Legal Commentary

What Adams, Buchanan, Hoover, and Carter shared in common was that they presided over the end of their electoral coalitions. As I've argued previously it is likely that George W. Bush has also presided over the end of the Reagan coalition (I would say destroyed). But for Obama to create a new coalition, he must give the electorate a reason to keep electing Democrats. That means he must succeed in a way that changes the basic assumptions of politics. Certainly that is what he hopes to do, but it is a tall order. If Obama proves to be a failure as a president, the next president may be a Republican who creates a new conservative coalition out of the shards of the old one.

It's worth noting that poor presidents are not always succeeded by successful ones. the hapless Millard Fillmore, the last Whig to serve as President (the party imploded soon after), was succeeded by the Democrat Franklin Pierce, another poor president, who in turn was succeeded by an even worse president, James Buchanan. Three bad presidents were followed by the worst crisis in our nation's history, the Civil War.

This particular example is sobering because it suggests that the country may easily survive one term of a bad president, but it may be greatly harmed by a series of poor leaders. After two terms of the disastrous George W. Bush, who seems to have been at least as incompetent as Filmore and Pierce, there may not be much room for error. If Obama is a poor president, the problems he inherits may be amplified, and however bad things seem now, they may get far worse.

True, Nixon, a failed president, was followed by two below average presidents, Ford and Carter, and the country survived quite nicely, despite very significant economic and foreign policy problems. But the difficulties these days seem more severe than when Ronald Reagan took office. (Indeed, in hindsight, George W. Bush has made the Ford and Carter presidencies look somewhat better). (Indeed, it's worth noting that from 1932 through 1968 the country was particularly well served by a series of great to good presidents: Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. JFK is probably the least distinguished of this group, although he remains among the most popular. It is not entirely coincidental that during this run of presidents America became the preeminent power in the the world.).

Andrew Johnson, a failed president, was followed by Grant, whose record was mixed (although his reputation has improved in recent years), and the Presidents following Grant are mostly forgettable until you get to Cleveland. But these Presidents-- Grant, Hayes, Garfield and Arthur-- are better described as mediocre or run of the mill than as true failures. They did not provoke a set of truly serious crises for the Republic. The situation that President Bush has bequeathed to us is markedly different and far more urgent.

All of which is to say that a lot is at stake in this presidency. One term of George W. Bush was bad enough, the second term has put the country in serious difficulties. We cannot risk a third unsuccessful presidential term. Let us wish the new President and his administration the best of luck and hope for a series of good presidents for the next thirty years.

Full post as published by Balkinization on January 19, 2009 (boomark / email).