Alternative Futures, Echoes of Pasts

Some astute commentators have pointed out that McCain's campaign looks toward the past, while Obama's looks to the future; further, that the future-oriented Presidential campaigns win.

While all of that may be true, I'd like to look at the other side of the argument.

John McCain and Our Future

Beyond cutting pork out of our governmental diet, victory with honor in Iraq, and making permanent the Bushite tax cuts, what are the real proposals, and what is likely to happen if McCain wins?

There's the spending freeze, which I will give some credit to McCain for coming up with during the debate when both candidates were challenged to name something they would cut to deal with the economic crisis. The only two problems with that idea were that the exceptions (military, veterans, and a few other programs, not to mention the entitlements) pretty much cover all the major spending areas, and the second is that Congress is supposed to legislate expenditures. True, McCain could choose not to spend some money that was allocated on certain programs if their budget authorizations were not written such that the President was directed to spend all the money. Cosmetically, it's an attractive idea, but not one that is going to bring the budget into balance.

There's the health care initiative, which if I understand it right, would require a Congressional approval of a tax credit for purchase of health insurance, which would be offset for many by taxation of health care benefits received from employers. I can't see that one going anywhere.

Neither is there any chance for extending the Bushite tax cuts, barring some shocking reversal in 2010 putting the Republicans back in control in the House. My understanding is that legislative action would be required for them to persist, which is part of the beauty of Obama's promise to increase the taxes for the highest earners--he need do nothing for that part of the tax plan, and woe to those who oppose the tax cuts for the middle class.

In fact, there are hardly any initiatives John McCain would be able to get through a heavily-Democratic House or Senate. He would be in the position of reacting to legislation generated in Democratic-led committees. He could bring out that crusty old pen and veto everything, and most of those vetoes would stick--if, and it's a big if, he doesn't alienate his own party's Congressional caucus too much.

There might be a chance for a couple of bipartisan initiatives: a watered-down cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gases (in his version, polluters would be grandfathered to current levels), approval of defense budgets no one dares oppose, and supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan (similar argument, a la Bushite Misrule), maybe even a new stab at funding Social Security and Medicare (if he doesn't alienate either party's caucus).

This scenario--governance through lack of action--actually does appeal to many Americans as a way to restrain our elected representatives from going overboard. In a time of strong growth, when inflation might loom large, this would make more sense. With deep recession all around, though, this negative vision hardly excites anyone.

Obama and the Past

On daily kos I posted a poll, way back on September 14, on the closest parallel in US election history to the current one. The clear winner was 1932: FDR's win over Herbert Hoover was the election readers of my diary selected as the one most like this one in its framing and result. I was somewhat surprised by that result, but as the days passed the group's wisdom has become more apparent--both the severity of the economic crisis as backdrop, and the possibility of a landslide.

1992 also recommends itself--a Bush goes down, "it's the economy, stupid"--and it's recent enough that most of us may actually remember the event. Both 1992 and 1932 were wins over Republican incumbents, not the case here.

I remember 1976, where Carter defeated Ford. Technically, Ford was the incumbent, but like this election, the hapless Republican candidate was really only the repository of the anger at the failures of his predecessor. As I've said before, Obama would do really well to speak at length with Jimmy Carter. I understand why he wouldn't have done it before the election, but (assuming he wins, of course) now would be the time.

In 1828, there was a call for vindication after a stolen previous election: John Q. Adams had taken it from Andrew Jackson in the House of Representatives (basically, due to the assistance of the 3rd-place candidate in the general election, Henry Clay). If/when Obama wins, there will be a similar feeling of redemption to Jackson's landslide in 1828. The difference being, of course, that it was really the 2000 election that was stolen, the vindication should've been in 2004, and it should've been Al Gore (or maybe Hillary Clinton) running.

One election I omitted from my list of 10 or so elections to consider for comparison in my poll (including a couple that Republicans won) was 1860, when a lanky, transplanted Illinoisan came from political nowhere to capture first, the nomination, then the general election, in a bitterly divided nation. This one, I hope, will be different in the follow-up: though I do expect some nasty sentiments to be expressed among the supporters of the losing candidate, I don't expect immediate calls for secession from the Union.

For those who expect Obama to parallel Lincoln's Team of Rivals, I'd point out that the only Democrat named to his cabinet was Navy Secretary Gideon Welles, that he was basically a token, and it was mainly his rivals for the nomination that Lincoln invited in (still a break from tradition). Biden he's already taken care of--look for Richardson, Dodd, and Hillary to get invites (also Kucinich, maybe?), and a variety of Republicans. Most of the Republicans and Hillary will decline; I'm thinking Richard Lugar may take a senior job.

Finally, for those who believe in the parallels with the Roman Empire (I'm one, for sure), I recommend consideration of the ascension to the royal toga of Emperor Hadrian, the first non-Italian-born ruler of the Empire. OK, Obama was born in the US (contrary to some stupid rumor-mongering I've seen on the Web), but it was Hawaii, and he is ethnically quite different from all the white European males who've preceded him (again, I've seen some pretty crazy Internet postings suggesting there have been three or four predecessors with African-American blood). Hadrian was actually the third of "the good Emperors", whereas, at best, Obama would be the first (Nerva was the first "good one", according to the history books). What I'm hoping is that he won't be the last.

Poised at The Edge of History

That is our guy, for sure. Obama is in a position to make history, and he sure is poised. I feel he is entirely worthy of the position he is in, but I'm not quite as sure about what will be the content of the history which is to follow.

We are going to be disappointed, that is for certain. It's best we accept that now and come to terms with that reality.

If he doesn't win, though, there is going to be major strife. The effort to dampen expectations on the size of his lead has largely failed; our hope is that no one dares meddle with the result, not that no one is able to do so.