Presidential Archetypes

[Eric the Green]

(12-20-2019, 05:29 PM)ResidentArtist Wrote: One interesting theory that I've come across while researching political realignments, which usually occur every 40 years or so and almost always during Awakening and Crisis turnings, is how well the Roosevelt and Reagan eras line up with each other. Even some presidents elected before the former fit the model. The presidents seem to have a counterpart of the opposing party 40 years before them that fits a distinct role and phase in the overall realignment. There are six of these archetypes, and they are defined as:

The Reformer – This president is elected in a sweeping landslide that realigns the electorate and achieves a national consensus. They set the governing priorities for the next half of the saeculum, and involve drastic changes in domestic policies and foreign situations. Future presidents may differ in small ways but largely operate within the boundaries of the party system before the next Reformer in the cycle. (Examples: Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan)

The Consolidator – Because the Reformer was a popular enough president to change the direction of the nation, the public feels comfortable in electing a second president of that party in a row. They have limited domestic achievements and experience a wane in popularity, unable to live up to the glamour of their predecessors. However, they may leave office with significant foreign accomplishments. (Examples: Harry Truman, George Bush Sr.)

The Consensual – After over at least a decade of one-party domination of the presidency, voters are ready for a change but remain skeptical of a return to the old system. For the first time in a generation, a president of the opposing party serves a successful eight years, but adopts many fiscal and social positions of the other side. Future members of the party look back on this era with mixed feelings, but it puts them in their strongest position since the realigner came to power. (Examples: Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton)

The Accomplisher – This is the halfway point of the new party system. In a close election, the dominant political party retakes control of the White House. Having been a member of the generation that first challenged and changed the system as they came of age, they govern as a true believer in the cause and accomplish many of the same objectives. At the same time, they are met by an opposite generation which grew up under their dominance and are now being challenged in turn. During an eventful eight years tainted by national tragedy and foreign quagmire, the discredited party again loses the White House. (Examples: John F. Kennedy & Lyndon Johnson, George W. Bush)

The Precursory – With the current era now decades old, change is inevitable yet resisted. The incumbent president is in an odd position of setting the tone of the new political era but being restrained in maximizing changes to their full effect. Nonetheless, they are a window to the coming reforms, and what they achieve serves as a model for what is to come. (Examples: Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford, Barack Obama)

The Disaster – The Precursory is followed by a brief revival of the once dominant party. They are the last gasps of an old era, vehemently opposed by a newer generation with a starkly different vision. Adjustments that were made over the past forty years are no longer enough to solve the problems of the next forty, which vary in intensity but all signify a dead age. These presidents often only serve one term, although it might be possible for an overarching phase to last longer when looking for leaders in a Crisis era. They are succeeded by a new realigner. (Examples: Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, Donald Trump?)

If the pattern continues, it may become a reliable indicator of where the next 80 years (otherwise known as the saeculum) will take the United States. The 2020s and 2060s are likely to be the setting of the next realigning elections, whereas the 2040s and 2080s are poised to be periods of great political unraveling in various forms, before the cycle starts anew again at some point around 2100. Despite the half-saeculum length of each political era, this aligns quite well with generational theory when you account for slight differences in tone. In 1952, Eisenhower won in a resounding landslide in the 1T, while Clinton was aided in 1992 by the strongest ever third-party bid in Ross Perot, a signature of a 3T. What are your thoughts on this?

I have seen this pattern before under a different set of names, I think. It seems plausible, but the correlations are irregular when you look further back, although advocates make the case. Some presidents like Coolidge are skipped over, showing the irregularity of the rhythm. And George W Bush hardly qualifies as an accomplisher. He only fits the national tragedy part. In fact, his administration was nothing but a series of national tragedies, in part caused by himself. 

It also looks like the realigner, if (s)he runs in 2020, will probably not win in a "landslide," and may well lose, because the opposition candidates are weak. An FDR or Reagan is not in the wings. Luck of the draw, and the fortunes of who runs, it appears. The only two candidates who can beat Trump in 2020 are so old they may only serve one term, and who knows if the party survives in office afterward; it may well not. But somehow, I think the "realignment" will happen anyway and the 2020s will set the nation in a new direction mostly opposite to the Reagan neo-liberal one, which if anything, was a "disaster" from start to finish. That may well signify a larger cycle at work, but who knows.