If Clinton does win, and does become the reconsructionist president, it would shed some interesting light on the question of individual agency. Part of the Skowronek thesis is that, more than individual characteristics, a president's moment in political time determines his/her warrants for action, due to the reshaping of political coalitions, and the demand for fundamental change. Should Clinton become the reconstructionist, that would lend credence to this theory, particularly for the reasons you give: that she is intimately tied to the Clinton opposition presidency within the Reagan political order. It will give presidential historians fits though, because the temptation will be to lump Hill and Bill together as two of one kind. And it will be difficult for many to see HRC as of a fundamentally different political order than her Husband, in part because she is viable in large measure to the personalistic political network that Bill Clinton put together.
 

One other point in Obama's favor. Those we consider transformative presidents have had strong rhetorical skills. Hillary has her merits, but Obama's clearly got her beat on this.
 

Clinton will not win a decisive vicory. There are far too many independents and Republicans who would vote for any Democratic nominee other than her. And there are too many Democrats so soured by Hillary's recent tactics in the past two weeks that they will never vote for her in the general. Her turnout will be low. And if McCain is the nominee, there will be Democrats who defect.
 

But Obama has set his sights higher, and implicit in his campaign is a promise, or a threat, to eclipse Clinton's accomplishments. Obama doesn't just want to piece together a 50-plus-1 coalition; he wants to forge a new post-partisan consensus that includes "Obama Republicans" -- the equivalent of the Gipper's "Reagan Democrats." You can call that overly ambitious or even naive, but you can't call it timid. Or deferential.

C'mon now.

There in no evidence whatsoever that the very liberal Obama attracts any substantial number of center-right GOP voters. None.

Indeed, Obama can't get a majority of Dems nevertheless any significant GOP voters. Like McCain, Obama is depending upon a coalition made up of a minority of his own party and independents to take the nomination. This questionable strategy's only hope to get a majority in the general election is if the rest of his own party falls into place.

As for the Clintons, they joined the Reagan Coalition back in the 90s. That and Perot siphoning off GOP votes gave them two plurality (not 50+1) victories.

In order to be a transformational figure like Roosevelt and Reagan, you need to be arguing for ideas that fundamentally change the current political order. Obama's vapid speeches about change and hope do not offer any transformative ideas. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton is part of the post Reagan establishment.
 

Obama beat Keyes 70 to 27% in the Illinois senate race. Illinois is a Democratic leaning state and Alan Keyes was not a strong challenger, but surely that is *some* evidence of his ability to create "Obama Republicans."
 

Eugene Robinson obviously does not like Hillary Clinton, and didn't like Bill Clinton when he was President. He should say so, the better to judge his columns, and other things published under and outside of his authority in the WaPo. Bill Clinton had some obvious flaws, nonetheless a restoration of Clintonomics, Clinton Judges, Clinton Department of Justice, and Clinton Foreign Policy doesn't look so bad today.
Let's be honest: the Reagan transofrmation...those Reagan Democrats...were heavily influenced by fear of losing ground to Afircan Americans. (Obama, nor any Democrat, cannot be honest on this but why do you think that all of those blue collar Democrats were persuaded to vote Republican against their economic interests.)
Of course Reagen didn't really transform much, except for gaining conservative acceptance of what HW called "Voodoo Economics", basically lowering taxes for the rich and raising spending on all sorts of things. And, of course, making it acceptable to exchanges missles for hostages.

Obama may turn out to be a transformative president, and if so I'll be happy for him and for the country. But first he'll have to roll back the damage of the last 7 years. And that will be a huge job, whoever the President.
 

"Obama may turn out to be a transformative president, and if so I'll be happy for him and for the country. But first he'll have to roll back the damage of the last 7 years."

You seem to tacitly assume that "transformation" has to be for the better. That is not, IMO, a safe assumption. A "transformative" President may change things, but he may change them for the worse.
 

calvin terbeek said...

Obama beat Keyes 70 to 27% in the Illinois senate race. Illinois is a Democratic leaning state and Alan Keyes was not a strong challenger, but surely that is *some* evidence of his ability to create "Obama Republicans."

Keys was not even close to a serious candidate in IL. I would have voted for Obama under those circumstances.

If Obama takes the nomination from Clinton, which is probably far less than a 50/50 proposition right now, he will be facing a very serious GOP candidate.

A transformative President unites his or her party and brings in new demographics to form a new majority in support of a new set of governing ideas. Obama is not doing any of these things.
 

Brett says

"You seem to tacitly assume that "transformation" has to be for the better. That is not, IMO, a safe assumption. A "transformative" President may change things, but he may change them for the worse."

Brett may well be correct on this. Past reconstructionist presidents include Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Mckinley(!), FDR, and Reagan. There was much to dislike about Jackson, for example, although we might applaud the fact that the electorate expanded by a factor of almost three as a result of his loss in 1824, which led to states removing property qualifications, and thus to universal manhood suffrage. 1896 was arguably a contest between capitalism and democracy . . . and capitalism won. I would find it difficult to celebrate William Jennings Bryan, but there was something lost with his loss . . . even though Theodore Roosevelt captured the nascent progressive sentiment (even while he sought to center it within the Presidency).

Republicans in 1896 repudiated bimetalism and championed a gold standard. The gold standard had fostered disinflation for a generation, which helped funnel money from borrows (i.e. farmers) to lenders (i.e. Wall Street). It also contributed to economic stress with each annual harvest. But someone once said, "God Smiles on fools . . . and the United States of American." Gold discoveries in Central and South America at the turn of the century ameliorated the stresses placed on having an inflexible gold standard, inflating the money supply.

But perhaps the statement should be amended: "God smiles on fools, and the United States of America . . . until now." Just because fortune smiled on the U.S. before does not mean it will in the future.

One might also keep in mind that "better" depends in part on the eye of the beholder. There was, after all, a significant minority appalled at the policies of FDR.
 

You seem to tacitly assume that "transformation" has to be for the better. That is not, IMO, a safe assumption. A "transformative" President may change things, but he may change them for the worse.

This does seem to be implied in the category. Otherwise we'd change the designations and call presidents like Pierce, Buchanan, and Hoover the "transformatives".
 

"In order to be a transformational figure like Roosevelt and Reagan, you need to be arguing for ideas that fundamentally change the current political order. Obama's vapid speeches about change and hope do not offer any transformative ideas."

It is to giggle; it is to laugh. Anyone who isn't Bart probably already knows that neither FDR or Reagan ran on "ideas" at all in their initial campaigns. Unless, of course, you mean the ideas of their opponents. FDR ran against the activist government of that well known social engineer, Herbert Hoover. The government had gotten too big and intrusive! We need old fashion business-like administration. Reagan ran by talking about the failure of the Carter administration to "live up to the American dream" and similar hyperboles. He kept his ideas carefully under wraps for all of 1980.

What both men DID do, and very effectively indeed, was point to the obvious failures of the party in power then mention pointedly that they and their party had had nothing to do with them. It was after they got into office that we found out what their actual take on policy was. FDR had skimpy majorities in Congress and Reagan only the Senate, but the opposition was so stunned by the turn of events and so unprepared for the truck that suddenly came out of the fog headed at them that the beginnings of a transformative presidency could take place, beginnings cemented in subsequent terms. FDR got more done because he had more time to do it and a second major crisis to deal with, but the scenario was the same in both cases.

This, I might add, is why JB is probably right about what Obama is aiming at and what Clinton might. It's what happens after you get in office - something usually determined by the level of rejection of the previous administration - that counts. It took 1932 to get to 1936 and the actual transformation of our politics. If the Democrats win the next election - and it looks like it would take a miracle for them to lose - the shifts that could begin in 2008 could continue on to 2012. That was what Rove was after; he simply misread electoral history in making his calculations. The stage is really set this time, however.

Well, we'll see soon enough.
 

Tracy:

You have a point that FDR did not really know what he wanted to do in 1932, but he ran for reelection three times on his New Deal.

You could not be more wrong about Reagan, though. The man had been a public figure speaking about his ideas about smaller government, lower taxes and a tough defense since his days as a spokesman for GE in the 50s. Reagan's televised speech laying out the case for Goldwater in 64 made Reagan a national figure. Finally, Reagan ran two campaigns for President on his ideas in 1976 and 1980.

We Reagan revolutionaries in the GOP were converted in 1976 and we knew exactly where Reagan stood. The rest of the country learned in 1980. The rest is history.
 

tracy Lightcap said:


If the Democrats win the next election - and it looks like it would take a miracle for them to lose

Agreed. Except we must not discount the propensity of the Democrats to form a firing squad by getting in a circle.
 

Bart,

Alan Keyes was certainly not a strong candidate, but Obama still won 70% of the vote. That is a substantial victory.

More than that, in the number of primaries held thus far Obama has consistently won more independents and cross-over Republicans than any other Democratic candidate. This would, I think, translate in the general.
 

calvin:

Crossover GOP was about 3%, which is the same as crossover Dems.
 

link?
 

CNN ran exit polls in NH where GOP could vote in the Dem contest an vis versa. The crossover was 2-3% each way.
 

There in no evidence whatsoever that the very liberal Obama attracts any substantial number of center-right GOP voters. None.

Bart's dead wrong again.

The number of self-identified Republicans that Obama attracts is heavily dependent on who the GOP nominee is, but Obama does attract a significant number of Republicans against all contenders, and quite a few more than does Hillary Clinton against all but John McCain.

Diageo/Hotline Poll, Jan. 10-12, 2008

Obama vs. McCain: 11% of self-identified Republicans chose Obama

Clinton vs. McCain: 10% of self-identified Republicans chose Clinton

Obama vs. Huckabee: 18%
Clinton vs. Huckabee: 11%

Obama vs. Romney: 21%
Clinton vs. Romney: 10%

Obama vs. Giuliani: 18%
Clinton vs. Giuliani: 10%
 

mark:

["Bart"]: There in no evidence whatsoever that the very liberal Obama attracts any substantial number of center-right GOP voters. None.

[mark]: Bart's dead wrong again.... [followed by some actual numbers showing just that]

Only problem here, Mark, is the language. "Bart" is quite right (in oh so many ways). From where he's sitting, there's probably very few if any "center-right GOP voters" (compared to him at least) that would vote for the "very liberal" ... and Mooslim ... N*gra .... Barak Hussein Osama. Didja hear he's fathered a black kid?

It's just a matter of perspective, you know....

Cheers,
 

Calvin & Co.:

Here is your link. (See page five of the poll breakdown). The polled voters in the NH primary where anyone can vote in either primary. the voters in the Dem primary broke down to 54% Dem, 44% Indi and 3% GOP.

Mark:

Your Hotline Poll covers registered, not likely voters. a large portion of whom will not vote this fall. When given the opportunity in a real election, actual voters in NH did not cross over.
 

The polled voters in the NH primary where anyone can vote in either primary. the voters in the Dem primary broke down to 54% Dem, 44% Indi and 3% GOP.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 7:54 PM

Baghdad, that doesn't really support your position. You would expect Obama to poll worse among Rightwingnuts when he's facing a whole bunch of them, which is the case in a primary. But in a general election, he only has to face one of them.
 

"We Reagan revolutionaries in the GOP were converted in 1976 and we knew exactly where Reagan stood. The rest of the country learned in 1980. The rest is history."

My point exactly. No doubt Democratic activists knew that FDR had continued Al Smith's liberal agenda as governor as well. But let's not translate that into the Idea that Reagan ran some sort of ideological jihad in 1980. He called for lower inflation, lower tax burdens, less regulation and bureaucracy, and smaller government; i.e. roughly what Carter ran on in 1976. What drove his campaign, however, was an general rejection of how these ideas worked in the hands of the Carter administration. It was the sense that the Democrats had had their shot and had failed for four years that Reagan played on and very effectively too. His policy proposals were kept WAY to the background and his proposals were generally treated by the electorate that took notice of them (few of those) as a bunch of red meat that he threw at folks like you to keep you on board; "He'll never do anything like that when he gets into power!", some said.

But, of course, he did and he hit the ground running to do it. I'm guessing that whoever the Dems get into power (if that happens) would do exactly the same thing in pretty much the opposite direction.
 

Don’t forget I’m just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya