Time-Honored Tradition

Hillary Clinton could well become the next President of the United States—for the same reason that George W. Bush became President eight years ago.

Nostalgia is a powerful thing in politics, and it just might work to the Clinton’s advantage. While conservatives regard the 1990s with disgust, there are quite a few nonpartisan Americans who actually miss the ‘90s—and have great disdain for the 2000s.

The ‘90s were certainly a “holiday from history”, but conservatives have to be concerned about the number of Americans who want to go back on vacation. The 2006 midterm elections proved that many Americans have essentially returned to a September 10 mentality, and are no longer emotionally invested in the War on Terror.

With the Iraq War entering its fifth year, and with economic fears abounding, it seems that a growing number of Americans want to return to the supposed “good old days” of the 1990s. This argument helps Clinton—and damages both John McCain and Barack Obama.

While Obama has demonstrated extraordinary fundraising prowess, it may not be enough to help him secure the nomination. Obama has yet to combat the perception that he is too inexperienced to get anything done in Washington. For every potential voter inspired by his call for change, there are two potential  voters worried that, if he becomes President, he’ll be unable to handle the tremendous pressures of the position.

The same concern about Presidential performance capability will haunt McCain for the next several months. The mainstream press will not hesitate to highlight McCain’s age, his temper, and his history of politically incorrect remarks. Despite his personality, McCain is, at bottom, a class act—yet the same was true of Bob Dole in 1996, and look what Clinton’s husband did to him.

Bill Clinton defeated Dole by depicting himself as the “bridge to the future”, seizing upon Dole’s reference to himself as a “bridge to the past” at the ’96 Republican National Convention. If Hillary manages to get past Obama in the Democrat primary, she will use similar tactics against McCain. Aided by the Fourth Estate, Hillary will depict herself as only the contender capable of bringing positive change to the US—a positive change back to the perceived good times of the ‘90s. She will characterize McCain as an older, crankier version of President Bush, a throwback who should be thrown back.

Conservatives can’t blame Clinton for reusing an old strategy: after all, Bush did the same thing in 2000. Although he branded himself a “different kind of Republican” and a   “compassionate conservative”, Bush nevertheless symbolically exploited America’s nostalgia for Ronald Reagan, depicting his war with Al Gore the same way Reagan characterized his challenge to Carter. In 1980, Reagan correctly asserted that Carter had brought shame upon the White House; twenty years later, Bush made a comparable charge, noting that Gore was bonded to an administration that had legally and morally defiled the Executive Branch. Bush spoke Reagan’s optimistic language, delivering speeches calling on America to reclaim its past sense of hope and faith. In words and imagery, he sent the message that the 2000s would be the 1980s all over again if he became President. (Bush’s Reagan symbolism became more overt in the months following the 40^th President’s June 2004 passing; his rhetorical emphasis on keeping Reagan’s conservative vision alive played a key role in his reelection.)

A case can be made that Bush’s poll numbers are so weak because Americans who wanted the 1980s back now realize that Bush is not capable of recreating those days. If Clinton faces off against McCain this fall, nonpartisan voters may decide that Mrs. Clinton could be successful were Mr. Bush was not. Nonpartisans vote based on either a desire for social comfort or a need to maintain it. They supported Reagan in 1980 because Carter provided no social comfort; they re-elected Reagan because they liked the 1984 status quo (and voted for George H. W. Bush in 1988 for similar reasons). These nonpartisans didn’t like the way things were going in 1992, so they went for Clinton; they liked the state of affairs in 1996, so they stuck with him. Dissatisfied by the Clinton scandals of the late-1990s, they voted for Bush in 2000 and maintained their support for him in 2004. Now, these nonpartisans are unhappy and uneasy—and if the race comes down to Clinton vs. McCain, they could well decide to return to the comfort zone of a previous decade.

Comments

[Quaime]

Oh how wonderful were those glory days of the 1990's! Anti-Christian warfare in the Balkans. People dying in huge numbers in Rwanda. The birth of reality TV. And let's not forget the glowing reviews of the robust economy, with companies inflating their earnings reports, insider trading, and "dream" companies like Pets.com and MotherNature.com. Take me back.