So, we're bandying around the rule of 72 here ...
George Washington 1788
Lincoln 1860
FDR 1932
????? 2004
Some interesting points. The rule REQUIRES that W lose next year. It's like if George III or the Articles of Confederation still ruled the country in 1788 or if Buchanan had sought and won a second term in 1860 or if Hoover had been re-elected in 1932. NO WAY. Disaster.
Why? Because the rule of 72 is about paradigm shift.
In 1788, we had just tightrope walked our way into a Republic and a new Constitution.
The new leader would decide whether things would go Federal or all to hell. But GW balanced State's Rights and Federal Hegemony. His successors didn't do as well. Political Parties, patronage, and increasingly shrill wars about State vs Fed. The rights of the citizen were being lost in the struggle between Whig and Democrat.
So, at the cusp of Civil War, Lincoln steps in. Takes the country through civil war, and redefines the citizen's rights as protected by the Federal hegemony.
In the process, the individual's rights become more important than the State v Federal argument. Slavery implodes. Immigration leads to new sources of labor.
But, after his death, the Lincoln agenda is trampled. Increasingly, workers are little better than slaves. Labor vs Corporate becomes the new battle, although state vs Federal brews in the background.
Then, massive depression hits us in 1929. Hoover's solutions are worth less than dirt from a dust bowl. The great struggle by labor has won many reforms, but couldn't prevent the effects of investor greed.
FDR steps in. Redefines the citizen's rights again. Now it is the individual citizen not as worker, but as citizen. Sets up social safety net. Federal government not only protects rights, but also provides comprehensive services. Surely, such things existed in small degree before, but FDR redefines the whole ball game.
The struggle is now identity politics ... who gets entitlements? What is free ride? What is entitled? Are there special rights? Should there be compensation for past wrongs?
I don't know what comes next. The politics of identity has spawned the politics of personal destruction. State vs Federal has roared back to life, as has corporate vs worker.
It's time for another shift.
The shift will depend on the candidate.
Dean's might be that the Federal govt has to be a prudent manager of funds, so that neither the tax cutters nor the wild entitlements crowd gets its way.
Clark's might be isolation of extremist pols in both parties, a return to Washington's model.
I don't know.
I do know it's time for someone with vision.
I do know that the incumbent cannot stay in a 72 year paradigm shift.
So what if ... he does?
It's simple. The Republic has been swept away.
SO fight fight fight.