Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

I think if the Democratic Party nominates Biden, they are looking at a loss. This election would end up looking like 1984. Biden has a lot in common with Walter Mondale, who of course defeated a large field of other primary candidates in the period 1983–84 and then lost in the fall as Reagan cruised to re-election. The Democratic Party’s best chance is for this cycle to end up looking NOT so much like ‘84, but more like ‘76. Remember, the Dems also had a large field in ’75 - ‘76. The candidate who emerged from that field was NOT an old familiar figure (not Muskie or Humphrey), but someone who had been utterly unknown to most of the country until the campaigning had gotten underway — Jimmy Carter. Who then defeated Gerald Ford in the general election. The Democrats need a fresh face to emerge from their large field, and then they need to come together behind that fresh face. Tulsi Gabbard (portrayed above) might pull off the Carter role.

For a long time, I thought of US politics in terms of a 30 year cycle.  I thought of this as the "short cycle" of two, for I also had and still have a long cycle theory.  But the short cycle was specifically keyed to Presidential election, so it manifested itself in 32 or 28 year intervals (since 30 is not divisible by four).  Pursuant to the short cycle theory I compared President Obama's election in 2008 to the election of other relatively obscure figures who carried on the impetus of a reform movement past its prime. A haberdasher in 1948 was elected as the last hurrah for the New Deal. Four years later he bowed out, letting Adlai Stevenson take the fall for Eisenhower's victory. Twenty eight years after 1948 brings us to 1976, when a peanut farmer became President as a final upsurge of New Frontier/Great Society liberalism. Four years later he was mugged by an Ayatollah on the way to defeat by Ronald Reagan.  Thirty-two years from 1976 brings us t...

Now that we are coming up on the second inauguration of Barack Obama I might as well say this: I'm still trying to get a fix on why I was wrong about the last election. I have long harbored two (strictly inconsistent) theories about the cycles in American politics. One was the Schlesinger theory, according to which politics in the US, especially at the Presidential level, works in roughly 30 year cycles. Since 30 is not divisible by four this, as observed in Presidential election results, required a periodicity of either 28 or 32 years. At any rate, according to the theory of Schlesinger cycles, Obama had to be another Jimmy Carter. After all: 1976 + 32 = 2008. Carter himself on this view was Harry Truman. 1948 + 28 = 1976. Truman only served one term (in his own right) and Carter only served one term (without qualification). So, if Schlesinger cycles were in operation, Obama would only serve one term. During this election cycle, when the opportunity to predict the outc...