Parallels between the 1970's and late 1990's/early 2000's

[UrbScotty]

Nixon was re-elected by a big margin in 1972, but resigned in disgrace during the second year of his second term. His VP lost to a former Southern Governor in a close election two years later. That Governor-turned-President faced both a quagmire in a Middle Eastern country whose name starts with "I-R-A..." and an economic downturn at home. The rest is history.

Clinton was re-elected by a sizable margin in 1996, but was impeached during the second year of his second term. His VP lost to a Southern Governor (or so we'll say) in a close election two years later. That Governor-turned-President faced both a quagmire in a Middle Eastern country whose name starts with "I-R-A..." (though he caused it) and an economic downturn at home. Will the rest 'be history'?

[ldoolin]

1. I have a different theory

I like the 40-year theory myself.

The political situation in the U.S. tends to be a mirror image of what it was 40 years prior. Right now we're at the tail end of a Republican dominated era which began with Nixon's election in 1968. Clinton's administration came exactly 40 years after Eisenhower's, which came exactly 40 years after Woodrow Wilson - two-term centrist administrations in the midst of eras where the other party generally held the White House. Goldwater ran a right-wing insurgent campaign in 1964 when New Deal liberalism was the dominant national consensus, and lost badly, but set the stage for the later rise of the New Right and a conservative era. Robert LaFollette ran a left-wing insurgent campaign in 1924 during an era of laissez-faire Republican ideology, and lost badly, but set the stage for the rise of FDR's New Deal.

This theory would unfortunately mean that 2004 might not be our year, but it will be looked back on as the year when a new revived liberal movement was born. Don't get me wrong, I want us to win in 2004 and I think we can. But if we don't, 2008 is exactly 40 years after Nixon's 1968 election, and once we do win, Reaganoid/Bushoid conservatism will be swept out of power for good.

[jeter]

2. You know, people call Dean the new McGovern, but I think he is Reagan

Reagan had the exact same things said about him in 1980 but mainstream country-club republicans. The ones who were behind Gerald Ford and in 1980, George Bush. They called "Reagan's tax plan - 'Voodoo Economics' they said he couldn't win. He was the "next Goldwater." Goldwater had lost big in 1964 saying the same things Reagan was saying in 1980. Reagan was tied with Carter throughout the whole 1980 election campaign. Don't let the results fool you. Carter's popularity soared in 1980 after the Hostage Crisis. But the bounce didn't resonate into votes. Reagan ran a campaign against the economy. He won big after the debate, which was two days before the election. "There you go again." "Are you better off than you were four years ago." People thought Reagan was this crazy old man and when they discovered that he wasn't, they decided to vote for him when he made sense to them.

I think the same is true of Dean in 2004. Let people say that this will be another 1972. It won't be. Bush is sufficiently unpopular. He will get his base, but Dean appeals to the base and to the independents. The two groups we have to win. I think we will do very well. Dean's record is good. He may appeal to westerners. I see a loy of potential with Dean.

[jeter]

3. I believe in the 36/72 year cycle...

It works both ways.

Every 36 years there is a sea change or "small revolution of thought" as Thomas Jefferson called it.

Beginning with the election of George Washington in 1788.
- Washington was one of the founding fathers. Probably the most important. There really weren't any parties back then. But he represented the federalist faction of the United States Government. He also created the model for the Presidency. All the Presidents tried to emulate and were compared to him.

thirty-six years later:

The election of Andrew Jackson in 1824.
- the son of federalist extraordinaire, John Adams, John Quincy Adams won the Presidency after he lost the popular vote to Jackson but won the electoral college in 1820. He was the first real "Democratic" Party president. He represented mostly southern interests mixed with northern populists. The north were divided between the different "factions (The Whigs, The Federalists, etc)" whereas Jackson was incharge of an actual party. The Democrats would remain the dominant party until the Civil War. He brought in many populist reforms.

Thirty-six years later:

The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860.
- The Democrats more or less governed by default at this point. But the growing crisis with the south was making it necessary for the north to smarten up. They began to support the Republican Party. Mostly a party of what today we would consider liberals. They believed in everything from ending slavery to providing labor standards for workers. Lincoln won with only 35% of the vote (there were four candidates), but enough to win the electoral college. The victory in the civil war, the ruin of the south, the expanding west and the republican party's position by 1865 ensured a new electoral majority for the GOP. This also coincided with America's recontruction period that eventually led to a great era in economic gains through the industrial revolution. This alliance stood in place, for you guessed it, until...

Thirty-six years later:

The election of William McKinnley in 1896.
- McKinnley was the type of republican we know today. The GOP became sophisticated by this point and allied themselves with big buisness (the rubber barrons). This is also the President that began American adventurism abroad. We fought in the Spanish American War and took over many Spanish colonies like Cuba, the Philipines and Guam, we also annexed Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Panama Canal during this period. His successor, TR, would also build up the American Navy and military. This coalition stayed in place until the Great Depression.

Thirty-six years later:

The election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932.
- The FDR "New Deal" Coalition remained dominant in politics for a long time. It was comprised of the traditional base in the solid Democratic south and the northern cities. This era brought with it progressive reforms. This would last until the opulant 60s brought divisions within the south.

Thirty-six years later:

The election of Richard Nixon in 1968.
- This election saw southern support for the Democratic Party just dissolve into nothing. The party never recovered. The GOP would win six of the next nine elections. Losing one sqweaker. Even during the Clinton years, the GOP won over control of Congress. This is the era of the tax cut, payouts to big buisness, and more US adventurism.

Thirty-six years later:

The election of ??? in 2004.

The seventy-two year cycle works well too:

Election of 1788: George Washington.

Election of 1860: Abraham Lincoln.

Election of 1932: Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Election of 2004: ???? ???? ????

[ldoolin]

4. They're both pretty close

The 36/72 year cycle and the 40/80 year cycle both have a lot of evidence to support them. Maybe the actual cycle is something more like 38/76 years? I don't know. If the 36 year cycle is right, 2004 is our year, and if the 40 year cycle is right, 2008 is our year, but either way I am convinced that the conservative Republican era that started with Nixon in 1968 is going to unravel very soon. It will happen just as the conservatives think they have a lock on the national consensus, and they won't even know what hit them. Bush and company are acting right now as if they have a lock on the national consensus, very arrogantly I might add, but the window of opportunity they have right now to tear down everything that FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson built is rapidly coming to a close. Our turn is coming soon :)

Interested readers should check out Arthur Schlesinger's book on political cycles in American history, and also The Fourth Turning by Neil Howe and William Strauss. I would add a caveat on the Howe and Strauss book, as the authors' sympathies seem to be in the socially conservative neocon camp and I don't think they fully understand the implications of their own theory.