How Will Obama Govern?

With little more than two weeks before the election, it appears rather likely that Barack Obama will become the 44th President of the United States. Here’s a look at some of the different models an Obama presidency could follow, and why each one may or may not happen.

THE FDR/REAGAN MODEL

This is what Obama’s most ardent and progressive supporters are hoping for. FDR and Reagan have become heroes to the left and right respectively. FDR paved the way for an era of progressive governance that would last until Nixon, while Reagan marked the beginning of a conservative revolution that would be carried on by Newt Gingrich and exploded by George W. Bush. In this model, Obama’s presidency would push the country to the left, claiming ambitious legislative victories on universal health care and climate change. Democrats in his wake would not necessarily always win elections, but they would set the agenda for the next 25 or more years.

Why This Is Likely: The fundamentals. Political eras come in cycles, and it would seem that the conservatives’ time is up. Progressives set the agenda from about 1932 to 1968: 36 years. Conservatives have set the agenda from about 1968 until today: 40 years. President Bush is seen as an abysmal failure by most Americans, and today Democrats significantly outnumber Republicans. The financial crisis looks like it could be a final nail in the coffin of the conservative agenda, and many Americans may now be concluding that the country’s steady drift to the right has successfully corrected some of the errors of big, bloated government, but that now we need a readjustment in the other direction.

Why This Is Unlikely: Obama’s apparent steadiness and caution. Obama’s rhetoric often sounds ambitious, but his policies have been notably more cautious. On health care in particular, his proposal was the most conservative in the Democratic field. His campaign has taken more than a few cues from Bill Clinton’s, and if that’s a clue as to how he will govern, then we should be prepared for a great deal of triangulation and political pragmatism.

THE EISENHOWER/CLINTON MODEL

Within the progressive and conservative eras described above, Eisenhower and Clinton managed to squeeze themselves in despite the opposing trends. This is perhaps because Eisenhower was not particularly conservative and Clinton was not particularly progressive. At a time when a growing counterculture was simmering under the radar, when racial resentment was roiling, and when sexual liberation was foreshadowing sexual revolution, Eisenhower was simply a steady hand at the wheel: developing infrastructure, enforcing the rule of law, avoiding any escalation of conflict with the USSR, and so on. Similarly, Clinton’s presidency was surprisingly calm. While 9/11 is seen by many as the beginning of a new international order, the real beginning came before Clinton took office with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet Clinton’s foreign policy was decidedly measured and small-bore. His major domestic achievements were mostly conservative ones: welfare reform, NAFTA, balancing the budget, and so on. In this model, Obama would not mark the beginning of a progressive revolution, but would rather govern much as commentators like Andrew Sullivan seem to expect him to: perhaps not conservative in ideology, but conservative in temperament and in style of governance.

Why This Is Likely: The country could stand to calm down a little after the polarizing and appalling Bush administration. Obama emphasizes unity a lot and has a reputation for garnering it through consensus-building, which might suggest that he would pursue a less ambitious agenda.

Why This Is Unlikely: The country might want to calm down, but it might also want a dramatic correction to what it sees as the failed policies of George W. Bush. In the midst of an economic downturn, they might finally insist upon universal health care and other significant reforms. With record numbers of Americans saying the country is headed in the wrong direction, a steady continuation of the status quo just might not be good enough. In addition, while Obama’s domestic policy may not appear very ambitious, there are hints that his foreign policy could be transformational.

THE CARTER MODEL

After the turmoil of the 1960s and the national nightmare of Watergate, Jimmy Carter could have been the kind of refreshing new leader that Americans were yearning for and that Reagan eventually became. But both events and political fundamentals conspired against him. Economic trouble and the Iranian hostage crisis were heaped at his desk, and he entered the White House at the end of the era FDR commenced rather than the beginning or the middle. The electorate may have temporarily soured on the Republicans because of Nixon, but it was clear that they were in a conservative mood nevertheless. In this model, Obama will be a disastrous failure. He will either crumple in the face of challenges or will merely be overtaken by the country’s unhappy mood, and in 2012 he will be replaced by a President Jindal, Huckabee, or Romney. Progressives will be in disarray and conservatives will pick up the pieces.

Why This Is Likely: Obama definitely has his work cut out for him, and it would be no surprise if the next four years saw its fair share of crises, both international and domestic. If Obama can’t step up to the plate and lead his way through those crises, if he appears weak or unsteady, then the country’s nerves may not be able to stand it.

Why This Is Unlikely: For one, even if things go bad, the country may just give Obama a break and blame things on Bush. For another, Obama knows how to be optimistic and hopeful in bad times, and Americans could find that comforting. And if, four years down the line, the economy has managed to recover and we have managed to extricate ourselves from Iraq without too much trouble, Obama will be in a very good position. A potential wild card: if a major terrorist attack happens while Obama is President. On the one hand, given the conventional advantage that Republicans have on national security, this could be devastating to Obama just as the Iran hostage crisis was to Carter. On the other hand, if the country responds the same way it did to 9/11, there is perhaps no other public figure better able to capitalize on that unity.

THE NIXON MODEL

Reagan’s 1980 election is often termed a realigning election for conservatives. It is probably more accurate, however, to say that Nixon’s 1968 election marked the real conservative realignment. Reagan was able to capitalize successfully on this realignment while Nixon’s personal failings made it impossible for him to do so. But while Watergate allowed Jimmy Carter to win in 1976, it didn’t crush conservative ideology. Nixon fell into disrepute, but he still began a push to the right that continued for several decades. In this model, Obama will successfully govern the country but will fall victim to scandal. Democrats will suffer short-term defeat but will still ultimately control the country for quite a while.

Why This Is Likely: Obama is undoubtedly an arrogant man, perhaps even compared to other presidential contenders. Hubris is a dangerous thing, and Obama’s popularity could lay a trap for him, causing him to overreach in one way or another and commit some serious wrongdoing.

Why This Is Unlikely: Arrogant he may be, but he also appears to be extremely self-aware. His cool temperament has been his strongest asset and would suggest that he is able to control himself.

There are other possibilities that could be floated: the Lincoln Model, the H.W. Bush Model, the W. Bush model. In my mind, the most likely option seems to be FDR/Reagan. After eight years of Bush, during which the country seemed to be throwing an adolescent tantrum, it just feels like we’re ready to step up to the plate and make real history again. But the Eisenhower/Clinton model could easily be sneaking up on me.