As Obama goes down in flames, more discussion of his one-term presidency is arising.
Rush Limbaugh often describes Rep. Gephardt's analysis from over a decade ago that the more unemployment goes up, the better the Democrats will be served at the next election.
In 1994, we all know Clinton lost the Congress. Reasons are debated. My judgment is that Clinton pushed ridiculous ideas and bad budgets. The Republican Congress forced Clinton to correct those two items.
In 1996, the good, gentle, and moderate Dole ran against Clinton with little distinction or clear ideas. He was the un-Clinton.
Now the discussions of who is best served by Obama losing the Congress become very interesting. If a largely Republican Congress arises in 2011, Obama has two choices: go Clinton or go further left. He won't be able to stand still. Political operatives will suggest following Clinton. Common sense would concur.
The remaining question then is whether Republicans merely select the un-Obama, like they did in 1996. Recent history suggests that this is not the most likely result. McCain was very nearly the un-Obama. The Republican base has no use for him as a politician (albeit a great man in nearly other sphere). The base wants somebody more like themselves.
Senior citizens like my father love Reagan for his 1964 Republican Convention speech. Middle age citizens like me love Reagan for his presidency. Young Americans just starting to vote have no memory of Reagan. They know him as intimately as they know George Washington -- as a historical figure. Yet strangely, these three groups can speak about Reagan from a policy perspective in inverse order. The youth have been raised on discussions of the Reagan history. They don't remember the Lebanon barracks bombing, but they know he was tough on Islamic radicals. They have heard the stories even if they can't recite them.
The middle age remember the events and have discussed the theory. They are most intimately aware of the Reagan legacy that they want to pass to their kids.
The senior citizens remember the events but have varying awareness of the history or larger context. Their awareness of the history can be best traced to talk radio listenership. Listeners know the historical summary best.
What does that mean for Obama's re-election in 2012? The more the Republican candidate can tap into that shared knowledge of the Reagan legacy while not getting lost in trying to repeat history, the better the Republican will succeed. The candidate needs to know the Reagan legacy and be able to discuss it. The candidate needs to be able to explain what the internet is and how Al Gore did not invent it or what Global Warming is not and how Al Gore helped invent the myth.
We are dealing with a world filled with myths, legends, and frauds. Stories all. George Washington's cherry tree may be a myth, but it seek goodness. Reagan's use of Pointe d'Hoc may have illustrated the bravery of men in a legendary struggle from which legends of individual soldiers can and should arise. Then we have Obama and Gore and Pelosi all pushing frauds of winning the Iraq War based on Obama's brilliant new strategies, Global Warming, or budgetary deficits create strong economies and jobs.
The Republican candidates needs to be able to tell stories of inspiration and insight and puncture the balloons of fraud and lies. Can we predict Obama's fall now? No, because we don't know who the other candidate is. Let's not assume that such a person will succeed until we know that we don't have another Dole or McCain.
