Following the conceptional tumult of the 19th Century, U.S. Presidential elections settled into a remarkably curious pattern.
Each Administration beginning in 1900, elected in a year ending in 0 and thus taking office in a year ending in 1, instituted policies that defined the decade to follow. The subsequent elections of the years ending in 8 produced only once a change in ruling party (1968), but no significant change in policies. Substantial policy changes came with each subsequent election year ending in 2, which then defined that "short" decade.
1900 McKinley/Roosevelt T.R. (Republican)
1908 Taft (Republican)
1912 Wilson (Democrat)
1920 Harding/Coolidge (Republican)
1928 Hoover (Republican)
1932 Roosevelt F.D. (Democrat)
1940 Roosevelt F.D./Truman'44 (Democrat)
1948 Truman (Democrat)
1952 Eisenhower (Republican)
1960 Kennedy/Johnson (Democrat)
1968 Nixon (Republican)
1972 Nixon (Republican) *resigned August 1974
1980 Reagan/Bush (Republican)
1988 Bush (Republican)
1992 Clinton (Democrat)
2000 Bush (Republican)
2008 ?
2012 ?
The 1912, 1948, 1968, and 1992 elections were exceptionally noteworthy feats of "engineering", requiring a third or fourth ('48) major candidate to achieve the desired results.
The 1968 and 1972 elections of Richard Nixon are both anomalies and "exceptions that prove the rule" when it is noted that few fundamental changes in policy resulted from the '68 election (China excepted). Indeed Nixon's policies were almost identical to Johnson's only more so.
It is the 1972 election that should have, but did not produce the "counter-wave" in election results, but did arguably produce the policy shifts of the other elections ending in 2. For within the subsequent 1000 days of Nixon's 1973 inauguration he was forced to resign and the U.S. withdrew from South VietNam. Arguably the 1974 and 1976 elections were late reactions that compressed the 'normal' cycle that ended again in 1980-81.
It is worth noting in reference to the "Nixon Anomaly" that both of his elections were preceded by the elimination of his most powerful political competition by gunshot. (RFKennedy June1968, George Wallace May1972) Facts that played no small role in the subsequent reactions to the 1972 "Anomaly".
It is also worth noting that F.D. Roosevelt was both the vehicle of a "reaction" in 1932-33 and the decade-setting "action" of 1940, by virtue of his four elections. F.D.R. died in office, as did each President elected in a year ending in Zero, with the exception of Ronald Reagan, 1980. (though it wasn't from a lack of trying)
The "Pattern" would strongly suggest that the election of 2008 will result in a continuation of the policies set during the previous eight years, regardless of which party nominee prevails, and also that the countervailing "reaction" will not materialize until 2012.
Which might explain why Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has been so reluctant to advocate any fundamental or substantial policy contrary to those of the current Bush Administration. Most notably of it's interventionist Foreign Policy centerpiece, the 'War on Terror' in Iraq. Perhaps she is an astute student of U.S. political history and realizes that the "time for change" will be early in the next decade?
But in my opinion, Hillary is but another "Nixon" who will feign "continuity" in order to win election in '08 and then solidify and utilize unprecedented Presidential powers, built up over two centuries, to effect "real change" following the 2012 election.
And with that in mind, here's hoping that the "Pattern" of the 20th Century does not extend into the 21st.
stephenhsmith
8Aug2006
