Posted on 03/23/2011 4:30:26 PM PDT by Kaslin
President Barack Obama is lining up donors, courting independents and targeting battleground states for presidential travel. Looks like a real campaign. Did anyone believe Obama when he told Diane Sawyer less than a year ago that he’d rather be a good one-term president than a mediocre two-termer?
No. And here’s why: Reelection is critical to presidential greatness. And Obama clearly fashions himself a prospective great.
Should Obama win reelection next year, Americans would make not only his day but history as well: It would be the first time in 200 years — since Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe — that the United States has elected three two-term presidents in a row.
This fact reflects a simple paradox in our politics — and good news for the president. Though we have frequently wanted to throw the bums out, these days we seem to want to give ’em another chance.
Americans’ restlessness and impatience with their presidents reflects the searching, results-oriented spirit long present in our national character. And their penchant for “my way or the highway” has been a fairly constant feature in U.S. presidential politics.
Of the 43 individual presidents — counting only once Grover Cleveland, who was elected twice for nonconsecutive terms — roughly a third have been elected to two terms. Fewer than that have served out their terms.
Yet we’ve never had a one-term president who can be ranked as “great” in our presidential pantheon.
Many historians get excited about James Polk, who said he wanted only one term and then fulfilled every campaign promise, including expanding the borders of the country. But I can’t. Two terms are critical because reelection is a public validation of successful performance and connection to the American people. It is crucial to any president’s credibility and reputation.
Still, in modern U.S. history, once you’re out of the territory of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his remarkable 12-year presidency, the terrain gets rugged — if not downright hostile — for two-termers.
Of the 11 men who followed FDR, only four managed to win and complete two terms: three Republicans (Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush) and a single Democrat (Bill Clinton).
Unlike some two-term presidents, none of the four — with the possible exception of Reagan — seem nearly as consequential as the three undeniable greats: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and FDR.
Admittedly, these presidents served during turbulent years that took a toll on them, the office and the American people. Assassination, Vietnam, Watergate and various other scandals shortened the political life spans of some able and talented men and sucked the integrity and respect out of Americans’ regard for presidents and the presidency.
Faith in the institutions of government and the political system plummeted; cynicism and despair over the absence of real leaders skyrocketed. The presidency was viewed as too imperial, impossible or overpersonalized. Reagan would partially redeem its prestige, but his detachment and the Iran-Contra scandal left his reputation with a large asterisk, despite his recent emergence as a conservative icon.
So how do we account for our relatively newfound penchant to stay with our presidents? Maybe it’s just situational, with no broader meaning. Clinton was likable and governed in hopeful economic times; Bush was personable and led in fearful times. Most Americans just didn’t want to make a change.
Or maybe the frustration with our leaders and desire to change them every four years are symptomatic of something else.
It’s striking that the possibility of electing three two-term presidents in a row is occurring at this time of great division, dysfunction and polarization in U.S. politics. It’s almost as if we crave some stability and continuity in the only nationally elected office we own: the presidency.
Despite the imperfection of the office and those who hold it, the presidency remains the repository of our greatest hopes and aspirations as a people.
Sure, we have the power to throw our presidents out. But if they’re likable — maybe just good and not great — we should keep them around for a while longer.
Who knows? They might surprise us.
But not this arrogant pos
“Just what makes a president great?”
Well, we sure learned it isn’t skin color. Oh, wait....
Right now, being a non-Muslim, natural born citizen, who likes his country would be a huge plus.
Remarkable? How about unrestrained?
George Washington set the standard that every president followed until the country met a guy with an insatiable appetite for power - his initials were FDR.
I don't think FDR's elongated tenure is worthy of any remark, other than to say it was indulgent and egotistical. I'm sorry libs feel otherwise.
Even if Zero manages to get a second term....great he is not and great he never will be.
Start with having a middle name that isn't "Hussein".
Sheesh.
I don’t think that would have helped that arrogant pos, What would help is not selling your country out, not going around other countries on a apology tour. Not bowing to kings and so much more
Not-being-Obama is a good start.
--------------------------
Good line WPaCon!
We still get two more wonderful years of 'the recovery.'
Barry must be thrilled. Time for some hoops. Time for some ice cream. Time for a swim. Up yours America.
There's so much to hammer on here with this administration.
With record unemployment, an unfathomable budget deficit, and $4 gallon gas, Zer0's a sitting duck. Jimmy Carter all over again.
Time to step up Republicans!
A National Embarrassment
Given a choice between a reactor accident in my neighborhood that goes on for eight years and an Obama Regime in power for eight years, I'd take the reactor accident in a heartbeat. The most terrible disasters imaginable should never extent beyond four years.
“George Washington set the standard that every president followed until the country met a guy with an insatiable appetite for power-—”
I thought you were going to say Lincoln.
“Good line WPaCon!”
Thanks!
“Barry must be thrilled. Time for some hoops. Time for some ice cream. Time for a swim. Up yours America.”
Think of it this way: The more time he spends screwing around, the less time he spends actively destroying the country.
Veracity, honor, love of country, awe for the miracle of our Constitution.
It was certainly noteworthy. Whether that's a good or a bad thing would be a point of disagreement, but I don't think any reasonable person could claim FDR's presidency wasn't noteworthy. While the term "remarkable" usually carries a more positive connotation than "noteworthy", that's not part of the definition.
The problem is that the American people think he is “fighting” for them and is “own our side.” People are badly misinformed by the national media and incapable of seeing the truth.
Historians and others, including Barry Goldwter, call the scandal-plagued HST “great”, and he started the “no-win” war concept.
Your designation of him as the architect of the no-win war is plain silly and ignores the reality, several realities in fact. But I'm sure that you know this.
Truman was never great, at least in my opinion. He did some things out of necessity. Ordered the nuke bombing of Japan, because he had to. Simply was not another alternative. Didn’t make him great doing it, would not have made him great if he had not nuked them.
He would have been great had he followed Patton’s advice to attack Stalin and destroy the communists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.