As I see it, Nixon rhetorically prefigured the coming realignment ("the Silent Majority"), while remaining rooted politically in the then-current one (the EPA, wage and price controls, etc.) Carter was rhetorically rooted in the then-current alignment (his rhetoric was that of the New Deal coalition) while politically prefiguring the coming realignment (Carter deregulated the airline and beer industries, tried to streamline the Federal bureaucracy, etc.).
Ford is an outlier who filled in for Nixon and has no bearing on the cycle.
Likewise, Obama rhetorically prefigures the coming realignment (his rhetoric is that of the most liberal President since the 1960s) while remaining rooted politically in the present alignment (Obamacare is essentially corporate welfare for insurance companies, the extension of the Bush tax cuts and the War on Terror, etc.). A hypothetical President Trump would be rhetorically rooted in the present alignment ("the Silent Majority" again) while politically prefiguring the coming realignment (his atypical economic proposals that we virtually never see from Republicans - maternity leave, support for some kind of Federal role in health care, etc., as well as his apparent isolationism).
The role of both Nixon and Obama was to loosen the grip on the political process of the prevailing paradigm, through political jujitsu that splits apart the reigning coalition. The role of both Carter and Trump was and is to try, and fail, to hook the gestating forces trickling up from below into the old politics, to preempt the realignment. Carter failed, and Trump probably will, too.
We wouldn't need a Ford figure in this cycle, because Gerald Ford was an accident of history, and events probably would have played out fairly similarly had Nixon never resigned - a relatively fiscally conservative Democrat was probably inevitable in 1976 (if not Carter then perhaps "Moonbeam" Brown), while a relatively fiscally "liberal" Republican looks like a possibility this time.
One of the great ironies of American political history is that Reagan was able to successfully portray Carter as a profligate big gubmint liberal, when he was probably the most restrained President since the Republicans of the 1920s on fiscal matters. It's very likely, if Trump wins, that his eventual Democratic successor will be able to portray him as a heartless servant of business, when he'll likely be the most fiscally interventionist President since the Democrats of the 1960s.
Ford is an outlier who filled in for Nixon and has no bearing on the cycle.
Likewise, Obama rhetorically prefigures the coming realignment (his rhetoric is that of the most liberal President since the 1960s) while remaining rooted politically in the present alignment (Obamacare is essentially corporate welfare for insurance companies, the extension of the Bush tax cuts and the War on Terror, etc.). A hypothetical President Trump would be rhetorically rooted in the present alignment ("the Silent Majority" again) while politically prefiguring the coming realignment (his atypical economic proposals that we virtually never see from Republicans - maternity leave, support for some kind of Federal role in health care, etc., as well as his apparent isolationism).
The role of both Nixon and Obama was to loosen the grip on the political process of the prevailing paradigm, through political jujitsu that splits apart the reigning coalition. The role of both Carter and Trump was and is to try, and fail, to hook the gestating forces trickling up from below into the old politics, to preempt the realignment. Carter failed, and Trump probably will, too.
We wouldn't need a Ford figure in this cycle, because Gerald Ford was an accident of history, and events probably would have played out fairly similarly had Nixon never resigned - a relatively fiscally conservative Democrat was probably inevitable in 1976 (if not Carter then perhaps "Moonbeam" Brown), while a relatively fiscally "liberal" Republican looks like a possibility this time.
One of the great ironies of American political history is that Reagan was able to successfully portray Carter as a profligate big gubmint liberal, when he was probably the most restrained President since the Republicans of the 1920s on fiscal matters. It's very likely, if Trump wins, that his eventual Democratic successor will be able to portray him as a heartless servant of business, when he'll likely be the most fiscally interventionist President since the Democrats of the 1960s.