The Lame Duck Record.

When I was a boy, I lived opposite London’s Regent’s Park. The park had a pond and I would often be taken to feed small squares of bread to the ducks. I grew a liking for these creatures. Later, the liking turned carnivore. I judge a Chinese restaurant by the excellence of its duck with plum sauce and a French restaurant by the classic duck a l’orange dish. I don’t follow college football but have a soft spot for the University of Oregon’s Ducks. My favourite Marx Brothers movie is Duck Soup.

The one duck I don’t fancy is the lame duck. Applied to human life, a lame duck is a person that isn't properly able to function, especially one that was previously proficient. It is also sometimes used to describe office-holders who have lost an election but have not yet left office. Currently, it is applied to politicians known to be in their final term of office. Lame-duckery occurs when colleagues, rivals and the media as well as electors look towards a successor.

The origin of the term has nothing to do with politics. Back in the eighteenth century, when investors on the London Stock Exchange were unable to pay their debts, the phrase “a Bull, a Bear and a Lame Duck” would be used, the latter meaning the investor had welched.

US presidents have long suffered the lame duck fate, partly due to the electoral rules in America, which since 1946 limit the number of terms that a president may serve. Furthermore, the USA is where the phrase was first applied to politicians. A  Congressional Globe entry for 14 January 1863 states:

"In no event could it be justly obnoxious to the charge of being a receptacle of ‘lame ducks’ or broken down politicians."

The first such description of a US president written whilst in office was in 1926. The Wisconsin newspaper, the Appleton Post-Crescent ran a piece entitled, 'Making a lame duck of Coolidge':

"...the voting in other Republican states should hinge pretty largely on the issue whether Mr. Coolidge shall be permitted to become a lame duck president for the final two years of his term."

George W. Bush was elected twice for two four-year terms but, on any reasonable view, his presidency was a six-year term followed by two years of nothingness. What concerns me is that this shocking record might be exceeded by the current incumbent, because of the lame duck perception and the grid-lock in Congress.

Almost as soon as the hoardings for President Obama’s second inaugural were being removed, the Washington press got out their crystal balls to start the guessing game. ‘Who will run in 2016?’ was the burning question, not what would the Obama administration do in its second term. I refused to guess the identity of the next president. As far as I was concerned, Obama had achieved success. The American economy was through the floor when he took over but his measures were slowly growing fruit. He had a huge victory with Obamacare, bringing affordable healthcare to forty million Americans. American troops had withdrawn from Iraq and plans were in force to end the Afghanistan war.

But the media weren’t satisfied. In no time, almost as soon as Hillary Clinton had stepped down as Secretary of State, her name was in the frame for 2016 and huge sums of money were being raised for the Democrats. Chris Christie was vaunted as her Republican challenger. Now, Christie has a reputation of a conciliator, one who will reach out to the other side of the aisle. Also, he is not a Tea Partier. He has rivals, including Rand Paul, Marco Rubio who are attractive to Tea Party enthusiasts. Perhaps, Jeb Bush will throw his hat into the ring.

For almost a year, Clinton and Christie are the two people whose names stand out for the next presidential election. But President Obama has three years left to run. Harold Wilson was famous for saying, “a week is a long time in politics.” If the Democrats succeed in the 2014 mid-terms, he may have two years when he can actually work with Congress.