If historical patterns hold, deep divisions within the Republican Party are the primary reason the White House might remain in Democratic hands after Obama completes his two terms. If by chance a Democrat wins the 2016 election, odds are even greater that she will serve only one term.
Pay attention, Hillary Clinton. If by chance you win the presidency in 2016, your odds of becoming a two-term president are really really long. And Donald Trump, if by chance you win the 2016 election, the odds of your party holding on to the White House for more than four years are really long as well.
We are ripe for a transitional presidency. We haven't had one in 24 years, since George H.W. Bush lost the presidency to Bill Clinton.
It's difficult for an American political party to hold a White House coalition together for more than eight years. Ideologues within the parties get tired of making the compromises necessary to govern, and prefer infighting or sitting on their hands. Exhibit A: Green Democrats (Naderites) abandoned Al Gore in 2000. Exhibit B: Buchananites abandoned George H.W. Bush in 1992. Exhibit C: Antiwar activists abandoned Democratic Vice President Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
And after a 24-year pattern of alternating control of the White House every eight years, the cycle usually breaks: either one party continues to hold the White House (for 12 consecutive years), or the other party's coalition is too fragile to sustain an eight-year hold on the presidency. Witness the cases of Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush.
One can argue that, based on historical patterns, more important than who the Democrats nominated in 2016 is whether Republicans can heal the rifts between the "anti-establishment" and "establishment" wings of the GOP, between deficit hawks and tax cutters, between isolationists and interventionists, between immigration accomodationalists and those hostile to immigration, between small or limited government, libertarian purists and corporate welfare/crony capitalists.
The political pendulum generally swings from one party to the other after two full presidential terms. Since 1952, we've seen four Republican eight-year terms (Eisenhower, 1953-1961; Nixon-Ford, 1969-1977; Reagan, 1981-1989; G.W. Bush, 2001-2009), and three Democratic eight-year terms (Kennedy-Johnson, 1961-1969; Clinton, 1993-2001; and Obama, 2009-2017). We've seen a single one-term Democratic president, Jimmy Carter; and a single one-term Republican president, George H.W. Bush.
Perceived injustices in American presidential politics have a way of self-correcting over time. Republican activists were devastated by Reagan's loss to Ford at the 1976 Republican convention. But their loss in 1976 paved the way for Reagan's success in 1980. Democrats were devastated by Gore's loss in 2000, though he won the popular vote. But if Gore won in 2000, there likely would not have been an Obama presidency, beloved by many Democrats.
The cycle since 1952 was 24 years alternating party control of the White House, followed by a one-term Democratic presidency, followed by 12 years with the GOP. Then the 24-year alternating cycle repeated itself. So we are probably due to elect a one-term president in 2016. By 2020, we will not have elected a one-term president for 28 years, the longest span in American presidential history.
Yes, if the alternating eight-year presidential pattern holds, the statistical odds are for the election of a Republican president in 2016. But Republicans should be careful what they wish for. If the GOP wins the 2016 election, the odds are even greater that their president will be weak, with a fragile coalition, and lose re-election in 2020. The same goes for the Democrat.
Would it not be better for either party to lose in 2016 and come roaring back, strong enough to push through truly significant changes, with an eight-year presidency beginning in 2020?
What were the conditions that led to exceptions to the pattern of eight years for Republicans, followed by eight years for the Democrats?
- In 1976, as a result of the Watergate scandal, inflation shock and Republican divisions, Democrat Jimmy Carter (barely) won one term. Without the albatross of Watergate, Republicans would probably have won in 1976. Gerald Ford came from behind and almost beat Carter that year anyway.
- In 1980, economic and hostage crises, Democratic divisions and conservative ascendency conspired to deprive Carter of a second term.
- In 1988, a strong economy and weak Democratic nominee worked to Vice President George H.W. Bush's advantage. This advantage was only temporary, however. Bush's luck ran out in 1992, when Republican divisions and a weak economy cost him re-election.
It is interesting how the presidency was strengthened in the 20th century, when presidents served longer and consolidated their power. In the 19th century, there were 25 US presidents, while in the 20th century, there were just 19 presidents over the span of 100 years.
It is also interesting how infrequently presidents die in office nowadays. The president elected every 20 years from 1840 to 1960 died in office. But Ronald Reagan broke that spell, survived an attempted assassination in 1981 and served out his full term. So did George W. Bush 20 years later. So America hasn't had a president to die in office since 1963, an unprecedented record and tribute to the work of the Secret Service, better technology to detect weapons, and better medical care.
Update: Fall 2016
If Hillary Clinton squeaks through, eeks out an electoral victory, it's difficult to imagine she could serve two full terms. She will likely face a Republican House for her entire term. Though she might win a Democratic Senate in 2016, in two years, the Senate map will be a lot more difficult for Dems and they will have trouble holding a majority in the Senate, meaning her final two years will be hell, full of constant investigations of pseudo (or real) scandals. So we are likely looking for Republicans to take the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2020.
If, on the other hand, Donald Trump wins, he will probably be a disaster for the Republicans and show them to have no governing skills. As Jeb Bush said, he is the "chaos candidate." The economy could plunge unnecessarily from his policy inconsistency, impracticality and emotional instability. He would waste time, energy and taxpayers' money on things that are either impossible to achieve or will not result in the desired effect, such as a border wall with Mexico or cancelling trade agreements. The wall won't end illegal immigration and cancelling trade deals won't bring back manufacturing jobs. With Trump as president, Dems could gain congressional seats in two years even though the map is more difficult for them.
In short, if voters think beyond this election, the long-term future for Dems would be better if Trump wins. The long-term future for Republicans would be better if Hillary wins.
This is a transitional campaign, in a transitional year, to elect a transitional president for just four years. This campaign hasn't been about issues, but about character. Whoever is elected will not have much of a mandate because they haven't talked enough about issues, rather they've insisted simply that they aren't as bad as the other candidate. However, whosoever is elected will act as if they have a mandate, alienating interest groups and voters resentful that they didn't vote for THIS OR THAT POLICY.
We have had three consecutive two-term presidents (Clinton-Bush-Obama), which is the longest stretch of two-term presidents in American history, or 24 years, aside from Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, who each served eight years consecutively. It's time for a one-term president.
Generational Change Ahead?
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton may be the last of the baby-boomers elected president. Baby boomers embody or internalize intense cultural divisions on sex and gender roles, honesty, truth, race, law and order and criminal justice/acountability. We Baby Boomers are still working out issues from our youth. Trump is the first candidate to model his "law 'n order" campaign after Nixon's, and claim to speak for a "silent majority" of working class voters, just as Nixon did. He may face his own impeachment. Clinton, who helped prosecute Nixon, may face her own Watergate moment or impeachment as well.
Surely in four years, the nation will be ready for a new generation of leadership, not from the Baby Boomers. Those candidates will generate a lot of energy from their cohort because they embody a fresh perspective on the world.
Trump or Clinton: Doomed from the Start
It seems highly likely that neither Trump or Clinton will be a strong president serving a full eight years. Trump will be 74 in four years, isn't very fit, and his hold on the Republican Party and even the presidency would be tenuous at best. He would be 78 at the end of his second term, the oldest president in history. Hillary will be 73 in four years, and 77 at the end of her second term, the same age the oldest president, Ronald Reagan, was when he left office.
Both Trump and Clinton are likely to face intense hyper-partisan opposition designed to wear them down, as well as opposition within their own parties.
Hillary Clinton would follow Obama. The successors to highly-popular and dynamic presidents, particularly of the same political party, historically are perceived as unsatisfactory and weak. Think of the rotund William Howard Taft succeeding Teddy Roosevelt in 1908. He never measured up and though they were both Republicans, TR challenged him in 1912, almost guaranteeing the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson by a minority of voters.
Think of Herbert Hoover, succeeding the hugely popular Calvin Coolidge during the Roaring Twenties. The economy had no where to go but down, and boy did it, into the depths of the Great Depression, and that took Hoover down as well. Think of Harry Truman struggling to fill the shoes of the dynamic Franklin Roosevelt. "To Err is Truman" was a popular joke prior to the 1948 election. The seemingly unpopular Truman eeked out a shocking victory in 1948 against Thomas Dewey and earned the presidency in his own right.
Think of Lyndon Johnson trying mightily in the shadow of the martyred saint, John F. Kennedy. He could never please those who loved JFK, and finally gave up a fight for re-election in 1968 after sinking into the Vietnam quagmire.
Jimmy Carter, too, suffered from comparisons to JFK. But when younger brother Ted Kennedy mounted an intra-party challenge, Carter "whipped his ass." Even so, the Democratic Party was so divided that Republicans led by Ronald Reagan beat Carter handily.
The charm and popularity of Reagan could not be matched by his awkward successor, George H.W. Bush. The right-wing of the party never trusted Bush. Pat Buchanan mounted a challenge that hurt Bush's ability to unify the party, and his chances for re-election. Bush lost badly to Bill Clinton, winning only 38 percent of the vote in a three-person race.
If Hillary is elected, her best chance of success will be if the Republican Party splits apart. She will have to look for ways to play the Republicans against each other. But if Trump wins and wages war against the Republican establishment in Washington, that could also cripple and split the Republican Party.
Either of the candidates elected on November 8 will likely be hobbled or crippled by the opposition, forces arrayed against them, and if historical presidential patterns play out, highly unlikely to serve eight years.
Recent Comments