We've heard an awful lot of talk about second term "curses", that second terms are usually "less gratifying" than the first. I find this to be yet another tiresome media fed meme that doesn't really mean very much. Happily, the Obama Administration doesn't seem to be listening.
For the record, as we saw in a post I wrote yesterday, there is, of course, no "second term curse." You do have some Presidents who have had terrible second terms-Nixon and George W. Bush come to mind. However, although the Very Serious People pushing this meme often claim that Clinton and Reagan also had "less gratifying" second terms, I think there's some false equivalence here. What happened to Reagan was that a very popular President saw a good deal of his lustre shaken off, yet, for all that, he maintained approval ratings in the mid 50s and saw his VP win a landslide running on his coattails.
Clinton as well, suffered from scandal-in his case, personal scandal what was really none of Anyone's business, but this is what happened. Yet, what's interesting with him, is his popularity actually increased, the more the GOP tied up Congressional time on this frivolous matter. And during his second term we had the longest peacetime expansion ever. So it wasn't really a "cursed" 2nd term.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/01/its-official-president-sworn-in-for.html
Obama actually comes in to his second term in a far stronger position than certainly Bush-whose popularity had been on a steady freefall since topping out over 90% after 9/11. He had managed to stay over 50% going into the 2004 election. However by the end of his second term he'd hit Nixon's numbers in the mid 20s.
As corrupt as Nixon was, it was only a matter of time till he imploded. Reagan was very popular but got dragged down by Iran-Contra. Obama's one big edge over Clinton is he's not a philanderer whose dalliances are so ripe for an irresponsible scandal mongering opposition.
What's heartening is that we've seen the President operate as if he knows he has a mandate-however the pundits may quibble with the term. He has two victories under his belt with the cliff and the debt ceiling and is going big with gun control and promising immigration reform.
Especially heartening are the suggestions we are getting from the Administration that he will go big this time, and seek to redefine the possible as well as simply bow to it:
Amid his fiscal negotiations with Congress and the shootings in Newtown, Conn., President Obama has managed to hold several “think-big” meetings recently with senior advisers in the Roosevelt Room, and this month he dined with historians in the White House, searching for a rough road map for second-term leadership.
As one senior administration official described the brainstorming sessions, Obama has made a request that challenges the instinctive pragmatism he has shown in office.
Let’s not focus on what’s possible or doable,” Obama has advised, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions. “Tell me what our goal should be, and let me worry about the politics.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-developing-second-term-strategy/2013/01/20/2bfd7178-60c1-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html?hpid=z3
There is certainly a lot of capital to be spent. Yes, I'm as well aware of anyone of the obstructionist nature of the GOP. Yet this may not matter. In the end, to the extent that they have any survival instincts at all-and from what we've seen on the cliff deal, Sandy relief, and the debt ceiling, at least some of them do-Bill Kristol will be proven right and the GOP will have to compromise with Obama much more than they think-certainly more than they did in the first term.
The trajectory of successful legalisation is clear. Start with the White House working with the Senate. Then have the legislation rammed through the House-the winning margin in the House will be the Democrats voting more or less unanimously while picking off enough more mainstream or realistic GOP support to get it over the goal line.
Wash, rinse, repeat. To survive, Boehner may have to channel more Tip O'Neil and less Newt Gingrich
P.S. Another difference between Obama and Clinton is that Clinton's era was a more conservative era. He won by being a "New Democrat" and conservatism was more on the upswing. Now we've had 8 years of Bush and the worst economic crisis since the Depression. Reaganism had it's day. But that day seems to have ended.
It looks like Clinton's "end of welfare as we know it" was the end of the forward conservative thrust in cutting government. What they've tried since hasn't worked-going frontally after the heart of the New Deal itself-SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.
No comments:
Post a Comment