Perhaps… If History Repeats Itself…
(Important Note: the 49-state blowout was Reagan’s re-election in 1984)
Please consider the following two sequences:
Sequence #1: FDR –> Truman –> Eisenhower –> Kennedy –> Johnson –> Nixon/Ford –> Carter
Sequence #2: Reagan –> GHW Bush –> Clinton –> GW Bush –> Obama –> Trump –> Biden
Now, please consider them this way:
FDR <=> Reagan
Truman <=> GHW Bush
Eisenhower <=> Clinton
JF Kennedy <=> GW Bush
LB Johnson <=> Obama
Nixon/Ford <=> Trump
Carter <=> Biden
Do you all see, as I think I see, great similarities between the men and their respective eras? At least at a high level?
FDR had his “evil empire” — two of them really, and played an important role in bringing them down.
Reagan actually coined the phrase, “evil empire” for the Soviet Union of his era, and Reagan played an important role in bringing it down.
Both FDR and Reagan were big, charismatic, primary-color-type personalities.
Truman had the A-Bomb to administer the coup-de-grace to the final evil empire of the time.
George H.W. Bush had the Berlin Wall, as a kind of symbolic coup-de-grace to the evil empire Soviet Union. Both Truman and GHW Bush were far more understated personalities in their respective White Houses than their immediate predecessors.
Eisenhower, the moderate Republican of his day, led the country through two terms of relative peace, growth and prosperity.
Clinton, the moderate Democrat of his time, and despite his best efforts, did likewise.
Both men had very different personalities on the surface, but also exhibited great similarities, with a kind of disarming, aw-shucks charm that many mistook for likeability. Both were, however, prickly, demanding, strong type-a personalities.
John F. Kennedy had the Cuban Missile Crisis, then potentially the most consequential act of war in history. It represented an existential crisis for the free world of his time.
George W. Bush faced 9/11, that actually was possibly the most consequential act of war in human history.
Kennedy, a Democrat, acted as a moderate Republican: a reducer of taxes who was hawkish on Communism.
GW Bush was a moderate Republican who had a similar state of mind as it pertains both to domestic and foreign policy.
In temperament, however, the two men were very different.
The amazingly corrupt Lyndon B. Johnson had a presidency that was very similar to the amazingly corrupt Obama’s. Both had, for good or ill, profoundly transformative presidencies. Both survived in the Presidency ONLY because of remarkably favorably treatment by the media. Though, Johnson declined to run for a second term when he deemed he had lost the media’s favor.
Johnson had the Vietnam War, which he mismanaged terribly; Obama inherited the “War on Terror” which he mismanaged terribly through non-management.
Johnson ushered in things like the Civil Rights Act and the so-called “Great Society.” Obama brought us Obamacare. The Great Society initiative and Obamacare are unmitigated disasters, while the Civil Rights Act was an obvious good thing, if not unambiguously so.
One could call the very election and re-election of Obama to be his equivalent of the Civil Rights Act. Both the Civil Rights Act and Obama’s elections showed unambiguously that America is not a racist nation. At least as it pertains to black Americans.
Then came Nixon/Ford (Ford finished off Nixon’s second presidency) and Trump.
Both men faced unparalleled assaults on them from a corrupt press corps, that had for generations allowed Democrat Presidents to get away with far more than what they alleged Nixon/Ford-Trump had ever done.
Both men’s presidencies were heavily hamstrung by these assaults, and by the coordinated actions of a cabal of elites in massively powerful corporations and media empires.
However, both followed foreign policies that were sharply divergent from what was expected of them given their GOP party affiliation.
Nixon went to China and met with Mao (full disclosure: I played ping pong [yes: table tennis] in some local “ping pong diplomacy” events, though I disapproved of the opening to China); Trump met with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, and brought about the Abraham Accords.
Both presidents carry with them a reputation for corruption and dishonesty, even though both presidents were far less corrupt and dishonest than their Democrat predecessors.
That brings us to Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden. The parallels between these two presidents seem obvious to me: Two men clearly out of their depth; two men clearly not intellectually suitable to the Presidency; two men seemingly doing their level best to enhance the world’s perception of an aging hyperpower in accelerating decline.
Fascinatingly, both men faced similar crises as well! During the Carter Presidency, the country experienced the “Oil Shock,” which was: a crisis of supply.
Biden faces an overall economy shock, which is (at least partially): a crisis of supply. Both men have revealed themselves to be towering mediocrities. Of course, mediocrities can rise to the pinnacle of power only in a mediocritocracy.
Now, it’s time to look at their respective VICE-Presidents. Carter had Walter Mondale, another towering mediocrity, whose record of accomplishment is second to most, despite his rise nearly to the top. Is this not also a perfect summation for the career of Kamala Harris, today’s second banana in the Biden-Harris mediocritocracy?
Does this also mean that there lurks a Reaganesque figure, waiting in the wings to help lead America out of the Carter-Biden decline, with a massive 49-state landslide Presidential victory in 2024? And, if so, who is that figure?
December 8, 2021