Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Hillarysworld -> Hillary 2012 -> The Myth of the One-Term Wonder (NY Times 2/14/10)
Post Info
TOPIC: The Myth of the One-Term Wonder (NY Times 2/14/10)
Jen the Michigander


SuperModerator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1788
Date:
The Myth of the One-Term Wonder (NY Times 2/14/10)
Permalink  
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/opinion/14merry.html?pagewanted=1&ref=opinion

No doubt President Obama was sincere when he recently told ABC’s Diane Sawyer that he’d “rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” The president seemed to be saying that he would make decisions with history in mind rather than voter sentiment, even if voter sentiment would get him tossed out at the next election.

This is perhaps a noble sensibility — and one worth reflecting on as President’s Day approaches. But it’s also misguided. The judgment of history — in the form of presidential rankings yielded up by those periodic polls of heavyweight historians — coincides to a remarkable degree with the contemporaneous judgment of the electorate. With few exceptions, history has not smiled upon one-term presidents. Only one such chief executive has managed with any consistency to get into the historians’ “near great” category.

That president is James K. Polk, who announced upon getting his party’s nomination in 1844 that, if elected, he would serve only one term. He did this in part because, as a small-government man, he possessed a philosophical aversion to entrenched power. But his vow was pragmatic, not just idealistic: he felt the powerful figures of his party would be more likely to unite behind him in the general election if they thought they would have their own shot at the presidency in four years.

The typical one-term president generally falls into the “average” category, occasionally showing up as “above average.” This generally means no unavoidable crises, no scandals of consequence and no serious new directions for America. A 2000 Wall Street Journal poll of historians ranked John Adams as above average and then populated the average category mostly with one-termers: William Howard Taft, John Quincy Adams, George H. W. Bush, Rutherford B. Hayes, Martin Van Buren and Chester A. Arthur.

Also on the “average” list were the two-termers Calvin Coolidge, whose economic policies are viewed by many historians as having contributed to the Depression, and Bill Clinton, whose historical reputation couldn’t be judged fairly before his presidency was over. (Similarly, it’s too soon for historians to assess George W. Bush, however tempting that may be.) Most of these “average” presidents were decent men and serious politicians, but they left little mark of historical dimension upon the nation.

All this suggests a false dichotomy underlying Mr. Obama’s expressed resolve to render his presidential decisions without regard to his re-election chances — as if the choice were between political popularity and governmental success. A better approach for any chief executive is to assume that, in presidential politics, as in retailing, the customer is always right, and that the electorate’s verdict will be consonant with history’s consensus. Thus, the aim of every historically minded president, Mr. Obama included, should be to pursue a second term by bundling up voter sentiment into a collection of policies and programs that succeed in the crucial areas most on the minds of the American people.

Mr. Obama can certainly anticipate a one-term fate if he gets crosswise with his citizens. And if that happens, it isn’t likely that on future President’s Days he will ever be remembered as a great chief executive.

__________________

4145952823_2e0edce16f.jpg

Nobody puts THIS baby in the corner!
Alex


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 1191
Date:
Permalink  
 

"That president is James K. Polk, who announced upon getting his party’s nomination in 1844 that, if elected, he would serve only one term. He did this in part because, as a small-government man, he possessed a philosophical aversion to entrenched power. But his vow was pragmatic, not just idealistic: he felt the powerful figures of his party would be more likely to unite behind him in the general election if they thought they would have their own shot at the presidency in four years."

Major difference between Polk and Obama - Polk had morals and ethics, and loved America.  Obama hasn't and doesn't, and it shows A LOT!disbelief

__________________

Barack/Barry:  If you're NOT LEGIT, then you MUST QUIT!!
Hillarysmygirl16


Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 2818
Date:
Permalink  
 

Alex wrote:

"That president is James K. Polk, who announced upon getting his party’s nomination in 1844 that, if elected, he would serve only one term. He did this in part because, as a small-government man, he possessed a philosophical aversion to entrenched power. But his vow was pragmatic, not just idealistic: he felt the powerful figures of his party would be more likely to unite behind him in the general election if they thought they would have their own shot at the presidency in four years."

Major difference between Polk and Obama - Polk had morals and ethics, and loved America.  Obama hasn't and doesn't, and it shows A LOT!disbelief


One term is all he is going to be I think he is planning to Johnson

 



__________________

4459303562_3f593359a2_m.jpg
Jen the Michigander


SuperModerator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1788
Date:
Permalink  
 

HMG, I agree that the Johnson scenario is likely, especially if Obama's numbers keep going down and more pundits start talking about Hillary or Dean or Bayh or other Dems challenging him in 2012. 0 hasn't been in office eighteen months, yet his house of cards is already falling down. There's no way he can sustain what's left of his coalition through the end of 2010 and into 2011. Not without some kind of miracle. Sooner or later, even the foulest rats and most loyal obots will jump off his sinking ship because it will be impossible for them to fix the election for him.

__________________

4145952823_2e0edce16f.jpg

Nobody puts THIS baby in the corner!
Hillarysmygirl16


Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 2818
Date:
Permalink  
 

Jen the Michigander wrote:

HMG, I agree that the Johnson scenario is likely, especially if Obama's numbers keep going down and more pundits start talking about Hillary or Dean or Bayh or other Dems challenging him in 2012. 0 hasn't been in office eighteen months, yet his house of cards is already falling down. There's no way he can sustain what's left of his coalition through the end of 2010 and into 2011. Not without some kind of miracle. Sooner or later, even the foulest rats and most loyal obots will jump off his sinking ship because it will be impossible for them to fix the election for him.


Just remember HMG said it first like right after he won the election lolwink

 



__________________

4459303562_3f593359a2_m.jpg
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Hillarysworld -> Hillary 2012 -> The Myth of the One-Term Wonder (NY Times 2/14/10)
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard