creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Michael Barone
Michael Barone
24 May 2012
Cocooned Liberals Are Unprepared for Political Debate

It's comfortable living in a cocoon — associating only with those who share your views, reading … Read More.

21 May 2012
Obama Pursues Higher Tax Rates, Growth Be Damned

In the run-up to this weekend's G-8 summit at Camp David, journalists have unfavorably compared European … Read More.

17 May 2012
Recent News Could Cause Panic for Obama Campaign

Is it panic time at Obama headquarters in Chicago? You might get that impression from watching events — … Read More.

Harry S. Obama?

Share Comment

Pundits lately have been comparing Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter, suggesting he is a likely loser in 2012. But my American Enterprise Institute colleague Norman Ornstein, writing in The New Republic, compares Obama to Harry S. Truman, suggesting he may outperform the polls and win.

It's always helpful to be reminded that early polls may not be predictive and that opinion can change, as was the case when Truman won in 1948 and when Carter lost in 1980. But we should keep in mind that today's polls are better and more frequent than they were 63 years ago.

Gallup's last 1948 poll was taken between Oct. 15 and Oct. 25 and showed Thomas Dewey leading Truman by only 5 points. No contemporary pollster would quit eight days before the election after getting that result.

There are in fact major differences between Truman's standing in 1947-48 and Obama's standing today. Contrary to Truman's "do-nothing" characterization of the Republican 80th Congress, it in fact did a lot. It repealed wartime wage and price controls, cut taxes deeply and passed the Taft-Hartley Act, limiting the powers of labor unions.

None of those actions was reversed by the Democratic Congress elected with Truman in 1948. Many congressional Democrats in those days were anti-New Deal conservatives. Truman won many votes from Democrats still upset about the Civil War. Few such votes will be available to Obama or congressional Democrats in 2012.

In addition, Truman's victory was brought about by two "F factors" — the farm vote and foreign policy — the first of which scarcely exists today and the second of which seems unlikely to benefit Obama in the same way.

When the nation went to war in the 1940s, 1 in 4 Americans still lived on farms. The 1948 electorate still reflected that America. Voter turnout was actually lower than it was in 1940, and the vast postwar demographic changes were not reflected in elections until turnout surged in the contest between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson in 1952.

Truman promised to keep Depression-era farm subsidies in place and charged that Dewey and the Republicans would repeal them. That enabled him to run ahead of Franklin Roosevelt's 1944 showing in 13 states with large farm populations, from Indiana to Colorado and Minnesota to Oklahoma.

Without that swing in the farm vote, Truman would not have won.

Dewey, waking up to find that he would not be president as he and almost everyone expected, spotted that immediately the morning after the election.

Today only 2 to 3 percent of Americans live on farms. Farm prices currently are running far ahead of subsidy prices. Obama is not going to be re-elected by the farm vote.

The second F factor that helped Truman was foreign policy. As Ornstein correctly notes, Truman's Cold War policies — the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan — were supported by Republican congressional leaders and by Dewey. Top Dewey advisers were taken into confidence by Truman's foreign policy appointees. It was the golden era of bipartisan foreign policy.

But on one policy, Truman went further than his top advisers and Dewey's. When the Soviets blocked land access to West Berlin in June 1948, Truman's advisers — men of the caliber of George Marshall and Omar Bradley — said that it was impossible to supply food and fuel to Berlin and that we should just abandon it.

At a crucial meeting in July 1948, Truman listened to this advice. After others had finished talking, Truman said simply, "We're not leaving Berlin." Gen. Lucius Clay, our proconsul in Germany, set about organizing what became the Berlin Airlift.

Gen. William Tunner, who had run the wartime airlift from Burma to China, made the Berlin Airlift work. Vast quantities of food and coal — far more than experts had estimated — were brought into Tempelhof Airport on planes landing in foul weather every 90 seconds. And the pilots took to throwing out pieces of candy to the hungry kids lining the runways.

Andrei Cherny, now the chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party, tells the story in his book "The Candy Bombers." He argues persuasively that the Berlin Airlift — an example of American strength, determination, technological prowess and generosity — played a key role in re-electing Truman.

So Truman's tough stand against communist aggression played a key part in his upset victory in 1948. Will Barack Obama have a similar accomplishment? Or will he be seen as impotent against our enemies, as was Jimmy Carter?

Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Good article, but what you are missing is the polls never ask if Obama is purposely trying to destroy the USA. If you people got out in the REAL world amongst the backbone of the country (not libs) and asked that question, you would find the overwhelming majority of savvy people realize exactly what he and his ideologue czars are trying to do. They no more give a Sh-- about the average American than Castro does. Not to be an alarmist, but he his depending on the financial failure to destroy the country. Why else is he on vacation every other day? If he is so "brilliant" (as the libs contend), he is sure doing a good job of hiding it...

I don't think he cares if he is elected again. That is just a plus if he is. His goal is to destroy the USA before then. He now has all the money he personally needs. Haven't you thought it odd that he tacked a little know bill onto the Patriot Act that allows him to declare martial law. Chew on that fact awhile and ask yourself why?

Charlie USMC Viet Nam
Comment: #1
Posted by: Charlie
Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:53 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Michael Barone
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 25 May 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 25 May 2012
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 25 May 2012

8 Mar 2010 Low-Tax Texas Beats Big-Government California

28 May 2007 Get Immigration Right

21 Apr 2010 Gangster Government Becomes a Long-Running Series