The Presidential Aberration

A few days ago, I visited one of my alma maters to meet the US politics lecturer who taught me so much. What he does not know about federal politics in America is probably not worth knowing. He is an expert on the New Hampshire primary and since I am a so-called expert on American city government of the 1920s and 30s, we both have similar nerd-like qualities. If you find it odd that I should be meeting a lecturer at my ancient age, I’d mention to those readers who do not know my past that I first attended university when I was 58.

Eventually, our discussion led to the current incumbent of the White House. I expressed the view that Trump’s win in 2016 was an aberration, a one-off, something unlikely to re-occur. My friend accepted the aberration point but reminded me that Trump was not the first businessman to be elected President and that the previous two so elected in the twentieth century had received their marching orders after one term.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt won the Presidential election by a landslide. His opponent, President Herbert Hoover, had a pedigree unusual for a President. He had been a successful engineer and businessman, a millionaire promoted by President Coolidge from the business world into cabinet, as Secretary of Commerce. Hoover had little or no political experience, nor had he served in the US Congress or the Iowa state congress. During World War I, President Wilson appointed Hoover to head the US Food Administration to ensure the nation's food needs during the war. However, an administrator is not necessarily a politician too: until Hoover reached the White House, his political nous was arguable. The job of Secretary of Commerce in good economic times is not challenging. Most damning was Hoover’s failure to spot the oncoming recession, even though business leaders had warned him and President Coolidge of the rocks ahead.

Hoover held no strong ties to the Republican Party. He did not socialize nor have close relations with members of either party of the US Congress. Thus when he took over the Presidency in 1928, he was politically inept. He did not reach out to members of Congress. The White House staff remained small, as it had for decades. Hoover was not one to make changes.

The Great Depression caused untold damage and distress, not only to the poor but to the middle class. Hoover’s reaction was typical of a Republican in those times. The economy was not a problem for the Administration to solve. This was something to be resolved by the market. If welfare was needed, the states, the cities and charities were there for this purpose. Americans adversely affected would have to practice what Hoover called, ‘rugged individualism.’

By November, 1932, the mass of the population were angry at and disillusioned by the Republican federal government, both in the White House and Congress. The Democrats grabbed the Presidency and Congress. The electorate had given the incumbents a bloody nose from which it would take two decades to recover.

Move forward to the 1980 election. President Jimmy Carter had been elected in a reaction to Nixon and his lying ways. Indeed, Carter’s mantra was, “I will never lie to you.” Over the four years of his Presidency, Carter failed to see or understand his job in the most depressing and dreary post-war times imaginable for American workers. Honesty was all well and good but where was the Presidential leadership? Although Carter had limited political experience as Governor of Georgia, he had no close ties to members of the US Congress and his time in office was marked by the small number of meetings he held with them. He just did not understand what it took to make Washington work.

In 1980, the electorate was offered someone different, a man who talked up America and who told the people, “government is not the solution, it’s the problem.” By election time, the voters were again angry with their President and his party, as well as disillusioned by Carter’s policies and leadership. The White House was lost. The Democrats would not be back for the next twelve years.

So to 2016. The electorate was offered a stark choice. Hillary Clinton was portrayed in the media and by her opponent as a policy wonk, out of touch with the white American working class. She was termed “crooked Hillary” by her opponent. She offered old solutions that had not succeeded for the working class. The alternative was Donald Trump, a self-proclaimed billionaire who uttered the most appalling statements while campaigning but did not upset his core voters, perceived as angry white workers who wanted a change from Old Washington. What happened on election night was surely a massive rejection of the status quo of traditional politics and expertise.

So, what might happen in 2020? Trump’s appeal is now limited to a very narrow section of voters. Let’s remember, in 2016, he lost the popular vote by over 3 million. Had Clinton upped her game in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois, the result could well have been different. I know nobody who has a good word for Trump. I think he is a shocking leader, although I’d give him points for recognising that America’s infrastructure needs a lot of work. Sadly, he does not seem willing to fund it wholeheartedly, maybe because the budget has yet to be settled.

There are parallels between Hoover and Carter on the one hand and Trump on the other, parallels which are not exact. For example, Hoover and Carter were articulate. However, all seemed hide-bound by ideology and, if Trump runs and loses in 2020, it will be because the electorate does not want this type of Presidency, as happened in 1932 and 1980. Disillusionment and unpopularity could swing the vote but if the economy provides more good jobs, if the stock market stays strong, and if Trump reaches out to the people as a whole and rejects former friends like the NRA, maybe he might hang on.

Election 2020 is a long way away. I’m not placing bets.