There’s been a lot of talk lately about whether or not support for Hillary Clinton represents a call for a return to “normalcy” and, if so, would that be a good thing. Here’s the skinny on that…
Warren G. Harding: He Found An Acorn At Just The Right Time
During the 1920 presidential campaign, Ohio Senator Warren G. Harding, a second rate intellect and a third rate person, perfectly captured the mood of the country when he declared, “America's present need is not heroics but healing; not nostrums but normalcy; not revolution but restoration.” It was a lucky shot for him, so much so that it calls to mind the old saying: Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.
Normalcy was not even the right word. The correct term was normality. And of course ever since most Americans say normalcy.
But Warren was right. Folks were fed up with the political backstabbing permeating the debate over membership in the League of Nations and discombobulated by the Progressive Movement that had been challenging the status quo since the end of the Spanish American War. Much of the anger was directed at sitting President Woodrow Wilson, and since he was not on the ballot voters took it out on the Democrats’ standard bearer that year, Ohio’s Governor James M. Cox. “Jimmy” Cox, a mild progressive and a supporter of the League, never knew what hit him. The public wanted to go back to what they liked best, making money and having fun. Elected in a landslide, Harding promptly proceeded to become one of the worst presidents in American History.
The country took a hard turn to the right and the following President, Calvin Coolidge, summed it all up when he said, “The man who builds a factory builds a temple…” Progressives still gag on that one. The Twenties roared that’s for sure, but the poor and minorities were left out and a hideous bubble grew bigger and bigger until it popped on Black Tuesday in October 1929 and the nation began to grasp the price it would have to pay for the follies of Jay Gatsby and those like him.
The normalcy many Americans pine for today is the 1990s when under President Bill Clinton the economy performed well, inflation stayed low, the unemployment rate ticked downward, and lobbing missiles into Iraq and the Balkans sufficed for an effective foreign policy. Most Progressives remember it as a time of missed opportunities and dashed expectations.
Hillary Clinton understands that during the campaign (such as it is) for her party’s nomination, the Democratic progressive base won’t be at all interested in returning to the 1990s. After all, the early twentieth century’s Progressive Movement was a largely successful drive to improve economic, political and social justice, and modern day Progressives – the base of the Democratic Party – darn well believe it is time for another such movement that will disdain triangulation.
But History has proven that the general election turns on what regular people in the political center care about most… bread and butter issues. How secure is my job? Am I getting a raise? Are prices going up too fast? Believe me, the 2016 contest will not be determined on the basis of Benghazi or ISIS or anything like that. Not since 1844 when James K. Polk ginned up Americans on Manifest Destiny and attacking Mexico has a presidential election turned primarily on foreign policy.
During the primary season expect loads of progressive platitudes. But then safely nominated, it would be crazy for Hillary not to wax nostalgic and remind undecided voters of the normalcy of her husband’s eight years in office. None other than Warren G. Harding proved what an effective campaign strategy that can be.
Thus, as the Clinton campaign revs up, Hillary will be promising liberals she can move the country forward into a new Progressive Movement while at the same time reassuring centrists she can take the country backward into the happy times of the nineties. It will be a neat trick if she can pull it off. Her election to the presidency depends upon it.
Hillary Clinton: Facing An Unavoidable Juggling Act