Even before his election, Barack Obama’s persona led to many historical comparisons. One does not need to look any farther than the first hit of a google search for “Barack Obama JFK”, to find perhaps the most common. Since his election and subsequent inauguration, Obama has been compared to, among others, FDR, Lincoln, Carter, and most recently Herbert Hoover. It is interesting that this man can be measured up against so many Presidents with such different styles, or with a past president at all. To me, this shows that he is at least operating in the realm of historical American political thought despite what his critics might say.
George W. Bush tended to not garner such historical references. His governing style was unprecedented and never in recent history had the executive branch been run so close to corporate interests. Indeed, the Bush administration could be called the corporate administration. In foreign policy, Bush took the unprecedented step of preemptive strike. Perhaps it was because his leadership was so unique that kept people from comparing outcomes of past and present.
So some may be worried that negative comparisons will shed some light on the outcome of President Barack Obama’s term. While I cannot make predictions about the future, I feel reassured that my current president can be compared.
The first I heard of the events in on the Detroit bound plane on Christmas was a text message from CNN. “Passenger sets off firecrackers on a Northwest flight as it lands in Detroit.” My initial reaction is “this is not news.” As the story developed, Americans learned that this was not some failed attempt at a holiday prank, but an effort to ignite an explosive on a Christmas flight. Since then, political thinkers have been pontificating as to the implications of these events. Janet Napolitano has made a fool of herself, Ben Stein has called for the TSA to privatize and everybody has wondered why the President is still on vacation.
It’s no mystery. If the attack failed, why terrorize people more? Ideally, this is what would have happened. Not in this world. The opposition has pulled the amateur stunt of acting as if the country is running around with its head cut off because the president had chosen not to publicly comment for a few days. Where is our leader? Why is he in the middle of the Pacific ocean? This is not something that happened to George W. Bush, as Politico pointed out, and I think both Presidents made the proper decision to let the truth of the situation percolate through the media before commenting more. The opposition made the improper choice to politicize this, and it has sort of come back to haunt them.
Bruce Bartlett on the differences between Bush and Reagan:
Reagan’s WH was a model of thoroughness, adherence to proper procedure, and respect for the office of the president. Bush’s WH seems amazingly slipshod, showing total disregard for all of the things that were important to Reagan in terms of how his administration functioned.