Jonathan Rauch: Is Obama Repeating Bush's Mistakes?
[Jonathan Rauch is a senior writer and columnist for National Journal magazine in Washington and a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly.]
What year is this?
Ross Douthat of The Atlantic asked that question in a smart Wall Street Journal article three years ago. What he meant was that how you viewed foreign policy depended on which of several watershed years you thought 2006 resembled: the 1938 of appeasement, the 1948 of containment, the 1972 of Vietnam, and so on.
In the spirit of Douthat's question, what year is it now for President Obama?
Democrats hope that it's 1981. A new president with a new mandate proposes a bold program that restores economic growth, rebuilds the country's confidence, and seizes the mantle of prosperity for his party.
Republicans hope that it's 1993. A politically talented but inexperienced Democratic president abandons the center, overreaches with a health care bill, and revives Republicans' prospects.
Republicans fear that it's 1933. A charismatic Democrat capitalizes on an economic crisis to rewrite the contract between Washington and the public, relegating Republicans to minority party status for a generation.
And Democrats fear -- what? They should keep a wary eye on 1993, of course. But they should be more worried that this year is 2002. Obama and George W. Bush could hardly be less alike, which makes it all the odder to say that Obama may be in the process of repeating his predecessor's mistakes.
In 2000, Bush defined his candidacy with three overarching promises: to restore dignity to the Oval Office, to be a compassionate (that is, centrist) conservative, and to be a uniter, not a divider. He kept the first promise, but it was the least important. He broke the second by becoming, in the public's mind, a hard-edged ideologue. He broke the third and most important promise most spectacularly, by emerging as the most divisive president in at least a generation. The public felt betrayed and angry. Along came Obama.
At least until the economic crisis emerged late in the campaign, Obama, too, was defined by three overarching promises: to restore America's prestige abroad, to bring change to Washington, and above all, to be a uniter, not a divider. In effect, he would redeem the promise that Bush had broken...
Read entire article at National Journal
What year is this?
Ross Douthat of The Atlantic asked that question in a smart Wall Street Journal article three years ago. What he meant was that how you viewed foreign policy depended on which of several watershed years you thought 2006 resembled: the 1938 of appeasement, the 1948 of containment, the 1972 of Vietnam, and so on.
In the spirit of Douthat's question, what year is it now for President Obama?
Democrats hope that it's 1981. A new president with a new mandate proposes a bold program that restores economic growth, rebuilds the country's confidence, and seizes the mantle of prosperity for his party.
Republicans hope that it's 1993. A politically talented but inexperienced Democratic president abandons the center, overreaches with a health care bill, and revives Republicans' prospects.
Republicans fear that it's 1933. A charismatic Democrat capitalizes on an economic crisis to rewrite the contract between Washington and the public, relegating Republicans to minority party status for a generation.
And Democrats fear -- what? They should keep a wary eye on 1993, of course. But they should be more worried that this year is 2002. Obama and George W. Bush could hardly be less alike, which makes it all the odder to say that Obama may be in the process of repeating his predecessor's mistakes.
In 2000, Bush defined his candidacy with three overarching promises: to restore dignity to the Oval Office, to be a compassionate (that is, centrist) conservative, and to be a uniter, not a divider. He kept the first promise, but it was the least important. He broke the second by becoming, in the public's mind, a hard-edged ideologue. He broke the third and most important promise most spectacularly, by emerging as the most divisive president in at least a generation. The public felt betrayed and angry. Along came Obama.
At least until the economic crisis emerged late in the campaign, Obama, too, was defined by three overarching promises: to restore America's prestige abroad, to bring change to Washington, and above all, to be a uniter, not a divider. In effect, he would redeem the promise that Bush had broken...