History can be made this election
year, although the vast majority of voters will have no idea of this fact. If Americans reelect Barack Obama as
president in November, they will do something that has only been done one other
time in American history: elect three
consecutive presidents to two terms.
Currently, the only time that
America has had three two-term presidents in a row was 1801 to 1825, when
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe served in the White
House. These three figures were all
Founding Fathers and thus commanded an immense amount of respect from their
countrymen. Jefferson, of course, was
well known as the author of the Declaration of Independence, as well as a vital
figure in securing French aid during the Revolution. Madison was the president of the
Constitutional Convention and sheparded the newborn United States to existence. Monroe was the least prominent of the three,
but he served as a delegate to the Continental Congress during the 1780s, as
well as carrying the distinction of being the only man to ever hold both the
Secretary of State and Secretary of War cabinet positions at the same time,
under President Madison.
These were great men, men who had a substantial
impact on the forward momentum of the United States, meaning none of them faced
a tough reelection bid. Jefferson,
running for his second term in 1804 against Charles Pinckney won nearly 73% of
the popular vote, one of the most lopsided campaigns in history. James Madison’s reelection bid was closer, with
Madison garnering only 50.4% of the popular vote, but 128 Electoral College
votes to his competitor’s 89. James
Monroe, on the other hand, ran unopposed in his second election, gathering
every Electoral College vote except for one, which was a purely symbolic
gesture to ensure that nobody but George Washington was ever election
unanimously.
One key factor in the election wins
of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe was the lack of any real competition. In the early days of our republic, the two
prominent political parties were the Democratic-Republicans and the
Federalists. After John Adams, the first
and only Federalist president, lost his reelection campaign to Jefferson in
1800, the party began to disappear until it was all but wiped out when
Alexander Hamilton, the de facto leader of the Federalists, was killed in a
duel in 1804. Without an organized party
to combat the Democratic-Republicans for votes, they faced easy elections the
likes of which we will likely never see again.
Therefore, it is more peculiar that
a streak once again emerges now, when the prominent political parties of today,
the Democrats and the Republicans, are both strong.
President Clinton, a Democratic
governor, won two presidental elections, 1992 and 1996, serving all eight years
of his two terms, generally with a high approval rating (AR). According to Gallup, the premier politicalapproval rating tracker, Clinton had an average AR of 55% over his two
terms. His AR in his first term,
however, was slightly below that average at 50%, although it hovered around 55%
in the weeks leading up to the election of 1996. Clinton benefited from an economy boom thanks
to new technologies, the rapid expansion of the internet as a source of
commerce, and peace time spending, being the first president to benefit from
the end of the Cold War.
President Bush’s numbers, however,
read much differently. His average AR was
49%, although his first term average was 62%.
One must take Bush’s AR numbers with a grain of salt, as they spiked to
an unrealistic 90% AR in the weeks after 9/11, and gradually declined
throughout the rest of his two terms, with only fleeting spikes. In the weeks leading up to his reelection
bid, his AR was roughly 50%. Bush’s
second term AR was a dismal 37% as Hurricane Katrina, war fatigue, a weakening
economy and a variety of political gaffes took their toll.
While all the data is not in for
President Obama yet, his average year-to-date AR is 49%, similar to Bush’s overall. However, as mentioned above, Bush’s first
term AR was drastically higher than Obama’s.
In fact, on a week to week basis, Obama’s AR has been higher than Bush’s
for only one week since July 20th 2009. That week, May 6th to 13th
2012 saw Obama at 47% while Bush, in his corresponding week, was at 46%. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Clinton has generally been seen as a
good but not great president, usually ranking in the middle of the pack in
surveys of historians. While currently
Bush falls into the lower fourth of presidents, I believe that over time
history will view him slightly more favorably, although he will never catch up
to his predecessor. It is altogether too
early to rank Obama anywhere, regardless of what Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow
would have you believe. Although the reason for the recent presidential incumbent
success is not currently known to me, perhaps in a few years time it will
become clearer.
With Obama losing more and more
electoral ground due to the still stagnant economy, and his challenger Mitt
Romney losing more and more electoral ground due to Mitt Romney, it remains to
be seen if the second presidential trifecta will be completed. But even if it is, it will pale in comparison
to its transcendent forerunner.