy, I can't wait for 2020

[Blackacre]

The only thing that complicates this a bit is Hillary, though I could actually see her loosing to Christie. 
Possible Democratic Reagans:
Elizabeth Warren
Tammy Baldwin
Kyrsten Sinema
Van Jones (maybe when Pelosi retires he can run for her seat)
Ben Lujan

Boy, I can't wait for 2020

If you REALLY want to get technical, Reagan was an actor from a liberal state who got involved in politics. Besides Al Franken, do we have someone like that?

[ShadowRocket]

The only thing that complicates this a bit is Hillary, though I could actually see her loosing to Christie. 
Possible Democratic Reagans:
Elizabeth Warren
Tammy Baldwin
Kyrsten Sinema
Van Jones (maybe when Pelosi retires he can run for her seat)
Ben Lujan

Boy, I can't wait for 2020

If he challenges Walker and wins, I could see a Russ Feingold being another possibility.

[Peter the Lefty]

Oh boy, that'd also be great.  I wish we could de-age Bernie Sanders 10 or 15 years.  But Feingold would also be awesome, as would any of those others.

[Nichlemn]

lol at "historical parallels". Most of this stuff consists of focusing on a few points of similarities between two Presidents, ignoring the vast number of differences and concluding you have some kind of predictive power as a result.

[Antonio the Sixth]

lol at "historical parallels". Most of this stuff consists of focusing on a few points of similarities between two Presidents, ignoring the vast number of differences and concluding you have some kind of predictive power as a result.

It's not really the Presidents themselves that are the focus, but rather their impact on the ideological consensus prevailing in the country. Nobody is denying "the vast number of differences", it's just that the scope of the comparison is a very precise one.

[Skill and Chance]

So under this scenario could the next three presidents be:

45. Chris Christie 2017-2021
46. Elizabeth Warren 2021-2029
47. Michael Bennet 2029-2033

Hmmm, I want to try!

45. Marco Rubio 2017-2021
46. Cory Booker 2021-2029
47. Lisa Madigan 2029-2033

Or if Obama is in the Reagan position:

45. Hillary Clinton 2017-2021
46. Susana Martinez 2021-2029
47. Steve Bullock 2029-2037

Clinton as a one-termer might seem strange, but I could see her (or any D) being especially vulnerable come 2020.

[morgieb]

My guesses:

2017-2021: Last breath of a dying tradition, but one that's more outsidery and has a vague moderate reformist view (dunno here, I suppose Sandoval could work?)
2021-2029: Liz Warren (diehard liberal, defies tradition of being too extremist due to her charisma and the failures of a previous president, etc.
2029-2033: Someone more moderate but still on your side and has a lot of good Washington experience (someone said Bennet, this works IMO)

After that it gets trickier due to a lack of candidates by this stage. Does the 2040-2048 president become Chelsea Clinton?

[Indy Prez]

After that it gets trickier due to a lack of candidates by this stage. Does the 2040-2048 president become Chelsea Clinton?

Malia Obama. She was born on the 4th of July. Nuff said.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why are Americans so obsessed with political dynasties? I never understood that. It's so blatantly undemocratic in its spirit...

[pbrower2a]

Here's the 80-year cycle with Howe and Schwartz. Begin with the times most covered in K-12 history books -- the Crises that force transformation into about every aspect of life. The old way of life becomes untenable. The economy often goes into a tailspin. Weak leadership in charge at the start of the Crisis Era is discredited for its failures as the political order polarizes on lines of region, religion, ethnicity, and social class. Such times are the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution and Constitutional Crisis, the Civil War, and the Great Depression/Second World War. Those are dangerous times, and a country that handles them well (like the US in WWII) can come out much more powerful, more prosperous, and more unified. A country that handles them badly (like Germany during the same time) can have its political order shattered, can be put at the complete mercy of the victors, and can become an object of shame and ridicule with its Crisis-era leaders facing severe retribution. Privileged classes connected too closely to the losing side may be dispossessed. Children of the time grow up timid and sensitive, generally being told to keep out of the way (examples in politics: Teddy Roosevelt, MLK. Mass culture? John Philip Sousa, Elvis Presley).

It's hard to see any single leader of the American Revolution (until George Washington at its end). Abraham Lincoln and FDR are definitive examples of the sorts of leaders who do particularly well in Crises.

The Crisis ends and the universe solidifies quickly. People try to live lives as normal as possible. The political leadership of the time is especially cautious. Much work exists to either pick up the pieces of the Crisis (if it went badly) or create a new era of prosperity. Politicians of the time eschew new debt and try to reduce it, if necessary through high taxes. Economic inequality reaches a low point as about anyone who works full time gets a solid living. Men rule, and women tend to go back to the kitchen and the church with their children. Typical leaders are conservatives  who endorse the status quo -- often Hero generals such as Washington, Grant, or Eisenhower.  This "High" is decidedly a material, conformist time.   Kids growing up then get increasing freedom and eventually  challenge the bland assumptions of the time. Political figures born in such a time are big moralizers, whether Abraham Lincoln or Karl Rove. Figures of mass culture born in such a time: Scott Joplin, Janis Joplin.

Eventually the kids born after the end of the Crisis who have no idea of how risky it can be to think outside the box start challenging the bland, materialist, male-chauvinist culture during an Awakening Era that begins about twenty years after the end of the Crisis. Daring heresies and new religions appear on the scene. Young adults extend their childhood only to neglect the small children. Opiates and hallucinogens proliferate. Political figures of the time were often soldiers in a Crisis Era -- McKinley, Ford, Carter. Industrial labor becomes unfashionable, and small-business formation weakens. The economy begins to falter toward the end of the era. Kids born during this time often end up cynical and hedonistic -- and with little use for any Voyage to the Interior. Political leaders born in such a time can grow up as monsters (most Wild West outlaws, European fascists and Stalinist enforcers, gangsters of the Prohibition era) -- or, more wholesomely as figures who become increasingly cautious and conservative with age (John Adams, Harry Truman). Figures of mass culture born in such a time: Mark Twain, Groucho Marx.

Intellectual crazes drift into pure hedonism as the Awakening Era becomes an Unraveling Era about forty years after the end of the Crisis. People want to make money and enjoy it. But they underinvest. Jobs that used to provide a solid living in return for hard toil tend to vanish. Real wages stagnate or even fall. Economic inequality intensifies. People want the political figures to get out of the way as libertarian 'solutions' reach their peak of attractiveness. Political leaders toward the end are awful as economic and political institutions degenerate (think of the forgettable figures of Colonial America in the 1750s and 1760s, Fillmore/Pierce/Buchanan, Harding/Coolidge/Hoover, and George W. Bush*).  Scandals proliferate. The children of the time react to the increasing disorder by becoming more collegial. They make good soldiers if called upon, as with America's Revolutionary-era soldiers and its Greatest Generation. Political figures growing up in such times include Thomas Jefferson and John F. Kennedy. Figures of mass culture born into such a time include Walt Disney and Glenn Miller.

As the economic system falters, a new Crisis Era begins about sixty years after the last one ended. The cycle returns.

*George W. Bush may be the worst President in American history for combining the corruption of Harding, the endorsement of Coolidge-like corporate supremacy, and the economic malfeasance of Herbert Hoover with an unprecedented war for his glory. There's much ambiguity on whether Barack Obama is a Boomer pol or a Generation X pol. FDR was born around such a generational divide, too.     

[BaldEagle1991]

Why are Americans so obsessed with political dynasties? I never understood that. It's so blatantly undemocratic in its spirit...