A Brief History of Rhyme

Mark Twain once said that history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. And if there’s one thing pundits and wonks like to do, it’s to look at those rhymes for hints about where things are going.

This is easier said than done, of course. Karl Rove had convinced himself that 2004 rhymed with 1896 — a period that began a generation of Republican dominance. Instead, it rhymed with 1976 — a period in time where one party appeared ascendent, and another moribund. Which was true, but the opposite of what everyone thought at the time.

Now US News and World Report, in its new virtual incarnation, has decided that 2008 rhymes with 1992 — and that’s bad news for Barack Obama. Now, you may wonder why it is, given that Bill Clinton won re-election in 1996, but still — bad!:

That’s right, the “O” in “Obama” may stand for “One Term.” For starters, there’s a strong chance that when voters head to the polls on Nov. 2, 2010, they likely will still think the economy is awful. Not much debate about that. (Good chance the Democrats’ two-election winning streak comes to an end.) And while voters may be somewhat patient for two years, patient for four years? Really unlikely. If history is any guide at all, voters may still be terribly cranky about the economy when they cast their ballots on Nov. 6, 2012 and thus likely choose the 45th president of the United States — be it Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal or some other Republican without “Bush” for a last name. Once again a “change” election for an impatient America. The same bad economy that doomed John McCain in 2008 will have sunk Obama, as well.

Well, that’s all very interesting, but James Pethokoukis is wrong about his analogy. It isn’t 1992 all over again. It’s 1980.

The 2008 election had a lot in common with the 1980 one. The country is in a malaise, the upstart challenger was untested, but in the end, he was charismatic and seemed like a stable leader. The country decided to pass on a continuation of what appeared to be failed policies, in favor of change and hope. Ronald Reagan in 1980, Barack Obama in 2008 — polar opposites politically, but of a piece when it comes to their sense of optimism that America’s best days lie ahead of us.

Reagan won in 1980 at the end of the dismal ’70s, which had seen America’s prestige battered in a senseless war, seen energy prices spiking, seen the economy grind to a halt. No president could fix all that in a couple years, and Reagan didn’t; the economy went into the worst recession since the Great Depression during his first term, a recession that lasted until November of 1982, the year of the mid-term elections. Democrats gained 26 seats that year, but could not retake the Senate; the recession ended, and the economy improved over the next couple of years.

But it didn’t improve magically, nor did was all perfect in 1984. Unemployment was still over 7 percent on Election Day of 1984, though that was down from the 10.8 percent it had hit at the peak of the recession. But by the time Reagan faced Walter Mondale in 1984, the economy was recovering. Things appeared to be on the right track. Inflation had moderated, corporate earnings were up. Reagan won a historic landslide over Mondale, and today the recession is barely mentioned by Reagan’s haigiographers on the right.

Obama has the chance to experience a similar fate. Undoubtedly, we have some hard years ahead of us, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Democrats lose some seats in the mid-terms — indeed, given what a high-water mark the Democrats are at now, it will be all but impossible not to lose some seats in the mid-terms. But if the economy is in recovery come 2012, the odds strongly favor Obama winning re-election.

If the economy is still failing, of course, that would be different. But if it is, then we’re in a Depression, and we haven’t had a candidate stand for re-election during a Depression since 1936.

Come to think of it, that guy won, too.