The Bosque Boys

10/07: Do Americans Really Want Change?

Category: Campaign 2008.3

Quick Thought on Campaign 2008:

Why I continue to predict "Clinton-44" with confidence:

Conventional wisdom and tradition seems to indicate that the "candidate of change" has the advantage in presidential elections.

For the most part, this is true during times of upheaval, real discontent and/or uncertainty:

Abraham Lincoln in 1860
FDR in 1932
Nixon in 1968
Ronald Reagan in 1980

It is also true that an adept challenger exaggerates a sense of crisis and manufactures a certain amount of discontent to win elections:

JFK in 1960
Bill Clinton in 1992

And it is also true that sometimes we the people grow restless with a pretty good thing, which is also a part of the explanation for 1992.

Do we really want change in 2008?

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton will advertise herself as the "agent of change" in the upcoming contest--but, realistically, that assertion is a hard sell. No one in this race (Republican or Democrat) seems more battle-hardened and grizzled than the Senator from New York.

The real question for Hillary is this: do Americans want real change or do we want to return to the status quo antebellum? I think the answer may surprise most of us.

If you visit the Clinton Library in Little Rock, you may purchase "I Miss Bill" bumper stickers. I am told they are top sellers.

If Hillary gets by Barack Obama in the primary, and I think she will, Mrs. Clinton represents a very appealing notion of nostalgia for our recent past--and even our present sans Iraq.

Forget about the facts for a moment. Perception is more important than the truth when it comes to politics and history. Most Americans are very angry and frustrated with George Bush at present. Mrs. Clinton will have the luxury of lambasting the sitting President, which should prove quite popular, but she will also offer an implicit promise of returning to the good old days of peace and prosperity and Clinton management.

Do we really want change? Americans are furious about Iraq and slightly discontented with some other things (it is the human condition to be less than satisfied), but most of us, if we took a moment to look hard and deep at our lives, are surprisingly content with our world as it is.

Yes, Mrs. Clinton will give lip service to global warming, universal healthcare and a fairer and more compassionate society--but, in essence, she will be selling more of the same with less incompetence.

My hunch is that it will be a winning pitch.

Previous Bosque Boys posts on Hillary-44:

From last September, "Clinton-44: Part I: If elected president of the United States in 2008, Hillary Clinton will make the least attractive and least affable chief executive of the modern media age. From the piercing laugh (oftentimes when nothing is funny) to the menacing scowl when the TV cameras catch her in unguarded moments, Mrs. Clinton tends to come across unnervingly manufactured, even soulless at times."

Nevertheless, "Why she's probably going to win..." (full post here).

UPDATE: Regular reader and commenter, Lily, directs us to this provocative piece on selecting a president: "Elect Mr. Right, not Mr. Right Now" here. Thank you.

Comments

Lily wrote:

As much as I have tried, I am not of the belief that Mrs. Clinton has the full potential to be President of the United States - not because I am not a Democrat, but because I am a woman. I know how women think, feel, imagine, conspire, and desire. I also know our strengths (many) and weaknesses (too many to count). Call me old fashioned (I am, and pushing 60), but would prefer the man in the Oval Office. For my point of view, please see:

http://redmooseandsquirrel....

Thanks very much.

10/07 17:26:31

Jan wrote:

Ewww, that hurt.
I can't imagine being a woman and not feeling that a woman is up to the job of Prsident of the United States. How sad. Sincerely.

In terms of missing Bill Clinton, I never voted for him because I was an Independent; but I will be making up for that error in judgement by supporting Senator Clinton in the 2008 primary.

Just to put some actual FACTS on the ground, because opinions are good but hardly worth the computer they are written on:

At this point in Clinton's Presidency, the American people thought the country was going in the right direction by about 65-35.
Today, under The Worst President Ever, the America People think the country is going in the WRONG direction by about 65-35.

The numbers are pretty stark.
Clinton Haters are going to go insane, but this certainly won't be the first time we've watched them go insane over the Clintons right before our very eyes.

I think she's in to win.

10/07 20:53:39

Jan wrote:

And, by the way, Lily, I'm 58 so I guess that's also "pushing 60."
If "old-fashioned" means women are limited in what they are capable of achieving, I guess I'm not very old fashioned.
So be it.

10/07 20:57:33

A Waco Farmer wrote:

Thanks, Jan.

I appreciate the "NUMBERS" and the "facts," but we should not confuse numbers and facts with the truth.

In truth, the economy is slightly better under Bush than it was under Clinton. Credit Bush with some pretty good economic stewardship during what should have been some pretty awful times.

You are quoting job approval numbers, which are facts that tell us more about perception than reality--but, to restate, perception is king in American politics.

On the other hand, as I have said many times, I do not believe that Hillary Clinton can destroy the country. We are blessed with enormous institutional momemtum.

As for Bush being the worst president ever, here is your summer research list (I would say reading--but these guys don't merit real biographies):

Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Warren G. Harding (actually, WGH does have a famous biography)

In closing, at least we agree that Hillary is going to be our next president. For the record: I do not think a woman is incapable of being a good president. Time will tell the tale as to how this woman performs.

May God Bless America.

10/07 21:15:10

Barry Bonds- Head wrote:

Hillary is going to need a "saxaphone on Arsenio" moment, and like Al Gore before her-- remember the Al/Tipper kiss-- she may never find it. Gender matters, but not as much as likeability, at least in this case. If she lucks into a SoA moment and wins the presidency, the doomsayers should think ahead to the likeliest scenario, where Republicans are mobilized, in Congress to fight her administration at every turn, and in the voting booth in future gubernatorial and congressional elections. HRC will respond by moving to the middle. It's the nature of the system to give us more of the same.

10/07 23:14:43

A Waco Farmer wrote:

Good one, Barry.

As I said, if elected, Mrs. Clinton will be the most unlikable person to ever ascend the greasy pole of American politics.

And, I think you are absolutely right, HRC = more of the same--not radical change.

11/07 10:39:46

Add Comment

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it

10/07: Do Americans Really Want Change?

Comments

Lily wrote:

Jan wrote:

Jan wrote:

A Waco Farmer wrote:

Barry Bonds- Head wrote:

A Waco Farmer wrote:

Add Comment

Sidebar