IN 1932, Herbert Hoover lost his reelection bid against Franklin Delano Roosevelt, setting the course of American politics for the next quarter century as Democrats dominated the presidency. In 1980, Jimmy Carter was toppled by the conservative dynamo that was Ronald Reagan, leading to Republican domination of the presidency for much of the next 30 years. The 2008 election has the opportunity to capture the essence of both of those particular elections by casting Barack Obama as the Democratic Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush as the next Herbert Hoover in a major strike against American conservatism.
How is Barack Obama like Ronald Reagan, you ask? At the end of the 1970s, the United States was dealing with the Iran Hostage Crisis, an oil shortage, inflation troubles, and a stagnating economy. Reagan, touting his conservatism, offered the nation a different direction than the one it had been taking. Despite the polls showing a close race until about a month before the election Reagan cruised to a gigantic electoral victory and is now seen as the patriarch of American conservatism and the Republican Party. His victory brought changes with tax cuts and deregulation, increased military spending, and a harsher attitude towards the Soviet Union that challenged the previous policy of détente. Fast forward to 2008 where the country faces a huge economic crisis at home, a post-9/11 world of terrorism, and environmental challenges that are important to both national security and economic growth. Obama is offering a U-turn on foreign policy, foregoing Bush’s “cowboy” diplomacy, while looking to generate new jobs through investments in alternative energy solutions. Barring a major shift in momentum, John McCain will be unable to climb out of the giant hole he’s been digging over the last month and Obama will be victorious on Nov. 4, perhaps by a large margin.
Viewing George W. Bush as Herbert Hoover is simple: Hoover was president at the time of an economic catastrophe and was ideologically bound to do nothing but let people pull themselves up by their own bootstraps; Bush has an economic debacle plus an Iraqi quagmire and a plethora of other boondoggles to his name. In 1932 the Democrats gained nearly 100 congressional seats in the House of Representatives and a 25-seat majority in the Senate after being in the minority. From that moment, except for the 84th Congress (1955), the Democrats held the House until to 1995 and the Senate for almost all of that time. There is an excellent chance that the Democrats will have at least a 50-seat advantage in the House and 58 seats in the Senate after this election and looking down the road to 2010 sees a long list of vulnerable Republican incumbents that could make these majorities grow further. Like Hoover’s, Bush’s presidency may be the catalyst for a major Democratic shift in American electoral politics.
Similar to 1932 and 1980, the United States is about to encounter a major change in its policies. Much like FDR’s election, Barack Obama and his Democratic colleagues are in a position to bring the hammer down on American conservatism. Stalwart Republicans in Washington like Arizona’s right-wing ideologue John Shadegg and even our very own Virgil Goode are in the fight of their political lives as Americans have come to the conclusion that they are in no way better off than they were eight years ago.
Economically, this is a rejection of the trickle-down, deregulatory Reaganomics that Republicans have fed Americans for nearly 30 years: Trickles whose supposedly prosperous drips have failed to reach much of the American populace. In terms of foreign policy, many Americans have realized that acting in a bellicose way towards our enemies and invading nations doesn’t create peace through fear but rather endangers our national security much more than talking to people we don’t necessarily like. On the environmental front, there is an increasing understanding that embracing greener technologies may not be simple but can help clean up the environment and counter Global Warming while creating millions of new jobs that will stay inside American borders, jobs that actually have a place in the 21st century.
Obama equals Reagan seems like an odd equation on paper; George W. Bush equals Herbert Hoover is easier to swallow. Yet together, these two equations will create a bluer political map this coming November. The political climate has created a perfect Democratic storm that may very well force American conservatism to hide in a dark corner for years to come. With one candidate offering solutions and the other trying to scare Americans into voting for him, this “change” election makes it painfully (to Republicans at least) clear that many Americans want a new era of leadership. For the sake of the middle class, the environment, and our national security, the United States definitely could use it.
Geoff Skelley’s column usually appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at g.skelley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 6 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | January 13, 2025After all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
