2008 may or may not have been 1932 (and I’m inclined to think it was not), but the GOP seems determined to make 2012 into 1964.  Insert your own political analogy here:

Published in: on November 23, 2008 at 11:04 am  Comments (7)  
Tags: , , , ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

7 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. On the one hand I say bring it on, if they’re really that foolish. On the other hand, W. proved that intelligence, experience and competence really aren’t serious obstacles to getting elected president. If Obama appears to be coasting toward re-election in 2012, the 1964 Goldwater analogy is probably a good one: the party will offer her up as the sacrificial lamb and pat themselves on the back that the GOP, not the Democrats, were the first party to run a woman at the top of the ticket. If on the other hand Obama is weak and vulnerable in 2012, I think she’ll have some formidable opposition for the nomination.

  2. […] Goldwaterloo 2008 may or may not have been 1932 (and I’m inclined to think it was not), but the GOP seems determined to make 2012 into 1964.  Insert your own political analogy here: […]

  3. P.S. Comparisons to 1932 are about as silly and pointless as the “Center-right! No, center-left!” argument. There will never be another 1932, just as there will never be another 2008. Every election is a completely unique historic event unto itself. W. and Hoover were very different kinds of presidents, and the economic crisis in 1932 was FAR worse than what we’re experiencing now, or will ever likely experience in our lifetimes. I understand the 1932 comparison at a very generic level, but I don’t think it’s a helpful one. Among other things I just think it’s important that we always maintain a healthy historical perspective on current events. In spite of 9/11, Al Qaeda, Iraq, Iran, Russia, et al, the world is in almost every respect a better and safer place than it was in 1932, and the cyclical recession we’re experiencing is not much worse than many others in our nation’s 232-year history. Which is not to say that it’s unimportant or that it doesn’t require serious attention; just that it’s nothing horrifically new that we haven’t endured before.

  4. Part of the problem with overblown comparisons to past elections is that actual history-changing elections generally were not recognized as such until much later. In 1932, for example, I doubt anyone could’ve foreseen that FDR was creating a political alliance that would be (more or less) dominant for the next 50 years.

  5. Exactly. Republicans even felt they had a good chance to beat him in 1936 through most of his first term. By his unprecedented third campaign for the office, I think it was obvious to most Americans that his presidency was an historic one.

  6. I’m always reminded of the fact that Abraham Lincoln was convinced all through the summer and into the fall of 1864 that he would not be re-elected, and even famously signed a sealed letter to that effect.

  7. It probably didn’t help that he was a manic depressive, either. How that poor man endured four long years of war and vitriol from friend and foe alike–not to mention the death of a son–will never cease to amaze and humble me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: