i-sako.com

Today’s issue of The Japan Times carried a Reuters article titled “History says it’s all downhill for new Bush term,” in which the second paragraph informs us that:

In the last half-century, every U.S. president who won a second term had a reputation-tarnishing scandal to go with it.

I hear this kind of thing a lot, but I’m beginning to think that the people who write this kind of material need to wake up to an unfortunate reality: For whatever reason, history doesn’t apply to Bush.

Let’s look at a few examples. If history is any guide:

• Presidents usually have more experience than Bush. “With the specialized exception of Eisenhower, every single other president [since FDR] has had at least 14 years between first winning political office and becoming president. George Bush had six.” (Kevin Drum)
• Presidents who win office with less votes than their opponent usually serve only one term. (Kevin Drum, again)
• The president’s party usually loses seats in Congress during mid-term elections. (Not so in 2002!)
• The Presidential Debates usually shape public opinion about the candidates. (Not so in 2004, where Bush lost all three debates yet still went on to win the election.)

I’m sure there are plenty more examples, if you care to look for them, but my point is merely that people should stop fantasizing about “what history tells us.” If the last four years are any guide, history doesn’t matter—at least as far as Bush’s prospects for winning elections are concerned.