History, Political Commentary

No Roosevelt

11 Comments

Democrats fantasize that Barack Obama is the new FDR. But I think that history will view him as the Democrats’ Herbert Hoover.

Discuss.

[Noon update]

Not that he can’t be usefully compared to other presidents as well, but the parallels I was thinking of were:

  • Had a major financial crisis in his first term, made immeasurably worse by economically ignorant policies of his own
  • Lost over fifty House seats in his mid-term Congressional election, and eight Senate seats
  • Lost in a landslide in his reelection, cementing the fortunes of the opposing party for many years

The latter two are predictions, of course. And Hoover didn’t lose control of Congress. Obama doesn’t have that kind of margin in the House…

[Afternoon update]

Obama the undergrad:

He doesn’t know much history (he thinks Muslims invented printing), geography (his America has 57 states), or economics (he believes you can reduce health care costs by adding millions to the public rolls).

The most important thing to this president is how you feel and what you say, not all those annoying facts (50 states, the Chinese invented printing, and you increase deficits when you spend more). And, like most students, when the debate goes badly for him, the president makes fun of his critics–when he actually lets them talk a little bit. Remember when he hosted a few Republicans in the White House so he could listen to what they might say about health care…and then talked twice as much as they did?

As a typical undergrad, Obama loves to talk, and loves to talk about peace and justice. You know, the really important things. His new nuclear policy is right out of a college bull session: “Why don’t we just promise not to use them?” Nukes are bad, ugly things. Doesn’t everyone agree that the world would be better off without them?

As Michael notes, grading time is coming up this fall. Expect him to whine about them.

11 thoughts on “No Roosevelt”

  1. The Democrats Hoover???? Hoover was extremely effective compared to this idiot. I never thought I’d see a president that makes Jimmy Carter look good. 0bama is the second term of ol’ Jimmuh.

  3. Hoover was a progressive who believed in managing the economy from the top down. So yes, I see the resemblance though I think Carter and Hoover are closer in micro management styles.

    Obama is the very model of a modern marxist goon.

  4. Woodrow Wilson – but as a follower not a leader. He knows the goals and can steer towards them. But his entire defense of “Why, exactly, are we going thataway?” is: “My experts say it would be better.”

  6. I never thought I’d see a president that makes Jimmy Carter look good.

    My thoughts exactly and he did it in less than a year (3 months I think.)

  10. It’s an insult to the memory of Hoover, “the Great Humanitarian”, the man who fed Europe. Hoover was a man who ruined his legacy by becoming president. He was temperamentally unsuited for the position, and, like many highly effective CEOs, burdened by an unfortunate, overweening confidence in his ability to get things done.

    If anything, Hoover was the anti-Obama – someone whose entire resume seemed to scream great potential as a political leader, forty years of experience, wildly bi-partisan – he won an number of Democratic primaries in the 1920 presidential campaign, and was a big noise in the Wilson Administration – and an impressive tenure as Commerce Secretary in the Coolidge Administration.

    Hoover’s great tragedy was that he was a great man, and great men are not sufficient in themselves to the purpose. He was the ultimate planner, the ultimate organization man, the Engineer in Chief.

    He Knew Better.

    Sadly, we eventually learned otherwise.

    Say what you will about Obama, but he isn’t a tragic figure. He isn’t a great man to be taken down by a tragic flaw and hubris. He’s more of an Elmer Gantry for the post-Christian age.

Comments are closed.