Into a New Age
Lord, protect us from ourselves
I have no desire to compare George W. Bush with
Jimmy Carter. I suspect history will view President Bush as a
flawed but in many ways noble President, whose accomplishments
have a longer wavelength that will resonate much better 40 years
hence then they do today. Jimmy Carter was a self-absorbed ass
and a buffoon, and remarkably still is. But, differences aside,
it is becoming clear that they are bookends to the “Age
of Reagan.”
The Carter years – following closely on the chaotic heels
of Vietnam and Watergate – sufficiently traumatized the
American voting public to make them pay attention to the whacky
right-winger Reagan. And they liked what they heard. And thus
began the Age of Reagan. A hallmark of those who define a given
era is their ability to create the “default template”
of the era. In music, The Beatles are the best examples of this.
To this day, 90% of songs in any genre that you here adhere to
the basic structure perfected by The Beatles. The next “new
thing” turns out to be nothing more than “Love Me
Do” with dirtier lyrics. President Reagan defined in a similar
way – for conservatism specifically and for American politics
as a whole – how we ought to think about the problems facing
us. The questions we ask and the way we frame them to this day
reflect Reagan.
Obviously, the George H. W. Bush Administration was a straight
continuation of Reagan. Perhaps not as intuitively, Bill Clinton
was a mirror reflection of the first Bush from the other side.
But the issues and our way of thinking about them remained largely
unchanged. The disaster that was Hillary’s foray into socialist
health care made that perfectly clear. It is tempting to view
the George W. Bush administration as yet another reflection of
the Reagan agenda from a different angle - what with tax cuts,
strong defense, etc., but one could see the old framework starting
to deteriorate right from the start. While the tax cuts were straight
out of the Reagan playbook, the whole notion of “compassionate
conservatism” was an explicit effort to begin redefining
the old working definition of conservatism, and government-heavy
forays into education and immigration reform violated basic tenets
of the Reagan framework.
If I had been more perceptive I would have picked up on this
back when Al Gore first started bloviating about global warming.
Whatever his drawbacks, old Al has a capacity for sniffing the
breeze and identifying change in the air. He saw the old consensus
starting to break. Now the emergence of Barack Obama and Mike
Huckabee makes it clear beyond dispute that we are rapidly moving
“past” Reagan. If you doubt this, just think about
the fact that Huckabee feels no compulsion to seek the mantle
of Reagan. He just went right past Saint Ronald and set about
creating his own new set of frames. On the other side, Hillary
seems to be running against the ghost of Reagan, while Barack
has explicitly jettisoned the past with his “audacity of
hope” rhetoric.
This is all just starting, so we cannot begin to understand how
the new frames will shake out. But I can predict one thing: just
as President George W. Bush is the last president of the Reagan
era, the next president will be the transition into the next.
Whoever is “lucky” enough to win in November will
be our next Jimmy Carter. That will not necessarily be a reflection
on the person’s skills or talents, but rather a reflection
on the fact that the times have passed him (or her) by. The next
president will be out of synch, and will struggle in almost all
areas. And will last exactly one term. Then the next “Reagan”
will emerge to knit together a new framework that is in synch
with the times. Could be on the left or on the right. Whoever
it is will feel like the proverbial “breath of fresh air”
to enough Americans to make them excited again.
The only current candidate who could even remotely fit that bill
five years hence is Obama. But many others will emerge. We can
only hope that we have enough of a collective common sense to
select wisely.
|