. . . until the New Hampshire primary. Give or take a few days.
Regular readers know I'm interested in historical parallels, particularly those involving Richard Nixon. I was therefore interested to read Ryeland's piece entitled 1968 and 2008 (Pt. 1): Gore, Nixon and Romney. He's still developing this series, but the thesis is essentially contained in the title:
There are broad historical parallels that derive from the political climates created by the war in Vietnam and the U.S. occupation of Iraq. And there are amusing coincidences.
* * *
The parallels to Al Gore's current situation are obvious. That is not to suggest that Gore is planning a presidential run using Nixon's nomination strategy (although it is possible). Rather, it does suggest that the larger historical forces at play in 2008 may be favorable to Gore, particularly since his personal political history tracks so closely to Nixon's.
I think that the parallels are more "amusing coincidences" than "broad historical parallels." First, Nixon won because he was NOT a member of the party that got the U.S. heavily involved in an unpopular and intractable war, nor was he a member of the party that had passed groundbreaking but controversial legislation involving civil rights and welfare. He was able to run not only against Humphrey, but against Congress too. By the time the 2008 election comes around, we will have had two years of divided government, where the party that got us into a war and pushed through unpopular legislation is NOT the party in power in Congress. Gore can't promise the sharp break with the past that Nixon could. The voters in 1968 seemed to want someone who could check what were perceived as the excesses and abuses of the party in power on Capitol Hill; they voted for divided government. Unless the Democrats badly fumble their Congressional ascendancy, this situation won't repeat itself in 2008.
Comments