Will Barack Obama be remembered as the Democrats' Nixon?

[Knives]

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

How on earth is it undemocratic?

[lincolnwall]

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

How on earth is it undemocratic?

Because the American system was founded in opposition to the dynastic political systems of Europe at the time. It was designed so that anyone could rise to political prominence based on their politics, not their family connections. Political dynasties are undemocratic because they favor those who have (often) undeserved name recognition.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

How on earth is it undemocratic?

Because the American system was founded in opposition to the dynastic political systems of Europe at the time. It was designed so that anyone could rise to political prominence based on their politics, not their family connections. Political dynasties are undemocratic because they favor those who have (often) undeserved name recognition.

Couldn't have said it better.

Note that if a dynasty politician happens to be a great politician (see FDR, Ted Kennedy, etc.), but some people seem to see a famous last name as a positive in and of itself.

[Devils30]

I think there are many similarities to the 70s but don't forget that if watergate doesnt happen, the GOP likely wins in 1976. Something similar could occur with Dems holding WH in 2016.

[pbrower2a]

The obvious analogue to this decade is the 1930s. History tends to repeat, more or less, about every 80 years due to the extinction of memory of the oldest adults. It's not perfect; we will not be fighting a war against the British for independence, we won't have a civil war over slavery, and the chance of war between the US and either Germany or Japan is nil.

Dubya was a horrible President, the sort who appeals to mass greed and materialism but eventually betrays both through incompetent stewardship of the economy (much like the combination of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover if those three kept us out of costly wars, but telescoping twelve years of political disaster into eight). Even the Enrob scandal is about an 80-year parallel to Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s, and the novel Babbitt fit the Double-Zero Decade as it fit no other decade since the 1920s.   The economic meltdown that began in the autumn of 2007 resembles the first year-and-a-half of the economic meltdown that began in September 1929.

http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/markets/TotalReturn/4-bad-bears.gif

Barack Obama saved the anatomies of a huge number of people in 2009 just as FDR did in 1933 -- except that Barack Obama got a start at the needed turnaround in the equivalent of March 1931. It may be blasphemous to compare Barack Obama to FDR or Lincoln yet -- but just think of what President Obama has read most about and insists that people read more about. 

[patd25]

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

Actually, Chris Christie is too competent and isn't in the Nixon/Reagan coalition area, so he's unlikely as the Republican's Carter.

[Frodo]

If President Obama goes ahead with a military strike on Syria without congressional approval, does anyone here see an impeachment effort gaining steam -and not just in the House? 

And with all the attention (thanks to Brad Manning and Ed Snowden) being given to federal government surveillance, will we be seeing a 21st century equivalent of the Frank Church Committee investigating the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA for illegal intelligence gathering? 

[barfbag]

He should be after Benghazi.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No, Obama isn't nearly as corrupt, dishonest, or just plain evil as Nixon.

[ElectionsGuy]

No, Obama isn't nearly as corrupt, dishonest, or just plain evil as Nixon.

He's equally if not more dishonest, almost as corrupt. I'm being generous here.

[hopper]

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?  

Scalia and Thomas are conservatives. Kennedy is a Moderate idealogically but he mostly sides with the conservatives justices. They aren't gonna cancel Planned Parenthood if that's what you are implying.

[hopper]

If President Obama goes ahead with a military strike on Syria without congressional approval, does anyone here see an impeachment effort gaining steam -and not just in the House?  

And with all the attention (thanks to Brad Manning and Ed Snowden) being given to federal government surveillance, will we be seeing a 21st century equivalent of the Frank Church Committee investigating the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA for illegal intelligence gathering?  

Obama isn't gonna be impeached nor is congress gonna vote on his impeachment. Obama did the same thing with Libya that he is gonna do with Syria in that he doesn't need congressional approval for missle strikes.

[Frodo]

If President Obama goes ahead with a military strike on Syria without congressional approval, does anyone here see an impeachment effort gaining steam -and not just in the House?  

And with all the attention (thanks to Brad Manning and Ed Snowden) being given to federal government surveillance, will we be seeing a 21st century equivalent of the Frank Church Committee investigating the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA for illegal intelligence gathering?  

Obama isn't gonna be impeached nor is congress gonna vote on his impeachment. Obama did the same thing with Libya that he is gonna do with Syria in that he doesn't need congressional approval for missle strikes.

Really?  Even if he seeks congressional approval, and failing to get it, he goes ahead with his aerial assault on the Syrian regime anyway? 

[Blue3]

According to the WPA, the President can authorize any military strike as long as the operation ends within (is it 30?) days.

[Gass3268]

No, Obama isn't nearly as corrupt, dishonest, or just plain evil as Nixon.

He's equally if not more dishonest, almost as corrupt. I'm being generous here.

trololololol

[H. Ross Peron]

Using the Generational Cycle...

Theodore Roosevelt=Ronald Reagan
William Howard Taft=George HW Bush
Woodrow Wilson=Bill Clinton
Warren G Harding/Calvin Coolidge=George W Bush

This kind of breaks down when we get to Obama however...

[barfbag]

He might still become the new Jimmy Carter of their party. Nixon and Obama both have a list of enemies though.

[HansOslo]

First of all, I don’t agree with the premises of the question.  That the 1970s and 1980s are somehow going to repeat themselves the other way around, with Obama being Nixon and some other Democrat down the line being Reagan. I don’t think it works that way.

Second of all, I don’t think Nixon created the modern day Republican coalition. The Nixon coalition originated from the coalition Eisenhower created, consisting of the three stools (Anticommunists, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives).  Just as the Obama coalition isn’t new either, just a continuation of the Clinton Coalition (minus the Appalachians).

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Using the Generational Cycle...

Theodore Roosevelt=Ronald Reagan
William Howard Taft=George HW Bush
Woodrow Wilson=Bill Clinton
Warren G Harding/Calvin Coolidge=George W Bush

This kind of breaks down when we get to Obama however...

Here's a slightly better one:

Washington=FDR=Reagan
Adams=Truman=41
Jefferson=Eisenhower=Clinton
Madison=Kennedy=Bush
Monroe=Johnson=Bush
Q=Nixon=Obama

[Person Man]

The worst case for Obama's legacy is that he got lucky and that Republicans, like their donors, are very good at handling people and that the Ds will be stuck in a half dozen heavily populated or educated interstate corridors  (DC/Baltimore, Boston/Berkshires/Vermont, NYC/Philly, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco/Bay Area and Seattle/Portland) and that it could be decades and many major disasters before the Democrats have form of sustained popularity or power.   Think Cleveland (who was only competitive because he was a DINO) or Clinton (who only won because 2 Republicans ran at the same time).


The worst worst case scenario is that America is approaching its end-game and that the structure of the end-game is such that  that the Democrats will not play a major role in it except to find a lifeboat off the Titanic or to complain about it. This is worth mentioning but I think we will all be very surprised if this starts to undeniably happen while any of us are still around.

He's probably not going to be Jimmy Carter because 1) he has proven at least more politically competent and 2) Jimmy Carter basically finished what Vietnam started in taking the Democrats from a credible party to one that is not. Arguably, the Democrats did not have the same reputation to lose in 2008 that they did in 1976.

The most likely and best "bad" case scenario and probably the most likely scenario is that Obama is simply the face of what America is to become but the average person isn't ready to fully embrace that yet. The foreclosures and wars simply wasn't a big enough game changer, but it got the ball running. Maybe the last 10 years were more like the 60s and 70s than the 20s? Not enough to make the Democrats the cool kids, but enough to make them acceptable.

And of course the best case scenario is that people are truly convinced that the Republicans have ruined this country, like they did in 1929 and that the Democrats will have the answers and as a result have several decades of popularity to come.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Transformative on terms of the voting rights act of 1964. Not on terms of economic well being of minimum skilled workers.

[barfbag]

Why such a debate over which presidents are comparable based on maps and trends?

[roadkill]

Here's the thing about Obama's legacy.  To political scientist and such, he'll probably end up just ahead of the curve, probably around the 20 spot.  To historians, maybe a little higher to around the 15 spot.  BUT ... to the populous as a whole, we're probably looking at Obama being in the top 5 for at least the next 20 to 30 years, probably longer.  He'll probably be ranked as the greatest modern President for a good part of that.  There's no doubt that there will be schools and streets and such named after him, that he'll be a very popular ex-President, and when he dies it'll probably surpass the kind of attention in scope and size that Reagan got.  In a hundred years and more, he'll probably be one of the few Presidents that the general public will be able to name from this area.

[PolitiJunkie]

Here's the thing about Obama's legacy.  To political scientist and such, he'll probably end up just ahead of the curve, probably around the 20 spot.  To historians, maybe a little higher to around the 15 spot.  BUT ... to the populous as a whole, we're probably looking at Obama being in the top 5 for at least the next 20 to 30 years, probably longer.  He'll probably be ranked as the greatest modern President for a good part of that.  There's no doubt that there will be schools and streets and such named after him, that he'll be a very popular ex-President, and when he dies it'll probably surpass the kind of attention in scope and size that Reagan got.  In a hundred years and more, he'll probably be one of the few Presidents that the general public will be able to name from this area.

Good analysis. It's easy to assume Obama will be unpopular for good because he is so polarizing right now, but people have to keep in mind that Harry Truman, for example, had horrendously low approval ratings for the better portion of his presidency and is now ranked in the top 5. Eisenhower is another example of a President to whom history has been very kind. I agree with the general sentiment that Obama is "Nixon done right," in that he assembled a winning political coalition based on the fastest growing groups while also picking up other groups, has an antagonistic relationship with a radicalized opposition party, and is a polarizing figure. Had Watergate never happened and Nixon finished his presidency, I have no doubt he'd be a very popular figure right now as well.

[Asian Nazi]

If nothing else, random people in the future will probably be able to identify him as the first African American President.