Only Time Will Tell..

I think George Packer's combination of reported article and review essay on the state of conservatism is clearly your big think political must-read of the week. I think he completely sums a take on things I share when I'm in a good mood, and advances the ball significantly in terms of fleshing that take out. You need to read and understand and think about this article.

But this morning I'm in a bad mood.

So in a bad mood, one wonders if it didn't feel this way in 1976 -- or even more so in January of 1977. Conservatism triumphant, yet unmoored from principle in the figure of Richard Nixon, then brought into a disgrace from which the more moderate Gerald Ford couldn't solve it. A new president from the outside promising change, and a new bumper crop of "watergate class" members of congress ready to shake things up. But it all went to shit. I am, personally, an apologist for the Carter administration which I think was doing good things and got torpedoed by an unfortunate combination of objective reality (oil shocks, the need to curb inflation) and blinkered behavior by congressional leaders. Others read those events the other way 'round and see Carter as brought down by his deficiencies. You could even push the analogy further by considering the looming shadow of the Kennedy family and its circle of retainers, convinced that they deserve to rule and more interested in seizing the mantle than in cooperating to make a success out of the Carter administration.

So I dunno. Maybe none of that will happen. Certainly it would be bizarre for history to repeat itself precisely, so doubtless some of it won't happen. But I'll be ready to write the conservative movement's epitaph when (a) Barack Obama is inaugurated, and (b) Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid enact some stuff with more lasting impact than the meager results of 1977-80 or 1993-4. There's real reason to believe a congressional party much less dependent on the votes of white south moderates will, in fact, be able to deliver more. But I'll believe it when I see it. I think it's very plausible to imagine a conservative movement that's still strong enough to frustrate progressives' main legislative goals, force Democrats to unilaterally make the tough moves to get the fiscal situation in control, and then once that's done return to power on a new platform of tax cuts for rich people.

Comments

i'll get to packer's essay, but let me note: the "conservatism" of richard nixon was not the conservatism of ronald reagan (indeed, reagan almost snatched the nomination from nixon in '68, which is why we had a southern strategy in the first place), and no, in 1976 (speaking as one who is there), it did not feel like some new dawn in which conservatism had been broken.

which takes us to the more significant point: i too am open-minded about carter, but nonetheless, the thing about reagan in 1980 is that everyone - friend or foe - knew exactly what he stood for: lower taxes, higher defense spending, lower discretionary domestic spending, harder line internationally, right-wing judges. the movement in support of that had been building up a head of steam for 16 years.

what are obama's equivalents? can you (or anyone) tell me the handful of simple slogans with strong policy implications that obama stands for?

and that's why when i talk about obama, i'm happy to note his upside, which is considerable, but i'm also forced to note his downside, which is to end up in a carter-like situation....

Posted by howard | May 20, 2008 12:41 PM

Here Here.

How come Bill Kristol is the one with the New York Times column and not you?

Posted by Marshall | May 20, 2008 12:46 PM

As long as Democrats in any region of the nation have to cater to all the fat, toothless, holy-roller, illiterate bigots with Klan members in the family photo album there won't be Congressional success on a progressive agenda. Obama's "goober" rant was so spot on I had to applaud, but of course anything lacking the requisite PC content gets you crucified these days. Oh well.....

Posted by steve duncan | May 20, 2008 12:47 PM

And let us not forget that the conservatives will be fueled by Obama's failure to end the war or to keep any of his significant campaign promises.
His only real accomplishment will be to raise taxes and fees on an already dispirited middle class while overseeing a decline in their standard of living.
Obama, in his hectoring lectures about Americans eating too much of the wrong food, etc., already sounds like Carter and his thermostats and sweaters. Can we spell L O S E R?
As for the "progressive" program, fortunately there will be no money for Obama's expansion of the nanny state. He'll nibble around the edges of problems, you know like the hated Bill was reduced to?, and find himself in the crossfire between competeing Dem power blocs.
Guess what? To try and get anything real accomplished Obama will triangulate and govern from the center but his inexperience and habit of lying to suit the political occasion will in the end bring him low. That and the utter disdain he'll feel from the right and half the center.
I know that come Feb 8 2009 I'll be protesting Hussein's failure to bring the first full Iraq battalion home. And the same on March 8.
What will Matt's whine then amount to?

Posted by JTHB | May 20, 2008 12:51 PM

I know this is off-topic, but something big must have just happened - Obama's delegate count over at CNN just jumped from 1909 to 1923 in the space of a couple minutes. Did a whole slew of them just declare? Can't seem to find any info online.

Posted by Tel | May 20, 2008 12:55 PM

His only real accomplishment will be to raise taxes and fees on an already dispirited middle class while overseeing a decline in their standard of living.

Look everybody! It's a lying right-wing troll!

Posted by goethean | May 20, 2008 12:59 PM

Dear Fellow Americans,

Our Great-grand Nation, the United States of America
is facing and will face very critical and substantial
"Challenges" in coming, months, years, and next
decade[s].

It is very essential as well as critical that we pick
our next
President keeping in mind the following criteria.

1. A candidate who has a clear and candid " Vision
and Mission" for our Nation.

2. A candidate with " Strong Character and Stable
Integrity" in-spite of adversity during our present
election process.

3. A candidate with sound and sustained
"Presidential Temperament" and " Judgment".

4. A candidate with little "Washington exposure"
and "real connectedness with people and future
generation".

5. A candidate who "Inspires us up" rather than
"Tears us Down".

6. A candidate not based on sexism,
racism,regionalism,and ageism and as well as “
attempts to bring us together “

In my professional, political and personal opinion,
the only candidate that meets the all above
characteristics and has shown constant and consistent
coolness, calmness, and connectedness { PRESIDENTIAL
TEMPERAMENT } is Senator Barrack Obama.

As an independent registered voter since 1980. I voted
for Carter, voted for Reagan, voted for First Bush,
and second Bush in 2000 and In the process last
interest in Washington politics and I stopped voting.
Getting disinterested and disgusted in our political
process and stopping voting that was a very bad
decision in any circumstance, particularly under
present circumstances.

This time we can not afford to stay on side lines and
let "Washington" stay the same.We can not afford our
Greatgreat Nation to become less than what we are,
what we were and what we can be?

We need to send clear, careful and candid message to
the world and some time 24 hour partisan divisive
media,
that WE the American people will set the agenda for
our future and America will be back.

These partisan media outlets are trying to deprive,
dupe, and derail us and our Nation in getting it right
this time. We not let it happen this time or in
future.

Some of these partisan media and pundits are trying
their best
to deny us better future and continue focus our
weaknesses and generate bitter future for us and our
Greatgrand Nation. { Our Greatgrand Nations people
are persistently and constantly subjected to this
Psychological Terrorism" without common people’s
knowledge. The
common and regular people do not have time to see
thru and sort thru this psychological terrorism
perpetuated
by some of these partisan media outlets. I find it
tragic, unfortunate, and sad [ Probably they do not
care about our Greatgrand Nation ].

We the Americans should not and would not to allow
Some these partisan media outlets psychologically
terrorized, traumatized and silence us this time or
any time in future.

I am sure that we will get it right this
time and elect Senator Obama our next President.

Let us remember that our Greatgrand is constituted of
family, friends,fellowships, faith, funds,foundation,
fun, and future with fairness and freedom and without
fear, favor, or failure .

We can not afford to lose any of above. Let us stand
up, be counted, save, build our Greatgrand Nation for
centuries to come and regain our world economic,
moral, and power status back.

God Bless our Great grand Nation and its diverse
people.

Our Greatgrand nation needs present and future
stability, security, safety,sustained progress and
restoration of our due status in this perilous Global
World at the all levels.

Yours sincerely,

COL.[retd] A.M.Khajawall M.D.
Forensic Psychiatrist.
Disables American Veteran.
Las Vegas Nevada.
Cell: 951-505-6975

Posted by COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall MD | May 20, 2008 1:05 PM

Boo effing hoo. If Obama can't do better than Carter, then maybe we really will tip down the Spenglerian slope of former awesomeness rendered sclerotic and culturally senile. Then there's the fact that anyone who lives in two-lane-highway America seems to believe that Obama's a Muslim. But maybe we should welcome if necessary the vision of John McCain looking down Pennsylvania Avenue into a sea of legislative blue. Like, whatever. Why even try to second-guess the Great Card Sharp in the sky? You gotta just keep fighting the good fight and hope your St. Crispin's Day comes in.

Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will--I think a commie said that once whilst rotting in jail....

Posted by elle loco | May 20, 2008 1:05 PM

Dear Fellow Americans,

Our Great-grand Nation, the United States of America
is facing and will face very critical and substantial
"Challenges" in coming, months, years, and next
decade[s].

It is very essential as well as critical that we pick
our next
President keeping in mind the following criteria.

1. A candidate who has a clear and candid " Vision
and Mission" for our Nation.

2. A candidate with " Strong Character and Stable
Integrity" in-spite of adversity during our present
election process.

3. A candidate with sound and sustained
"Presidential Temperament" and " Judgment".

4. A candidate with little "Washington exposure"
and "real connectedness with people and future
generation".

5. A candidate who "Inspires us up" rather than
"Tears us Down".

6. A candidate not based on sexism,
racism,regionalism,and ageism and as well as “
attempts to bring us together “

In my professional, political and personal opinion,
the only candidate that meets the all above
characteristics and has shown constant and consistent
coolness, calmness, and connectedness { PRESIDENTIAL
TEMPERAMENT } is Senator Barrack Obama.

As an independent registered voter since 1980. I voted
for Carter, voted for Reagan, voted for First Bush,
and second Bush in 2000 and In the process last
interest in Washington politics and I stopped voting.
Getting disinterested and disgusted in our political
process and stopping voting that was a very bad
decision in any circumstance, particularly under
present circumstances.

This time we can not afford to stay on side lines and
let "Washington" stay the same.We can not afford our
Greatgreat Nation to become less than what we are,
what we were and what we can be?

We need to send clear, careful and candid message to
the world and some time 24 hour partisan divisive
media,
that WE the American people will set the agenda for
our future and America will be back.

These partisan media outlets are trying to deprive,
dupe, and derail us and our Nation in getting it right
this time. We not let it happen this time or in
future.

Some of these partisan media and pundits are trying
their best
to deny us better future and continue focus our
weaknesses and generate bitter future for us and our
Greatgrand Nation. { Our Greatgrand Nations people
are persistently and constantly subjected to this
Psychological Terrorism" without common people’s
knowledge. The
common and regular people do not have time to see
thru and sort thru this psychological terrorism
perpetuated
by some of these partisan media outlets. I find it
tragic, unfortunate, and sad [ Probably they do not
care about our Greatgrand Nation ].

We the Americans should not and would not to allow
Some these partisan media outlets psychologically
terrorized, traumatized and silence us this time or
any time in future.

I am sure that we will get it right this
time and elect Senator Obama our next President.

Let us remember that our Greatgrand is constituted of
family, friends,fellowships, faith, funds,foundation,
fun, and future with fairness and freedom and without
fear, favor, or failure .

We can not afford to lose any of above. Let us stand
up, be counted, save, build our Greatgrand Nation for
centuries to come and regain our world economic,
moral, and power status back.

God Bless our Great grand Nation and its diverse
people.

Our Greatgrand nation needs present and future
stability, security, safety,sustained progress and
restoration of our due status in this perilous Global
World at the all levels.

Yours sincerely,

COL.[retd] A.M.Khajawall M.D.
Forensic Psychiatrist.
Disables American Veteran.
Las Vegas Nevada.
Cell: 951-505-6975

Posted by COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall MD | May 20, 2008 1:06 PM

Those southern Democrats were fucking us over since Reconstruction. Between 1994 and 2004 Republicans picked most of them off. And in 2006 we picked off fake Republican moderates. So now we have a real party, and we're going to have power. We've got a bright future coming. I bet we gain seats in 2010. There is just incredible energy for progressives right now. The Obama campaign has proved that (Clinton's too, in a way).

I was all for Clinton's sound budget management in the 1990s. The surplus demonstrated that we could afford the social policies Democrats favor. But all it got us in the end was tax cuts for rich people. So this time, fuck that. Spend like crazy. Let the Republicans be the fiscally responsible party for a change.

Posted by Chris | May 20, 2008 1:07 PM

"As for the "progressive" program, fortunately there will be no money for Obama's expansion of the nanny state."

So where exactly is the money for the war? Oh right, it's borrowed. My kids will be paying for it. JTHB demonstrates exactly why the GOP has maneuvered itself into electoral oblivion: bitter, mean and ignorant are not appealing. The conservative movement has been all about "can't." We don't have the money for that. Governement shouldn't be involved in that (unless it's hectoring gay people). We can't solve foreign policy problems through without violence.

We won't know how successful Obama will be until he actually gets to govern. We do know how successful conservative governance has been because we've all been living with it since 1981, and that is not successful at all. Conservatism is a spent force because it failed. Miserably.

Posted by pinson | May 20, 2008 1:07 PM

Dear Fellow Americans,

Our Great-grand Nation, the United States of America
is facing and will face very critical and substantial
"Challenges" in coming, months, years, and next
decade[s].

It is very essential as well as critical that we pick
our next
President keeping in mind the following criteria.

1. A candidate who has a clear and candid " Vision
and Mission" for our Nation.

2. A candidate with " Strong Character and Stable
Integrity" in-spite of adversity during our present
election process.

3. A candidate with sound and sustained
"Presidential Temperament" and " Judgment".

4. A candidate with little "Washington exposure"
and "real connectedness with people and future
generation".

5. A candidate who "Inspires us up" rather than
"Tears us Down".

6. A candidate not based on sexism,
racism,regionalism,and ageism and as well as “
attempts to bring us together “

In my professional, political and personal opinion,
the only candidate that meets the all above
characteristics and has shown constant and consistent
coolness, calmness, and connectedness { PRESIDENTIAL
TEMPERAMENT } is Senator Barrack Obama.

As an independent registered voter since 1980. I voted
for Carter, voted for Reagan, voted for First Bush,
and second Bush in 2000 and In the process last
interest in Washington politics and I stopped voting.
Getting disinterested and disgusted in our political
process and stopping voting that was a very bad
decision in any circumstance, particularly under
present circumstances.

This time we can not afford to stay on side lines and
let "Washington" stay the same.We can not afford our
Greatgreat Nation to become less than what we are,
what we were and what we can be?

We need to send clear, careful and candid message to
the world and some time 24 hour partisan divisive
media,
that WE the American people will set the agenda for
our future and America will be back.

These partisan media outlets are trying to deprive,
dupe, and derail us and our Nation in getting it right
this time. We not let it happen this time or in
future.

Some of these partisan media and pundits are trying
their best
to deny us better future and continue focus our
weaknesses and generate bitter future for us and our
Greatgrand Nation. { Our Greatgrand Nations people
are persistently and constantly subjected to this
Psychological Terrorism" without common people’s
knowledge. The
common and regular people do not have time to see
thru and sort thru this psychological terrorism
perpetuated
by some of these partisan media outlets. I find it
tragic, unfortunate, and sad [ Probably they do not
care about our Greatgrand Nation ].

We the Americans should not and would not to allow
Some these partisan media outlets psychologically
terrorized, traumatized and silence us this time or
any time in future.

I am sure that we will get it right this
time and elect Senator Obama our next President.

Let us remember that our Greatgrand is constituted of
family, friends,fellowships, faith, funds,foundation,
fun, and future with fairness and freedom and without
fear, favor, or failure .

We can not afford to lose any of above. Let us stand
up, be counted, save, build our Greatgrand Nation for
centuries to come and regain our world economic,
moral, and power status back.

God Bless our Great grand Nation and its diverse
people.

Our Greatgrand nation needs present and future
stability, security, safety,sustained progress and
restoration of our due status in this perilous Global
World at the all levels.

Yours sincerely,

COL.[retd] A.M.Khajawall M.D.
Forensic Psychiatrist.
Disables American Veteran.
Las Vegas Nevada.
Cell: 951-505-6975

Posted by COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall MD | May 20, 2008 1:08 PM

Assuming the 2008 election looks like 2006, the key determinant will be the 2010 midterms. I am basically assuming the GOP will indeed keep playing obstructionist games. So whether the public rewards or punished them for doing so in 2010 will tell you where the public stands.

Posted by DTM | May 20, 2008 1:16 PM

I just don't see this analogy...

I started high school in the fall of 1976...Vietnam, as much as Watergate, was on everyone's mind...And Vietnam was considered a bi-partisan disaster...The 1976 election was very close, and Carter ran a great campaign to pull it off..."Inflation", and the failure to "whip it", plus a slow economy, blamed on Republicans, probably did more than Watergate to turn the election to Carter...

There wasn't the deep and broad disgust with Republicans and the President (Ford) then (1976) as there is now...And that disgust is deepening and widening...Housing-foreclosure, inflation (food prices), fuel-prices, recession, retirement-savings-falling, Iraq, you name it, are continuing to get worse with no end in sight -- the Republicans are tied to all of this...

If anything, I'm hoping things are closer to 1980 election (in reverse) --- people were (to their credit) afraid of Reagan all through the summer, and into the fall, and it was only in mid-to-late October that the dam broke and we ended up losing all those senators (Church, Bayh, Culver, McGovern, Magnuson, Nelson, on and on)...

As for Packer, the guy masquerades as reasonable, when he's a hack...No question about it...I gave up on this clown on 16-February-2004, when he wrote: "President Bush has given a number of speeches in support of global democracy, and they have been some of his finest."...I'm going to waste my time reading this guy?...For shit like that?...Please...Nothing Packer writes is a must read...Nothing.

Posted by Fred Bellemore | May 20, 2008 1:17 PM

But this morning I'm in a bad mood. So in a bad mood, one wonders if it didn't feel this way in 1976

I'm nearly always in a bad mood about American politics.

Americans are disgusted with Republicans right now, mostly because of Bush/Cheney extremism and dishonesty, but also because of assorted other recent GOP extremism and dishonesty. So they're going to elect Democrats this year. As Matt says, this has happened before. Americans got disgusted with the GOP's Great Depression and elected FDR. They got disgusted with Nixon/Ford dishonesty and elected Carter. But America is a rightwing country; so American voters went right back to Eisenhower and Reagan. America is a rightwing country because it is a military and financial empire that dominates the world, and in that respect it represents the strong dominating the weak - which is the essence of rightwing conservatism. America is also a rightwing country because of its British heritage, since before us, Britain was the rightwing military and financial empire that dominated the world. America is also a rightwing country because of its recent barbaric, frontier status, which continued until only one hundred years ago. In contrast, France's frontier status ended two thousand years ago.

So we'll elect Obama and an overwhelmingly Democratic congress this year. But in my opinion, it's another one-time opportunity. Four years from now or eight years from now, American voters will go right back to electing the most macho idiots they can find.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 20, 2008 1:18 PM

Dear Fellow Posters,

I will either not read your post, or mock it mercilessly, if it is both excessively long and posted repeatedly.

Yours sincerely,

Tel

Posted by Tel | May 20, 2008 1:23 PM

I just hope we can finally get switched over to the frickin' metric system.

Posted by mark | May 20, 2008 1:25 PM

It is time all of you realize that the Republican and Democrat parties have been hijacked. The Repulican party is controlled by the far right and the Democrat party is controlled by the far left. Either way is extremism adn does not represent the views of the average American.

Posted by Stewart | May 20, 2008 1:27 PM

It's also important to remember the Cold War framing of both Carter's decline and Reagan's triumph. The fact is, the threat of "Islamofascism" just doesn't operate at the same register politically as did the threat of Soviet power; for one, we ARE fighting some sort of active war against these "enemies" - a war that is, as most recognize, an unmitigated strategic disaster doing nothing to secure us from terrorism. And this war, unlike the Cold War, is almost universally viewed as a Republican mistake, a clear moment of a very particular failed ideology. Combine that with some severe economic problems, also arguably attributable to "lower taxes/increase government" logic of the current conservative movement, and the repugnance of large and growing swaths of the public (young people, many Hispanics) to the Republican agenda. Bam! You have the makings of a severe crisis for conservatives.

Posted by ouchy | May 20, 2008 1:30 PM

My mood just got worse: Ted Kennedy reported to have malignant brain tumor.

Posted by DonBoy | May 20, 2008 1:35 PM

Right, Americans voted in FDR, then went "right back" and voted in Ike ... if by "right back" you mean 20 years later, after voting for FDR three more times and then also voting for Truman. And then there were those two more presidential elections after Ike that the Democrats also won (Kennedy and Johnson), making them 7 out of 9 in that stretch.

So I am not sure Democrats are going to be particularly concerned if the theory is that 2008 is just another 1932.

Posted by DTM | May 20, 2008 1:36 PM

"I am, personally, an apologist for the Carter administration which I think was doing good things and got torpedoed by an unfortunate combination of objective reality (oil shocks, the need to curb inflation) and blinkered behavior by congressional leaders."

This is all of a piece with your belief that politics doesn't matter.

It does matter, and how you act in terms of electoral politics defines your political landscape as executive.

The fact that Carter ran while standing for nothing greatly affected what came next.

Posted by Petey | May 20, 2008 1:38 PM

Gary,
Your kvetching about frontier status is asinine. France had colonies well into the second half of the 20th century. And Napoleon was 200 years ago, not two thousand. And his adventures in frontier-expanding dwarf almost all other examples.

Oh god, I just realized how pathetic it is that I'm even responding to that.

Posted by Ryno | May 20, 2008 1:41 PM

I agree with mark about the metric system. If the length of everyone's dick was expressed in centimeters the nation's self esteem would skyrocket.

Posted by steve duncan | May 20, 2008 1:41 PM

It is time all of you realize that the Republican and Democrat parties have been hijacked. The Repulican party is controlled by the far right and the Democrat party is controlled by the far left. Either way is extremism adn does not represent the views of the average American.

Mr. Broder! Is that you?

Posted by rea | May 20, 2008 1:42 PM

This is the most sensible thing I've seen written on the "demise of the conservatives" recently. Wasn't it just a few years ago that we were talking about an enduring republican majority and how liberals were the ones bereft of ideas? Bush has hurt the GOP brand, but the people who were basically conservative are still basically conservative and there are still a lot of them.

This election is likely to be close, and even if dems pick up a number of seats in the House and Senate, I don't think that augurs a total realignment.

Posted by TW Andrews | May 20, 2008 1:43 PM

There wasn't the deep and broad disgust with Republicans and the President (Ford) then (1976) as there is now

I'm Matt's age so I don't know firsthand, but this sort of matches the impression I have. Support for the Iraq war was/is more partisan than support for Vietnam, and Nixon had influential critics among Republicans, unlike Bush. Those facts seem like a good sign for Democrats over the coming year or two.

Posted by Cyrus | May 20, 2008 1:49 PM

Carter's problem governing was his arrogance. He ran as an anti-Washington outsider. Good for him. Just about every candidate who wins runs as an anti-Washington outsider. But those who actually govern effectively and get their agenda enacted make friends and build alliances once they set up shop in the White House. Carter basically refused to do this because he was so full of his own righteousness.

Don't get me wrong. I like and respect Carter a lot. But when it came to the nuts and bolts politics of governing he was sorely lacking.

Posted by Rob Mac | May 20, 2008 1:58 PM

By the way, of course there is going to be a viable "conservative" party in the United States as one of the two major parties for the conceivable future. The issues are rather things like what it will mean to be "conservative", how many elections this party actually wins in any given period (long losing streaks are in fact possible), whether it will still be called the Republican Party (I'm still holding out for a comeback of the Whigs), and so on.

Posted by DTM | May 20, 2008 2:04 PM

As someone who was young and naive enough in 1976 (24 years old) to mistakenly think things were going to go better than they did back then...I have to say there's no comparison to now.

As Judis & Teixeira's book document, a demographic wave toward a Democratic majority has been building for some time -- just as, per Kevin Phillips, the GOP majority was building in the mid-70s. Watergate was, like the 2000 election, a fluke that temporarily derailed the movement of electoral politics. As Jack Newfield said, Carter getting elected was like a recovered fumble, not a sustained drive. What's out there now is far more decisive and apt to be long-lasting. There's every reason to believe this change in parties will more resemble 1932 or 1980 than 1976.

A major reason to think Obama and a significantly Democratic Congress can achieve more than in the Carter years: not only is Congress dramatically less dependent on Southern conservative Dems, it will also be considerably newer. As many as 50 or 60 House-ers will have been elected in the last two cycles, and very likely a double-digit number of Senators the same. This will align them more with their newly elected president than ever happened for Carter (or Clinton, for that matter, to whom the long-term Congress-critters always seemed to feel vastly superior). Also, the very fact of a wave election -- as Reagan luckily experienced in '80 -- will put a fear of god into surviving incumbents of the opposite party...something that wasn't a fact in '77.

Posted by demtom | May 20, 2008 2:18 PM

The 1976 election was very close, and Carter ran a great campaign to pull it off

This is absolutely not true. Carter's primary campaign was great. His general election campaign, not so much. The assumption going into 1976 was that any Democrat would win easily, and Ford was further damaged by his primary contest with Reagan. Carter was way up in the polls going into the general election, only to see Ford catch up to him as the fall went on. Carter managed to very narrowly pull it out largely because of Ford's gaffe about Poland not being under Soviet rule, which hurt him enough with the Slavic vote in Ohio to cost him that state, and thus the election. But hardly a brilliant general election campaign for Carter.

And, as Rob Mac says, Carter accomplished nothing in Congress because he basically refused to work with congress in a constructive way. That his presidency was a disaster was partly a result of circumstances, certainly, but a great deal of it was his own fault.

Also, very depressing about Teddy Kennedy.

Posted by John | May 20, 2008 2:24 PM

What a strange, top-down analysis, Matt. In 1977, the conservatives had demographics on their side, and Nixon was removable.

Now, their problem is systemic, they have no boogeymen to blame it on, and many of their most important blocs are dead or dying.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | May 20, 2008 2:28 PM

Ryno, did you think about what did continue in America until around one hundred years ago that could be called frontier status and what did end in France around 2000 years ago that could be called frontier status?

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 20, 2008 2:31 PM

Where are the Marxists on this blog?

Conservatism doesn't rise and fall on the strength (or weakness) of its "ideas" or on the political fortunes of the Republican Party. So long as there are rich folks, there will be a political right...and so long as retain the existing political structures, those rich folks will run the show.

The politial right has a specific class nature which can be considered permanent and imperishable until, of course, a social revolution does away with the bourgeoisie, which seems unlikely.

Posted by Adrian | May 20, 2008 2:41 PM

Yes, George Packer's article is as good as Matt says it is. But is it not somewhat hubristic to dance on your enemy's grave before he is dead? In 2 years' time the clever Mr Packer may be writing an equally stimulating article on the GOP's miraculous revival of fall 2008. Matt is well advised to be grouchy.

Posted by david p | May 20, 2008 2:44 PM

The problems of our time are Malthusian.

I am unaware of a single society apart from China that has responded to Malthusian problems via rational thought and an acceptance that "hey, let's all just have fewer kids and, while that won't solve every problem, it will at least solve a large number of them".
Rather the standard response to Malthusian pressures is to bring out the demonization handbook. Step one in wiping out some other people to make space for your excess kids is to make it clear that those guys aren't really people so who cares what happens to them.

Given how enthusiastically the US responded when called upon to demonize Arabs or Mexicans, and in the face of pretty weak provocation in the grand scheme of things, imagining Obama is going to usher in any sort of new age of tolerance is ridiculous.
The best he will do is institute a few nice ideas like CO2 reduction that will hold back the tide for a few years. If he's lucky, the true inevitable viciousness won't occur until he's gone, and won't besmirch his reputation. But, make no mistake, when the hard choices have to be made, Americans, like pretty much everyone before them, will choose to continue to breed, and make space by killing off others; rather than choose a one-child policy.

Posted by Maynard Handley | May 20, 2008 2:46 PM

Fred Bellemore:

I started high school in the fall of 1976...Vietnam, as much as Watergate, was on everyone's mind...And Vietnam was considered a bi-partisan disaster...The 1976 election was very close, and Carter ran a great campaign to pull it off..."Inflation", and the failure to "whip it", plus a slow economy, blamed on Republicans, probably did more than Watergate to turn the election to Carter...

There wasn't the deep and broad disgust with Republicans and the President (Ford) then (1976) as there is now...And that disgust is deepening and widening...Housing-foreclosure, inflation (food prices), fuel-prices, recession, retirement-savings-falling, Iraq, you name it, are continuing to get worse with no end in sight -- the Republicans are tied to all of this...

This.

The fundamental political and economic landscape right now is far different from that of '76. In addition to the factors Fred listed, wealth polarization is peaking right now, whereas in the mid-70's it was at a historically low level. In a lot of ways, the situation right now resembles not 1976, but 1932.

Posted by Adam Smith | May 20, 2008 2:51 PM

The 1970's was a time of real ideological drift. The liberal orthodoxy had been discredited by LBJ, Vietnam, rioting, etc. but people still weren't quite ready to embrace the conservative movement yet. Even Reagan's 1980 victory was basically just a referendum on Carter's failed presidency. Subsequent events, namely the fact that the economy which had been bogged down throughout the 1970's finally came back to life while Reagan was president, was what made the conservative movement so dominant for the past 2 decades or so.

I would say that movement is dead. It started dying with the failed Gingrich revolution in 1995 with Bush's failed policies finishing it off. However, the fact that the conservative movement as defined by Reagan is dead doesn't mean liberalism will suddenly emerge triumphant. So much will depend on what happens in the next administration. If Obama's elected president and the economy tanks, we could very easily see a new conservative movement emerge triumphant in 2012. I believe the policies President Obama implements will be less important than how the economy turns out under his watch. No one will care about Obama's universal health care program if we wind up with the equivalent of double digit unemployment and inflation in 2011.

Posted by Guscat | May 20, 2008 2:58 PM

"Right, Americans voted in FDR, then went "right back" and voted in Ike ... if by "right back" you mean 20 years later, after voting for FDR three more times and then also voting for Truman. And then there were those two more presidential elections after Ike that the Democrats also won (Kennedy and Johnson), making them 7 out of 9 in that stretch.

So I am not sure Democrats are going to be particularly concerned if the theory is that 2008 is just another 1932.

Posted by DTM | May 20, 2008 1:36 PM"

Good point. Ike was voted in to end the Korean War, which MacArthur the dipshit turned from a victory into a tie by overplaying his hand and crossing the Yanlu.

If that's true about Kennedy, that just sucks.

Not only did Carter run as an outsider, his only real connection and exposure to the power elite was via membership on the Trilateral Commission. His Congress was simply a lot more conservative than any Democratic majority we'll end up getting, especially if the people of Connecticut get annoyed enough with Lieberman that he has to move left on foreign policy to stay in office. If we still have too many troops in Iraq that are getting killed by 2010/2012 with Obama in office but he can honestly point to Republican obstructionism as the cause, the GOP will suffer more defeats, especially in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain region. I was also surprised how the past couple of years while the public has known that the Dems have had a majority and that Congress hasn't accomplished enough, the public has been rather knowledgeable about how this is to be blamed on Bush's vetoes and GOP filibusters.

Posted by Reality Man | May 20, 2008 3:05 PM

I think 1993-94 is a better model. It's very easy to see taking over and becoming an object of such immediate, visceral loathing on the far right that a rising tide of "conservatism" based around character assasination of a popular president winds up causing the Dems to take losses in 2010, and eventually resulting in an Obama administration that accomplishes only a small fraction of the reforms he currently envisions.

That would be disappointing, but hardly depressing. One can imagine a worse way to spend 8 years, certainly.

APS

Posted by Ape Man | May 20, 2008 3:14 PM

I think 1993-94 is a better model. It's very easy to see Obama taking over and becoming an object of such immediate, visceral loathing on the far right that a rising tide of "conservatism" based around character assasination of a popular president winds up causing the Dems to take losses in 2010, and eventually resulting in an Obama administration that accomplishes only a small fraction of the reforms he currently envisions.

That would be disappointing, but hardly depressing. One can imagine a worse way to spend 8 years, certainly.

APS

Posted by Ape Man | May 20, 2008 3:14 PM

from what i've read in "nixonland," ford was no moderate. a sheep, perhaps. a stooge, certainly. a moderate? i hardly think so. just another myth brought to you by the gop and misguided democrats.

Posted by karen marie | May 20, 2008 3:21 PM

it's very plausible to imagine a conservative movement that's still strong enough to frustrate progressives' main legislative goals, force Democrats to unilaterally make the tough moves to get the fiscal situation in control

Yes, and a good many of the members of this "conservative movement" call themselves Democrats....and they're not all from the South. Sadly, don't expect too much from the Democrats. Not only are many of them "conservatives," but they are about as heavily influenced by corporate dollars as are the Republicans.

Posted by texasbob | May 20, 2008 3:21 PM

it's very plausible to imagine a conservative movement that's still strong enough to frustrate progressives' main legislative goals, force Democrats to unilaterally make the tough moves to get the fiscal situation in control

Yes, and a good many of the members of this "conservative movement" call themselves Democrats....and they're not all from the South. Sadly, don't expect too much from the Democrats. Not only are many of them "conservatives," but they are about as heavily influenced by corporate dollars as are the Republicans.

Posted by texasbob | May 20, 2008 3:22 PM

As someone who was a teen in 1976, I think that Matt is both wildly wrong and a little bit right in this analysis. As others have said, the most salient factor is national demographic trends, and they are much, much more favorable for the Democratic Party today than they were 32 years ago.

However, there's no denying that being middle-aged or older provides some perspective that shows that the US has displayed a consistent reluctance to move leftward even when it seemed that it must, and we must account for that.

In my opinion, a big part of the confusion about national trends comes from the traditional conflation of cultural leftism and economic leftism. If you separate the two for the analysis, the trends are much clearer.

The US is economically a middle-right country and seems bound to remain that way, in global relativistic terms. But culturally the US is farther left than middle-left, it's often led the march leftward—and when it hasn't, it catches up fairly quickly.

Our two political parties don't represent this distinction. The GOP is very much both the party of economic and cultural conservatism. The Democratic Party is less equivalently leftist either culturally or economically, but it nevertheless remains on the left side of the divide in both contexts.

It should also be emphasized that with regard to a third major axis, foreign policy, the US is very far to the right; with the GOP only being an extreme compared to the Democratic Party's middle-rightism.

The result is that, politically, the general public has varying allegiances to the two parties depending upon how each of the three variables occupy the national consciousness. And because neither party reflects the general trends, they both remain "out of touch" of the average voter to some extent.

In my opinion, the current decline of the GOP has occurred because it has depended too strongly on its cultural conservative base and, to a lesser extent, on its far-right foreign policy base. The former has always put the GOP at odds with the average voter; but the payoff for the GOP has been the extreme activism of the religious right. That's made it a net gain for the GOP over the last thirty five years. But no longer. The relationship got too close and the people running the GOP forgot that the religious right does not characterize the average American voter.

And while the average voter is pretty far to the right with regard to foreign policy and military force, they are not so far to the right that they're willing to pay much in sacrifice for the Imperialist Dream. Americans like their imperialism low-key, low sacrifice. Police actions favoring industrial interests, not colonialization.

Make no mistake: the US has long been trending leftward economically, too. But so has the entire world, and more importantly the developed world. In that context, the US lags and has always lagged. And it will continue to lag.

In my opinion, the contemporary Democratic Party could best seize this opportunity presented by the failure of the GOP by being realistic about what can be accomplished in terms of moving the US economically leftward. Personally, I think that the US is finally ready for universal health care, if perhaps not fully socialized health care. But, in general, it's just not realistic to think that it's possible to transform the US into something similar to a European social democracy. That'd be nice, but it's not going to happen.

On the other hand, we're going to continue to aggressively move culturally leftward. As we witness the breakdown of the GOP/Religious Right coalition, I think (in contradiction to the DLC and such) that the Democratic Party will be freed to fully embrace cultural liberalism. The religious right never spoke for the average American—they just cleverly managed to appear that they did. But history's clear trends show that they didn't and don't. The acceptance of homosexuality has occurred very quickly in historical terms, for example.

In short, a more ambitious program of increased social justice with regard to cultural issues (such as gay rights and women's rights, etc.), with a realistic plan for incremental increases in economic justice (with the notable exception of health care, where I think the US is ready for a big change), and a somewhat more moderate foreign policy than the GOP's but still (unfortunately) "muscular" will be a platform that much more closely reflects what most Americans want than what has been offered by either party for the past 35 years. But hoping for a transformation of the US into a European style social democracy is entirely unrealistic. So is a transformation into a European-style lack of militarism. But I'll take what I can get.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | May 20, 2008 3:31 PM

Carter was a fine president. Fiscal responsibility is also a fine thing. National Energy Act of 1978 was an important unheralded milestone. Hostages were a direct consequence of "Operation Ajax" which had nothing to do with Carter.

Posted by taxiconfession | May 20, 2008 3:55 PM

Carter was a fine president. Fiscal responsibility is also a fine thing. National Energy Act of 1978 was an important unheralded milestone. Hostages were a direct consequence of "Operation Ajax" which had nothing to do with Carter.

Posted by taxiconfession | May 20, 2008 3:58 PM

McLuhan: The past went that-a-way. When faced with a totally new situation, we tend always to attach ourselves to the objects, to the flavor of the most recent past. We look at the present through a rear view mirror. We march backwards into the future.

Posted by west coast | May 20, 2008 4:29 PM

McLuhan: The past went that-a-way. When faced with a totally new situation, we tend always to attach ourselves to the objects, to the flavor of the most recent past. We look at the present through a rear view mirror. We march backwards into the future.

Posted by west coast | May 20, 2008 4:32 PM

howard: Get out of Iraq/no more wars, universal health care, fighting climate change/energy independence. Progressive judges, random progressive policies, etc. go without saying.

Posted by Korha | May 20, 2008 4:49 PM

You can't write about Carter without mentioning the hostages in Iran. (I think MY doesn't like to think of the hostages in Iran because that's the sort of event his ideological framework for IR doesn't allow for.)

One also should allow for the fact that many professional conservative writers enjoyed the Clinton years more than the Bush years. Those years were much more lucrative.

A fair number of conservatives are happy to hand the country over to the Dems this year. They think it will shut the loonies up. It will, but only after they fuck everything up. Which they will, since they have bad ideas.

Posted by Thomas | May 20, 2008 5:25 PM

Beating McCain with a young African-American male (or a woman who's despised by large segments of the population) is by no means a done deal.

Also, while I'm spreading sad truths -- Carter was pretty dreadful.

Grow up, kiddies! There's just so much hubris, wishful thinking and ignorance this here echo chamber can take!

Posted by Nervous Democrat | May 20, 2008 6:06 PM

Beating McCain with a young African-American male (or a woman who's despised by large segments of the population) is by no means a done deal.

Also, while I'm spreading sad truths -- Carter was pretty dreadful.

Grow up, kiddies! There's just so much hubris, wishful thinking and ignorance this here echo chamber can take!

Posted by Nervous Democrat | May 20, 2008 6:06 PM

korha, i don't see obama campaigning on getting out of iraq; i assuredly do not see him supporting universal health care (i'm completely with krugman on this one: he's already given the game away); energy independence is a slogan that anyone can bat about; and i do not think that progressive judges goes without saying. if he doesn't say it, it ain't gonna happen.

look, i'm going to vote for obama and i am going to hope for his upside, but i'm afraid that your biggies for him aren't exactly making their way into his stump speech and sloganeering.

to me, a vote for obama is a vote for the pleasures of an adult approach to policy-making, which i'm all for, but it's a roll of the dice. admittedly, there's still plenty of time for him to change that, but i'd like something a lot more unequivocal.

Posted by howard | May 20, 2008 6:28 PM

As a conservative, I'm just curious: what is this "stuff" that you're all hoping Obama will manage to get enacted?

Posted by Asher | May 20, 2008 6:39 PM

"As a conservative, I'm just curious: what is this "stuff" that you're all hoping Obama will manage to get enacted?

Posted by Asher"

Now that, my friends, is comedy gold.

"I want to crap on your ideas about "public policy" but I don't really know anything about it. Can you give me some topic areas so that I can at least crap in the right direction?"

Conservatism rules.

APS

Posted by Ape Man | May 20, 2008 7:13 PM

Re: I am unaware of a single society apart from China that has responded to Malthusian problems via rational thought and an acceptance that "hey, let's all just have fewer kids and, while that won't solve every problem, it will at least solve a large number of them".

Neither Europe nor Japan nor North America needs to institute totalitarian policies like China's: birth rates have dropped like a rock already, in many cases below replacement. Even in the US the native-born population no longer replaces itself. Are you unaware of these facts?

Posted by JonF | May 20, 2008 7:27 PM

"Neither Europe nor Japan nor North America needs to institute totalitarian policies like China's: ...
Are you unaware of these facts?"

Europe and native US are barely below replacement. We need the numbers to go down, not just stay flat. Staying flat is too little too late.

Posted by Maynard Handley | May 20, 2008 8:35 PM

"the threat of "Islamofascism" just doesn't operate at the same register politically as did the threat of Soviet power; for one, we ARE fighting some sort of active war against these "enemies" - a war that is, as most recognize, an unmitigated strategic disaster doing nothing to secure us from terrorism. And this war, unlike the Cold War, is almost universally viewed as a Republican mistake, a clear moment of a very particular failed ideology"

Not to nitpick, but the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan happened right around the time of “Carter’s decline and Reagan’s triumph.” Granted, we weren’t AS involved in the USSR’s “Vietnam”; we merely provided cash and weapons (along with the Saudis) which was administered by the ISI to many individuals we would now describe as “Islamofascist.” Back then we called them “freedom fighters.” This anti-communist jihad was primarily a Republican-backed venture, and at the time was seen as a success, as well as a catalyst for the demise of the Soviet Union.

It's not difficult to put two and two together and see how the funding of warlords such as Hekmatyar (a great chum of Bin Laden) well into the 1990’s facilitated the global aims of later jihadists. No one intended this or could have predicted it, but our anti-communist zeal set the stage for the mess we find ourselves in today. Although this is not “universally viewed as a Republican mistake,”my hope is that history will serve to make it just that obvious.

Posted by Cam | May 20, 2008 9:47 PM

Hamilton Jordan, the political strategist who put Carter in the White House and who then served as President Carter's Chief Of Staff , died today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080521/ap_on_re_us/obit_jordan

RIP

Posted by Don Williams | May 20, 2008 11:35 PM

Well Ape Man, I couldn't imagine it was the ideas in Obama's platform that you were all excited about, so I thought maybe there was some other agenda you were hoping he might push once he gets elected.

Posted by Asher | May 21, 2008 12:03 AM

Re: We need the numbers to go down, not just stay flat.

The numbers will go down-- a birth rate below replacement ensures that will happen. The population bomb is a dud and Malthus was wrong-- people do not procreate up to the limit of sustainability. Once they reach a certain level of wealth and well-being they seem to lose interest in having lots of childen. This is being proven in country after country.

Posted by JonF | May 21, 2008 7:12 AM

One thing I've always wondered about Carter -- I can't remember anyone during his run for President making a big thing about his relative "lack of experience", even though if you look at the record, even Obama has more experience in public office now than Jimmy did when he ran in 1976.

That said, I wish we could have a LBJ-style "master of congress" president again (an experienced congressional leader who knows how to twist arms), but unfortunately, I don't see that happening in either party anytime soon. I mean, even with 297 Democrats in the House and 68 Democratic senators in 1977, Jimmy Carter not only couldn't get health care or energy policies through the congress, he couldn't even get no-brainers such as postcard voter registration or a consumer protection agency through. Now *that's* weak, especially given the numbers!

Posted by Ronald | May 21, 2008 11:02 AM

One thing I've always wondered about Carter -- I can't remember anyone during his run for President making a big thing about his relative "lack of experience", even though if you look at the record, even Obama has more experience in public office now than Jimmy did when he ran in 1976.

That said, I wish we could have a LBJ-style "master of congress" president again (an experienced congressional leader who knows how to twist arms), but unfortunately, I don't see that happening in either party anytime soon. I mean, even with 297 Democrats in the House and 68 Democratic senators in 1977, Jimmy Carter not only couldn't get health care or energy policies through the congress, he couldn't even get no-brainers such as postcard voter registration or a consumer protection agency through. Now *that's* weak, especially given the numbers!

Posted by Ronald | May 21, 2008 11:04 AM

One thing I've always wondered about Carter -- I can't remember anyone during his run for President making a big thing about his relative "lack of experience", even though if you look at the record, even Obama has more experience in public office now than Jimmy did when he ran in 1976.

That said, I wish we could have a LBJ-style "master of congress" president again (an experienced congressional leader who knows how to twist arms), but unfortunately, I don't see that happening in either party anytime soon. I mean, even with 297 Democrats in the House and 68 Democratic senators in 1977, Jimmy Carter not only couldn't get health care or energy policies through the congress, he couldn't even get no-brainers such as postcard voter registration or a consumer protection agency through. Now *that's* weak, especially given the numbers!

Posted by Ronald | May 21, 2008 11:05 AM

I associate myself with what demtom said here.

This is nothing like 1976, which I also personally remember, for what that's worth (it's worth at least something). Carter indeed represented a 'recovered fumble' rather than a sustained drive. Several commenters have mentioned how conservative the dem congress was, but failed to point out that Carter himself was rather conservative. He was a kludge. And, yes, he got some bad luck, but he also made a lot of his luck bad.

One big difference between then and now is the distinction between what used to be called 'failed' Presidencies, and disasterous ones; the standard is much different, the former is much more self-respecting. Post WW2 'failed' presidents usually managed to come up with *something* good; LBJ is exemplary in this regard, but it was true of Nixon as well. Laugh if you want, but Carter's suggestion that the US stand for human rights is one of the good things Carter did (please save the lecture about how equivocal it was in practice, cf Saddam Hussein. I KNOW ALREADY). Obama is smart enough to see the wisdom - not just the feel-good moralism but the wisdom - in that approach. I can't think of really anything memorable (in a positive sense) the Bush 'administration' has done. Not all of his toadys and hacks are white men? Well, that certainly makes me feel...er..proud. North/South war in Sudan? That's not nothing, but still.. Bush's second speech after 9/11? What does that prove, other than he could read Gerson's speech aloud? Different standard. You really have to fish for things; but the establishment press does it anyway out of habit, because it's [majestic Copeland-ish horn fanfare] The Presidency.

I've been surprised to notice the 'Obama is Carter' meme-ette floating around the last week or two. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. MY must have been in quite a bad mood to entertain it. Not that there's anything wrong with entertaining things...

Posted by jonnybutter | May 21, 2008 11:16 AM

One aspect of American politics that remains enduring is the intellectual isolationism and naivete about everywhere else. This is clearly as true on the left as on the right.

The rest of the world is trending leftward economically? With Eastern Europe implementing low flat-tax pro-growth policies? The election of Merkel in Germany and Sarkozy in France, both struggling to take on the unions and social entitlement programs?

Whether or not you think socialized national medicine makes sense for the United States, you need to be pretty damn clueless about the rest of the world not to have seen the pain it's been causing in the UK and Canada, to name just two much in the news lately. Someone who's drunk the Kool-Aid deeply will no doubt argue that these are unique problems with those countries, or -- echoing the usual excuse made for socialism -- it hasn't worked well because of wreckers and poor implementation.

But you need to be a typically American narcissist, blissfully drunk on theory, unaware of actual events elsewhere in the world, to think that these troubling facts don't even need to be addressed.

Fortunately, the chances that any serious progressive agenda will get through any conceivable Congress is about zip. What you may not have noticed in your partisan zeal is that the progressive section of the Democratic Congress long ago reached its natural limit. To the extent more Democratic Congressmen are being elected, it's because they are moderate and Truman conservative Democrats, and they're replacing similarly moderate Republicans. Their policy positions aren't changing much, if at all, they're just swapping the R on the shirt for a D.

If party discipline was as it used to be in the 30s, or even the 60s, that might make a difference. But it's not. Congresscritters are far more independent, and no moderate freshman Democrat from a district with a heavily Republican minority is going to risk his career lining up behind a progressive agenda coming down from the leadership. He'll sign on to all kinds of cosmetic stuff -- bring the troops home from Iraq, write a resolution condemning George Bush for being the Antichrist, send the Secretary of State on a goodwill tour of Iran's new nuclear weapons facilities, whatever.

But nationalize a fourth of the economy (health care), instantly tripling the size of the government? Jump the top tax rate from 35% to 60% to avert the coming entitlement (SS and Medicare) bloodbath without drastically cutting benefits? Nope. No way. You'll just have to keep wishin' and hopin' for The Revolution, because it won't be happening this century.

But you can have a lot of fun with writing new music for it, holding rallies, raising CAFE standards, promoting solar energy, symbolic marginal stuff like that. Americans have always enjoyed a big dose of entertainment in their politics.

Posted by Carl Pham | May 22, 2008 12:18 AM

I don't normally read this blog, so please feel free to correct where I may be wrong, but from reading the post and comments I am getting the impression that what everybody wants Obama to do is spend money on government programs of one variety or another.

Pardon me, but I don't see how that is different from Bush and our current and previous Congress. Discretionary spending has gone up across the board every year, has it not? Sounds to me like the difference between the present Republicans and our likely future Democrats is the former was about taxing less and spending more, whereas the latter will be about taxing more and spending more.

Depressing indeed.

Posted by Visitor | May 22, 2008 12:26 AM

"I can't think of really anything memorable (in a positive sense) the Bush 'administration' has done."

This is a rather blinkered view.

Assuming that Obama is not dumb enough to pull us out of Iraq and allow the entire region to fall into anarchy, I strongly suspect that history will regard the Iraq war as a Bush success, much in the way that it regards the end of the Cold War as a Reagan success.

Whether or not the initial invasion was a good idea (and don't bash me on this; I assure you that you don't know my position, so creating strawmen will be counter-productive), the worst that will happen in Iraq is that it will turn out like South Korea: a non-trivial US military presence will stay there for the foreseeable future, overt conflict will die down but the specter of resumed conflict should we ever leave won't diminish, and in the end the country will slowly modernize. Things are already trending this way (read Micheal Yon if you don't believe me).

It's also worth noting that Truman was nearly as hated during his time as Bush is now, and yet history tends to view him favorably.

Frankly, if we're going to draw historical parallels, 2008 reminds me far more of 1952 than anything else.

Posted by Jason | May 22, 2008 12:43 AM

@Steve Duncan "As long as Democrats in any region of the nation have to cater to all the fat, toothless, holy-roller, illiterate bigots with Klan members in the family photo album there won't be Congressional success on a progressive agenda."

Robert Byrd. You bigot.

Posted by b | May 22, 2008 3:15 AM

The commenters show the usual political confusion. The characteristic stupidity of the moment is the retreat into fantasies of socialism-lite - like that healthcare plan that's been a favorite carrot for 2 decades now. Obama's main problem is that he is essentially sui generis; his public biography is thin, and when the plurality of us seem to realize the next president will certainly face tests of a profound magnitude, it's no wonder there are many who construe his rhetorical ability as good, but ultimately rather cheap, political theater. Now is not the time to try this guy out. If the world map could be rendered as crudely as a Cold War "red = communist" map, you doubters as to the strategic significance of the problem of Islamic radicalism would understand better the nature of the threat. It is no wonder that those who could never bring themselves to comprehend the Soviet Union beyond "omg we could have armaggedon!" cannot now bring themselves to comprehend this current threat. (cf. Europe.) The most depressing aspect of this Obama-love is the categorical fact that his appeal is based directly on his ability to stand as a gratification to all the Bush-hatred, and on his race (85% + black vote is a racial vote, you fools). I hope McCain wins. I have no idea what will rescue our public culture from your winging bullsh-t and the unfortunately corollary of popularity of people like Matt Yglesias, but something tells me an Obama victory is not a step in the right direction. Put it on the list.

Posted by Dan | May 22, 2008 8:25 AM

Can anyone point to a country when the overall social economic status of their citizens improved by the adoption of "progressive" policies? 120 or so years of the socialist/progressive movement with no sucesses.

It should be noted that rarely does appeasment/talk bring peace. (talking with thy enemy).

Jason, you comment that truman was disliked during the korean war is correct. Likewise, churchill was had very high negatives in 1937 whereas chamberlin was well liked as result of his munich appeasement pact. (keep in mind that the french premier capitulated which forced chamberlin's hand, yet chamberlin gets the blame)

Posted by Joe - Dallas | May 22, 2008 8:33 AM

Can anyone point to a country when the overall social economic status of their citizens improved by the adoption of "progressive" policies? 120 or so years of the socialist/progressive movement with no sucesses.

It should be noted that rarely does appeasment/talk bring peace. (talking with thy enemy).

Jason, you comment that truman was disliked during the korean war is correct. Likewise, churchill was had very high negatives in 1937 whereas chamberlin was well liked as result of his munich appeasement pact. (keep in mind that the french premier capitulated which forced chamberlian's hand, yet chamberlian gets the blame)

Posted by Joe - Dallas | May 22, 2008 8:33 AM

I love listening to every liberal or progressive crow about how the conservative movement is dead in this country... when a recent poll indicated that 60% of Americans would like to see a smaller Federal government and less taxes. This just reminds me of all the conservatives giggling that liberal or progressive ideas are dead with Americans because of the political shift of the last 20 years.

The shortsightedness of both parties is staggering. The republicans have lost sight of the fiscal conservativism that made them popular and the democrats have abandoned any pretense of caring for civil rights and now just protect those that agree with them.

American is tired of this kind of BS, and would like to see someone deal with the difficult problems of our infrastructure, huge entitlement programs and a world growing increasingly out of the control of the United Nations.

The first party that does that is likely to be very popular. I am not holding out hope.

Posted by Matt | May 22, 2008 9:33 AM

I'm starting to suffer from "ODS": Obama derangement syndrome. The guy has too many Stalinist tendencies. Maybe he'll be like Carter, but I keep thinking a much more dangerous form.

Posted by Bob | May 22, 2008 11:34 AM

Someone said earlier that Carter's energy policy was an "unheralded milestone". A policy that increased USA consumption of coal for electrical generation by a factor of two may well be unheralded by Dems because it is a major source and cause of our failed energy policy today. And let's not forget that the "goober gent" that ran as a former technician implementing our "nukuler" navy basically shut down our nuclear-sourced electrical generating capacity for thirty years. Way to go Dems! How do you reconcile Carter's record of coal-fired pollution and other energy policy failures with your "green-Goreian" progressive positions of today?

Posted by SteveWe | May 22, 2008 3:16 PM