01-06-2017, 01:42 PM
Warren,
It's a bit broader than that. You have a transformation president, an acolyte who follows in on his coattails, a swing back to the other party (who is nonetheless restrained by the system put in place by the first) followed by a swing back to the party of the first, who doubles down on that party's agenda even as it no longer really fits the current issues, a period of transition that lasts four to 12 years, and then another transformational president to address the present issues and start the cycle over.
You can look at Jackson, followed by his acolyte Martin Van Buren, the swing to the first Whig Presidents Harrison and Tyler, and then Young Hickory, James Polk. The aftereffects of Polk's policies (chiefly all the issues surrounding the territories gained in the Mexican American War, and how they aggravated the smoldering issue of slavery) led to a period of drift and escalating tensions in the 1850s, followed by the transformational presidency of Lincoln.
The next period that follows the model was the Progressive era, with Teddy setting the agenda, Taft coming in after, and Wilson being the first Progressive Democratic president (as opposed to the only other Democratic President during the late 19th century's Bourbon Democrat agenda). The Republicans come back in with their Return to Normalcy (although here they double down, not on Teddy's agenda, which migrated to the Dems due to a power struggle within the Republicans, but the Old Right agenda the Republicans had embraced before. The transitional period here was Hoover's presidency, which despite popular mythology was at the time all about the Engineer President's technocratic interventions into the economy, which were too timid to deal with the Great Depression.
The Next transformational President was of course FDR, followed by Truman, Eisenhower's Republican presidency which repudiated the legacy of Bob Taft and the John Birch types, with Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson doubling down on the New Deal legacy with Civil Rights, the New Frontier and the Great Society. Nixon was unable to fully capitalize on his undeniable gifts because of Watergate, and the country drifted through the Presidencies of Ford and Carter.
The last one was Reagan, bringing in Bush 41, Clinton's New Democrats, the apotheosis of National Review style Fusionism in GWB, with Obama's presidency an uneasy mash of Nixon's talents and Ford's fecklessness (particularly in Obama's second term). The question remains whether Trump will be able to capitalize on the moment and bring on a new party system, or whether he fails/the Democrat's succeed in bringing forth a fulfillment of the Obama coalition in the 2020s.
It's not a perfect model, and doesn't really fit the period between Jefferson and Jackson, or the Gilded Age period of overwhelming Republican dominance. But it isn't necessarily a bad one, either.
It's a bit broader than that. You have a transformation president, an acolyte who follows in on his coattails, a swing back to the other party (who is nonetheless restrained by the system put in place by the first) followed by a swing back to the party of the first, who doubles down on that party's agenda even as it no longer really fits the current issues, a period of transition that lasts four to 12 years, and then another transformational president to address the present issues and start the cycle over.
You can look at Jackson, followed by his acolyte Martin Van Buren, the swing to the first Whig Presidents Harrison and Tyler, and then Young Hickory, James Polk. The aftereffects of Polk's policies (chiefly all the issues surrounding the territories gained in the Mexican American War, and how they aggravated the smoldering issue of slavery) led to a period of drift and escalating tensions in the 1850s, followed by the transformational presidency of Lincoln.
The next period that follows the model was the Progressive era, with Teddy setting the agenda, Taft coming in after, and Wilson being the first Progressive Democratic president (as opposed to the only other Democratic President during the late 19th century's Bourbon Democrat agenda). The Republicans come back in with their Return to Normalcy (although here they double down, not on Teddy's agenda, which migrated to the Dems due to a power struggle within the Republicans, but the Old Right agenda the Republicans had embraced before. The transitional period here was Hoover's presidency, which despite popular mythology was at the time all about the Engineer President's technocratic interventions into the economy, which were too timid to deal with the Great Depression.
The Next transformational President was of course FDR, followed by Truman, Eisenhower's Republican presidency which repudiated the legacy of Bob Taft and the John Birch types, with Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson doubling down on the New Deal legacy with Civil Rights, the New Frontier and the Great Society. Nixon was unable to fully capitalize on his undeniable gifts because of Watergate, and the country drifted through the Presidencies of Ford and Carter.
The last one was Reagan, bringing in Bush 41, Clinton's New Democrats, the apotheosis of National Review style Fusionism in GWB, with Obama's presidency an uneasy mash of Nixon's talents and Ford's fecklessness (particularly in Obama's second term). The question remains whether Trump will be able to capitalize on the moment and bring on a new party system, or whether he fails/the Democrat's succeed in bringing forth a fulfillment of the Obama coalition in the 2020s.
It's not a perfect model, and doesn't really fit the period between Jefferson and Jackson, or the Gilded Age period of overwhelming Republican dominance. But it isn't necessarily a bad one, either.