Stalin, Nixon bode well for Obamacare

Democrats can’t win for losing. With Congress likely to pass health care reform, now Democratic lawmakers worry that legislative victory will be a Pyrrhic victory that will cost them dearly in November. Washington Post analysts are already warning that Democrats may pay a price for daring to win.

Not to worry. If Obama succeeds, it’s his success that voters will remember. Take Josef Stalin. There are many Russians who are nostalgic for his rule. Take Richard Nixon. A decade after resigning in disgrace, he became an elder statesman.

Stalin was a monster, Nixon a tyrant. Both were awful human beings, and in many ways, incompetent statesmen; Stalin’s foolish alliance with Hitler almost lost the war, while Nixon’s Vietnam policy prolonged that miserable and divisive war for years. Yet both went down in popular history as being tough and decisive statesmen, largely because their successors weren’t. Russia has shrunk into a chaotic kleptocracy compared to Stalin’s empire. And do you see Americans nostalgic for Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter?

Of course, the rehabilitation of Stalin and Nixon took years, while Obama has less than eight months until the mid-term elections. But I don’t think health care will cost the Democrats. Anti-incumbent fever will, but that’s not Obama’s fault. The worst thing for him would be to lose the health care battle, and a crippled Obama administration is no boon for a Democratic Congress.

Perhaps health care reform will fail, though its failures may not become evident until after Obama leaves office. But with his back to the wall, Obama showed enough mettle to get his prize legislation passed. That’s what voters will remember.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Stalin, Nixon bode well for Obamacare

  1. Jerry Lanson says:

    I agree that health care won’t cost the Democrats — or certainly will cost them less than defeat would have. But really. Comparing Obama to Stalin and Nixon? He’s finally coming around to fighting for legislation that would have proved a lot more popular had he pushed it harder earlier. And the real problem, here, in my view, is neither the president nor Democratic Congress but a Republican Party that has been against absolutely everything he’s proposed from his first day in office. It’s impossible to govern in that kind of environment. Granted, the Democrats haven’t helped themselves with their infighting. But in the last month, that’s changed. I think this is a substantial victory for Democrats, in substance an politics. My hope is that the public will gradually realize as much.

    • Michael Peck says:

      I wasn’t suggesting that Obama is like Stalin or Nixon (though I think Hillary versus Nixon is a different matter). My point is that strong leaders, no matter how awful, tend to fare quite well in history and politics. Obama was perceived as indecisive and ineffectual. Even if the health care bill is passed through devious parliamentary procedure, a victory is still a victory.

  2. libtree09 says:

    Yes, I agree you did not need to go to Nixon and Stalin…how’s Hitler doing? Stalin is still a monster…no one in Russia is putting up statues for him…how about Bush/Cheney/Rumfeld let’s see how history views them…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s