By Julian E. Zelizer
Special to CNN
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

Editor's Note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is the co-editor of "Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s" and is completing a book on the history of national-security politics since World War II, to be published by Basic Books.

PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- Many Americans are expecting big things from President Barack Obama.

The president-elect ran as the candidate of change, promising to transform the status quo in Washington and to empower citizens to take back their government.

During his speeches in the final week of the campaign, Obama said to his supporters that together, "we will change this country. We will change the world."

Those are some pretty big promises. Unfortunately for Obama, most presidents since WWII have suffered from the freshmen blues in their first year in the White House.

Expectations are usually high and the ability of a president to deliver much of what he promised on the campaign trail is rather low. Without a national crisis like 9/11, presidents have struggled in their first year with a general decline in approval ratings.

The reasons are not difficult to understand. International and domestic crises force the White House to focus on unexpected issues, many of which are not in their best political interest. The bitter partisan and intra-party tensions that had caused gridlock for the previous administration remain. Budgetary limits constrain how much tax-cutting or spending increases can take place.

When a president takes office with expectations as high as those for Obama, the chances for avoiding a post-election letdown are virtually nil.


Under these conditions, the challenge for the new president is to somehow keep the factions of his winning coalition in the tent even as he can't accomplish much of what he promised to do.

While some presidents, such as Harry Truman or Jimmy Carter, never really recovered from the post-election letdown and watched as their coalitions crumbled, other presidents have figured out ways to retain the loyalty of their supporters.

John F. Kennedy was one of the exceptional presidents whose approval ratings were strong throughout his first year in office. Kennedy was successful despite a horrible fiasco with the Bay of Pigs and his inability to move key domestic initiatives, such as medical care for the aged, through a legislative system dominated by conservative southern Democrats and Republicans.

He began his presidency with a stunning inaugural address, in which he took a tough stand against communism and called on Americans to sacrifice for the good of the nation. The speech launched the president's term in the right fashion, as polls showed overwhelming support for what he said.

Kennedy retained the support of northern liberals by pushing for civil rights progress outside of the legislative process. He relied on court action and executive power to begin desegregating southern universities, enough to demonstrate a genuine commitment to racial equality.

Kennedy also made sure to please the hawkish base of the Democratic Party by proposing significant increases in defense spending on conventional weapons and by taking a tough stand against the Soviets.

Finally, Kennedy proposed a few high-profile, yet targeted, initiatives like a space program to put a man on the moon and national service through the Peace Corps that excited the younger generation of Americans who had voted for him. Kennedy's strategy was to build enough strength gradually so that he could accomplish tougher challenges as his term progressed and after he was reelected.

Richard Nixon also avoided the freshman blues, enjoying a successful first term that is often forgotten as a result of Watergate. Following his narrow victory in 1968 against Hubert Humphrey, Nixon was always careful to placate the conservative base of his party. In his first term, he played to the right by railing against hippie college students and draft-dodgers.

Reminding Republicans of his hawkish credentials, Nixon authorized aggressive bombing operations against the North Vietnamese. Yet Nixon also realized that he needed to take some political risks as he pushed for policies that undercut the political power of the left and broadened his governing coalition in preparation for 1972.

Nixon announced the policy of Vietnamization, whereby the U.S. would gradually withdraw troops from Vietnam, and said he promised to eliminate the draft. Nixon initiated negotiations with the Soviet Union over arms control. The policy of détente was appealing to middle class Americans worn down by the warfare they saw in Vietnam.

Ronald Reagan's approval ratings declined during his first year, notwithstanding a temporary boost after the assassination attempt on March, but he was able to keep the conservative coalition together. How did he do it? Reagan was very good at sticking to the big picture.

In his public addresses, he continued to outline the two major themes -- anti-communism and cutting government -- that united the factions of the conservative movement.

While Reagan displayed flexibility when backing down from certain proposals that caused too much political trouble, such as reducing Social Security benefits, he was steadfast when it came to making strong statements about the dangers of communism and the need to privilege private markets over government.

He spent much of his political capital to obtain the tax cut of 1981 which reduced overall rates and symbolized his determination to diminish the role of government in public life.

Next year will certainly be rough for President Obama and he can't count on events working in his favor. His candidacy was based on the promise of change in Washington.

As a result of the fifty-state strategy, he will face a Democratic Party that includes African-Americans urban residents, suburban homeowners living in the coastal states, Hispanic immigrants, younger voters active for the first time, as well as western and southern conservatives from states and districts that were previously Republican. He faces a complex economic crisis and the continued challenge of Iraq.

The history of presidential freshmen years though offers Obama some guidance for success: taking risks on policies that will broaden his electoral coalition, finding and sticking to key themes that will hold his coalition together, and carefully selecting a handful of issues that are dramatic enough to solidify his support without triggering a destructive backlash. If he puts these pieces together, he can start moving toward a second term.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian E. Zelizer.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/zel...dent/index.html



I think this will take time.
I know that there are a few nut cases that have regarded him as a "messiah". But, of course, he is not.
He is just another man.
And he will need some serious TIME to straighten out this mess that Bush has left us in.

I'm not expecting miracles in just 12 months.

But, I think between his second and third year he should be well on his way to securing a favorable trust that he can accomplish some of the things he initially "promised".
If not by then, then he will look like nothing more then spewing off empty promises. And the entire Republican voting class from this election will begin saying "I told you so".

I really don't want to see that happen. I didn't vote for him - by I certainly wish him great success.



Hell - ......"Barack's our Quarterback....."




.

This post has been edited by Guitarzan-54: Nov 5 2008, 01:22 PM

Case in point:

Just out......


President Obama's First Step: Reset Expectations
Posted Nov 05, 2008 12:15pm EST by Henry Blodget in Newsmakers, Recession, Election
Related: ^dji, ^gspc, ^ixic

From ClusterStock, Nov. 5, 2008:

If President Elect Obama were the incoming CEO of a corporation, he would now be preparing for the first act of his tenure: A massive write-off of the mountains of rotted junk buried on the company's balance sheet and an announcement that recovery will take a long, long time.

This flush would clear the way for several years of better than expected results. It would also take advantage of the new leader's one chance to blame the sorry state of the organization on his sorry predecessor.

President Obama began this process last night, in his victory speech, when he noted that restoring the country's health might take more than a term. In the next few weeks, he should go well beyond this:

* The deficit will be more than $1 trillion a year for several years
* The country needs a massive new fiscal stimulus
* The housing market will continue to decline through at least 2010
* Interest rates and taxes will eventually have to rise (after the economy stabilizes)
* Weak corporations have to be allowed to fail
* Millions of homeowners will lose their house
* Unemployment will probably rise to 10%
* The government simply cannot "bail the country out" -- not because it lacks the will, but because it lacks the power

In short, Obama needs to acknowedge reality, erring on the side of overstating the problems and challenges, and he needs to prepare the country for several tough years. Because if he doesn't, within six months of his taking office, the country will have forgotten all about the prior administration and will instead be blaming everything on him.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/artic...dji,^gspc,^ixic


.

"If he puts these pieces together, he can start moving toward a second term."

Jesus Christ. It's been less than 24 hours and this guy is already talking about the 2nd term.

He's my President. He's my Commander in Chief. I agree with just about none of his policies (what a surprise, huh?), but he has 100% of my support as my CinC. I wish him the best, not only for himself... but for US.

Will he be able to achieve everything he promised? Probably not, when has a politician EVER delivered on everything? All I can say is that he MUST WIN his very first try to implement one of his policy's, etc.. Whatever is his first major political action, he must succeed. If he doesn't, you can bet that the right will feel validated, the let-down on the left will be HUGE, and the world will start wondering what has happened to the mighty US. Therefore.... baby steps are necessary. Get some 'fluff' going and into law, and get a full head of steam before he tries any large "change" or implementation. But he has to quickly get that steam going...

Remember... the republican's are some sneaky sum bitches. The super-majority didn't happen, so the right still has some things they can do. Don't ever discount a pissed off republican politician. Especially with so many new democrat pol's.

From Reuters...

"In another interview Zebari said he believed Obama would take conditions on the ground into account before any withdrawal.

"When there is a reality check, I think any U.S. president has to look very hard at the facts on the ground," he told Al-Jazeera television. "The gains that we have attained and won with hard struggle and a great deal of sacrifice need to be sustained."


So.... basically.... the withdrawal is gonna be dependent on the situation on the ground? God damn, that sounds familiar...

Yeah thats what they all have said.

I don't understand why we have to work under a deficit for the next couple of years. Balance your fucking budget immediately and start working without a deficit. How hard can it be?

Except when your running for office......

Ha Ha, Irish lives in a blue state....

Like the guy in office who swore to get Bin Laden.. Opps

Yeah I wonder why the Republicans couldn't do when they were in charge?

Yeah, it's a bipartisan argument. Being in the financial industry makes me pretty one sided on this..., there is no other reason than bullshit to plan to run your government under a deficit.

So much for... "pay as you go"

This post has been edited by blinddeafmute: Nov 6 2008, 02:08 PM

Thats just mean.

We ought to wait to see what Obama does before forming conclusions about him and, certainly, before launching all sorts of criticisms at him. He was just elected four day ago and he's not actually the President yet.

There have been many different renditions of Obama and nobody knows -- including him, I believe -- how he'll govern. It's true that he has espoused some liberal principles and supported some liberal policies, but over the last several years, his political approach has clearly been one of centrism and placating the establishment. But none of that is a guaranteed indicator for what he will do with power. That all remains to be seen, though it seems extremely clear that those who are convinced that he will be some sort of icon of progressivism are going to be quite disappointed.

It's certainly likely that Obama will end up doing many, many things that warrant and provoke intense criticism. I have no doubt about that. But he's entitled to actually start doing things -- on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, civil liberties, the economy, and otherwise -- before judgments are formed.


freaking liberal media bias........
















This post has been edited by brophy: Nov 8 2008, 01:09 PM

for Obama to be viewed as a decent president

1) he will have to REVERSE a majority of the former president's policies and executive power grabs
2) If he makes a radical change like that, many in the beltway will rebel against change

He is taking the office at a time when we need MASSIVE amounts of reform. Its going to be very hard to do well, he just can't be 'competent', he has to be FDR-esque in his ability to perform change in government. If he simply allows the excesses of the W era to stand, he will fail. If he tries rolling that stuff back, he will run into a buzz saw of political opposition.

and end of an era........
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/opinion/04brooks.html



This post has been edited by brophy: Nov 9 2008, 12:51 PM

Technically, Barack Obama is a baby boomer. A person is considered a baby boomer if they were born between 1946 and 1964 and Obama was born in 1961. So he's a baby boomer, just on the very tail-end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_baby_boom

As is often the case, after a major war, the end of World War II brought a baby boom to many countries, notably those in Europe, Asia, North America, and Australasia. There is some disagreement as to the precise beginning and ending dates of the post-war baby boom, but the range most commonly accepted is 1946 to 1964. In the United States alone, approximately 76 million babies were born between those years. In 1946, live births in the U.S. surged from 222,721 in January to 339,499 in October. By the end of the 1940s, about 32 million babies had been born, compared with 24 million in the 1930s. In 1954, annual births first topped four million and did not drop below that figure until 1965, when four out of ten Americans were under the age of twenty.[1]

Continued at link.