In the New York Times article “For Republicans, Mounting Fears of Lasting Split”, Patrick Healy and Jonathan Martin point out Senator John McCain’s discomfort with the current chaos in the Republicans’ situation:
“I haven’t seen this large of a division in my career,” said Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican first elected to Congress in 1982. “You probably have to go back to Ford versus Reagan in 1976. But that was only two people.”
I believe McCain is using the correct election for comparison purposes. However, I think he’s got the candidates wrong. I’m at least as worried at McCain is, but that’s because I think (for election trend comparison purposes) Trump is most like former President Jimmy Carter. Hear me out before you troll rate me…
In 1976, I was precocious political wonk, but there are limits to how politically savvy a 6-year-old can be. My parents were good heartland Republicans from Nebraska, who didn’t like how the media treated Goldwater in 1964 in his race against LBJ, and thought that Watergate wasn’t as big of a deal as everyone was making it out to be. After all, they reasoned, LBJ was every bit as crooked as Nixon was; it was just the way things were done, and the only mistake that Nixon made was getting caught. Being a loyal 6-year-old, I unquestioningly agreed that Carter would be bad, because taxes would be higher.
But this isn’t about my childhood, just establishing that I was paying attention back then. Let’s relate this to modern politics. I worry that the following mappings hold true:
Role
|
1976
|
2016
|
Deity
|
FDR
|
Reagan
|
Party with receding wave
|
1976 Democrats
|
2016 Republicans
|
Party with rising wave
|
1976 Republicans
|
2016 Democrats
|
“Obvious” safe choice for party
|
Ford
|
Clinton
|
Candidate riding rising wave
|
Reagan
|
Sanders
|
Unlikely party outsider
|
Carter
|
Trump
|
Explaining these comparisons:
FDR->Reagan
Both former presidents were is still a deity for the party. The party's preferred agenda is about continuing the trend started by the deity. In 1976, most Democratic politicians were at least young adults during FDR’s heyday. The same holds true for today’s Republicans and Reagan.
76R rising wave->16D rising wave
Respective parties are concerned about abuse of government power, and not sure either party can be trusted to keep the government in check (between alarm about continued sputtering momentum of opposing party, and lack of faith in own party)
There is still caution among the party’s old guard, wanting to be cautious about being painted as too extreme, despite a shift in the overall electoral mood. Impatient wave riders believe the current trend has gone on too long.
76D receding wave->16R receding wave
Party establishment deeply concerned about loyalty to the cause, and continuing the legacy of the hero. Still in denial about the enthusiasm for the current wave receding in the general public.
76 Ford -> 16 Clinton
These candidates were/are the respective safe choices, and the party establishment favorites. Each was/is a centrist candidate after 8 years of centrist "capitulation" to a stubborn opposition.
They are both sometimes politically tonedeaf. In Ford’s case, he forcefully made this observation in a debate: "I don't believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union.”. Clinton will probably fare well in debates; however, given all of the ThisGate and ThatGate scandals that her opponents have tried to pin on her, EmailGate was not the best political maneuver
76 Reagan -> 16 Sanders
Continuing forward on the legacy of an influential insurgent 12 years earlier (Goldwater for Reagan, Dean for Sanders). The wave-riding candidate benefits from widespread perception that they advocate clearly and forcefully for positions far from the perceived center, despite the opposing party’s longstanding ability to push the Overton window their direction.
76 Carter -> 16 Trump
This leads us to the scary comparison
Similar: Unproven large government executive, whose experience is only relevant if you squint. Political environment calling for an "outsider", and not "politics as usual". Both can play "outsider" card well. Dark horse, not supported by the establishment. First presidency in a while where military leadership isn't considered a huge factor because of a recent withdrawal of thousands of troops after years of involvement.
The are opposite in many ways, but in similar magnitudes of deviation:
Carter |
Trump |
profoundly decent person |
profoundly awful, empty person |
last hoorah of FDR New Deal liberalism |
last hoorah of supply-side economics |
The 40 year cycle
This isn’t the first time I’ve been flogging this angle. I wrote about this in 2012, when the comparison predicted Obama would have a more extreme opposing candidate than he ended up with. I don’t have metaphysical certainty of this model.
What I fear, though, is that it could be more correct than it seems on the surface. Trump’s campaign seems to be using the Reagan team’s tactics for Trump’s debate/interview coaching; give him snappy one-liners to completely avoid needing to address any intellectual challenge (“there you go again!”). Trump’s momentum lasted, not receding quickly like many of the 2012 Republican candidates did. Why Trump hasn’t been knocked out and rising opponents have lost steam is left as an exercise for the reader.
So, whaddya think?