The Dangers of a Second Term

Well, it has been nearly two and a half months and, with the inauguration coming up, I’ve worked through the stages of grief and come to terms with a second term for Mr. Obama.  I try to be philosophical about it and having to keep a neutral face and tone with my government students certainly helps.  In keeping with a purely non-partisan tone and in an attempt to exercise my deep desire to educate people on history, the idea of a two-term president is worth considering and evaluating.  If the past is anything to go on, the president will not have it as easy as his most glossy-eyed acolytes sincerely hope. 

There is a certain ebb and flow when it comes to the two-term presidents.  Of the first seven presidents, only two failed to earn a second term.  John Adams was guilty of running afoul of his own party to uphold his country’s best interests.  John Quincy Adams, the former’s son, was the victim of perception and the fact that many felt he obtained the highest office in a less than dignified way.  Between 1837 and 1912, there were only two who managed to win a second term (save Abraham Lincoln who never really saw his second term).  Ulysses S. Grant goes down in history as overseeing one of the most corrupt administrations and Grover Cleveland likely spent most of his second term wishing he had stayed in Buffalo.  In the 20^th century, war required a steady hand and the voters doubled down (quadrupled down in the case of the latter) with Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.  In recent years, five of the last eight presidents (four of the last five) have earned a second term. 

With regards to the second term itself, history is not pretty.   Six presidents (Jefferson, Jackson, Grant, Cleveland, Nixon and Bush) faced severe economic challenges, many of which would extend beyond their second term.  Four presidents (Madison, Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman) faced conflict abroad.  President Roosevelt had the easiest out with regards to the Spanish Civil War.  Yet, historians argue effectively that his lack of involvement made the upcoming World War more dangerous and difficult to overcome.  Three presidents (Nixon, Reagan and Clinton) faced scandals – two of which were the product of personal weaknesses and the other, perhaps, symptoms of an early onset of Alzheimer’s disease.  Three presidents (Monroe, Eisenhower and Nixon) faced serious domestic turmoil that threatened the unity of the country or the prestige of the government. 

What will President Obama face?  It will be interesting how the French action in Mali will play itself out.  The French and President Hollande have weighed into a situation, the likes of which I thought they learned their lessons from Algeria and Viet Nam.  Yet, the Mali people need help and absent American leadership, who used to direct these sorts of things, the French and the African Union are, for the moment, going at it alone.  It remains to be seen just how far the president is willing to push his Pacific strategy and emphasis but dealing with China and keeping them in check will remain a problematic objective.  Worst of all, the president will continue to deal with insolent Iran and an impending conflagration when Israel loses faith in the U.S. to prevent nuclear proliferation.   

On the domestic front, the president will face the ramifications of his Affordable Care Act.  Nancy Pelosi said we will not know how it will play out until it is in place but once that happens, the unforeseen consequences will be a struggle with which the president will have to contend.  The economy poses an ongoing threat to his domestic policies and the president will be plagued with concern about how the Americans respond.  The gun issue, to the anti-gun crowd, seems self-evident and they often speak as if they are incredulous that anyone would disagree with them.  However, the National Rifle Association is growing in membership and money in light of the president’s anti-gun policy and especially in light of the Newtown massacre.  While opinion inside the beltway seems incontrovertible, beyond lies a different story. 

Will President Obama avoid the pitfalls of presidents past?  History would suggest not.  However, the president’s second term is, to an extent, in his hands.  How well will he work with Republicans?  How well will he be able to control his own party, particularly those in Congress, and get them on board with his policies?  How well will Mr. Obama’s new cabinet meld into their new jobs?  How proactive will he be on those issues unfolding overseas?  As an American, I hope for the best.  As an historian, I know the deck is stacked.

 

This Story Shall the Good Man Teach His Son

I have this morning witnessed one of the most interesting scenes a free people can ever witness.  The changes of administration, which in every government and in every age have most generally been epochs of confusion, villainy and bloodshed, in this our happy country take place without any species of distraction, or disorder. 

            A Philadelphia woman in a letter to her sister on the occasion of Thomas

            Jefferson’s inauguration, 1801

It was March 4, 1801 and Thomas Jefferson, the tall and distinguished gentleman from Virginia left his residency of the last few months, a boarding house in Washington, D.C., to make his way to the Senate chamber.  The election he had only recently survived was a tumultuous and dirty campaign; one that would make modern-day campaigns seem quaint and genteel in comparison.  Jefferson’s followers had called his opponent, President John Adams, an atheist and suggested that he sought a re-uniting with England.  The Federalists were worse.  They called the Virginia politician “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father…”  On top of it all, the actual election was only recently resolved the month before after a contentious fight between Jefferson and Aaron Burr.  Yet, despite the hatred and the vitriolic nature of the debate, a country came together to honor a new president.  Not just a new president, but a new political philosophy – different from the two previous Federalist presidents. 

In accordance with congressional law, which states that a general election will be held every four years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, Americans will gather to vote for president.  The amazing part of the whole process is that on November 7 (hopefully), we will usher in either a new term or a new presidency.  Despite our convictions, our beliefs, we will accept the will of the people, as expressed in the vote cast next Tuesday.  For the last four years, President Obama has been my president and I have taken umbrage to those who disrespect the man.  No one, and that includes people like me and others who have criticized him over the years, has any idea what it is like to be president or the pressures that fall on that person.  Still, I hope that in a week’s time, we will have a new president.  I trust Mr. Romney’s vision for the future more than the president’s.  However, if the president is re-elected, my responsibility as an American is to accept him and respect him.   

There are those around the country who allow their viewpoints and paradigm to cloud their responsibility.  However, for the most part, I believe people do respect the office of the presidency and in that regard, we are unique.  It is not to say that other nations do not respect their leaders but they are seen in many places as more interchangeable.  Still, it is strange.  As a whole, we are a people who are known for its respect of its political leaders, its law enforcement agencies and as kids, we are told early and often to respect our elders.  Yet, we are a nation of individualists, who tend to be anti-authoritarian.  I’m fond of the scene in The Great Escape when the German commandant asks Steve McQueen’s character, “Are all American pilots so ill-mannered?”  McQueen responds, “Yep, about 99% of us.”  That is the United States but we still see our leaders and our president as different.  We don’t put him on a pedestal, or we shouldn’t…the president is not better than us but he can be the best of us.   

So, I anxiously await Tuesday.  I’m pulling with much enthusiasm for Governor Romney and think he has a good chance of winning.  His economic approach is more sound and more friendly for people like us trying to pull ourselves out of our economic blight.  His understanding of the U.S. position and role in the world is also more historically sound and ultimately, will make my country and the world safer.  And no matter what happens, my politically contradictory spouse and I will still be able to deal with one another (what to do with her yard sign though...hmm).  So will the United States.  It has been that way since the first men ascended to the position of president.

A Civics Lesson Takes Center Stage

This past Wednesday evening, in Denver, Colorado, President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney met for the first of three presidential debates.  Over the course of an hour and a half, the two men, rather cordially, discussed and debated the important issues of the day.  Viewers, and by all accounts they were plentiful, saw a public discussion to a degree and depth for which typical news coverage does not allow.  For my students, who were tasked with watching the debate, they were able to see a bit of how their government works.  Of course, what I will not mention to my students was my belief that Mr. Romney was outstanding and convincing. 

As pre-arranged, the debate centered on domestic issues, in particular taxes, health care, social security and the national debt.  As likely most would concede, Mr. Romney was persuasive and in control during that exchange.  Conversely, President Obama was hesitant and unsure, too quick to be conciliatory and too willing to accept aspects of his opponent’s points.  My students picked up on this and were quick to point it out.  We discussed at length over the course of the week the different characteristics of the exchange between the two presidential candidates.   

One, my students felt that the exchange was, at times, rude on the part of both men.  However, I was quick to point out that during a debate, it is the moderator’s job to ensure that each man can speak at equal lengths.  The debater must attempt to speak as long as he can and to pontificate and elaborate as much as he can.  His concern cannot be for the other man (or woman).  In this role, Jim Lehrer, an otherwise masterful master of ceremonies for such events since 1976, was off his game.  He decided, at some point, that he preferred the give-and-take the two candidates were engaged in than structure and discipline.  I don’t have a problem with it per se, but many of my students misconstrued that as rudeness.  In explaining the purpose of a debate and the responsibility of a debater, the students felt that it allowed for a great direct conversation between the two with plenty of information enumerated and philosophies explained. 

The students also admitted to be a bit confused over the constant haggling over numbers.  I have to admit, though I’m an intelligent, educated (some would say erudite) man, numbers make me a little tired myself.  My approach is to focus on the philosophies rather than the statistics.  The old adage of there being “lies, damned lies and statistics” cannot be more spot on.  Therefore, I prefer to listen to the paradigm with which the candidates operate under than the numbers they manipulate for their own purposes.   

It is my firm belief that President Obama will come out swinging during the debate on 16 October at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.  It will be moderated by CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley and will feature a town hall format over a slew of issues.  It is doubtful that the president will concede as much and many of the issues he has been focused on with regards to his opponent over the last month will resurface – items such as the 47% comment and Mr. Romney’s lack of “economic patriotism.”  However, for one night, Mr. Romney displayed a mastery of the topic (it is within his wheelhouse, so to speak) and joyous attitude (“It’s fun, isn’t it?”).  I hope he can maintain his confidence and control but he will need to show, within the context of a “town hall” debate, that he can connect with the audience.  If he can do that, the campaign could begin to turn permanently.