It’s the dawn of a new era; the populace has spoken. Barack Obama will be the next president. We, as a nation had better get used to it. Why did he win, and how will he govern? These questions are on everyone’s mind, especially we conservatives. As a student of history I have a few observations.

First of all, I do not believe that race was the sole reason that Obama won. Obviously he is black—well actually bi-racial, but that is another story—but he did not run as a black candidate ala Jesse Jackson. Instead the nominee for the Democratic Party ran as populist, exciting a youthful base that, according to the numbers gave him the victory. Attempting to shadow one of the Democrat “greats” in John F Kennedy, Barack spoke in broad terms of “hope” and “change” and showed off his youngish-looking wife and cute kids. The press ate this up, and, dreaming of another “Camelot”, fought hard to elect the black JFK.

Yet I believe there are two other presidents that better define Barack Obama. They are Warren Harding and Jimmy Carter; two presidents that are routinely listed as among the worst ever. Why these presidents? What do they have in common with the new president-elect?

I believe that they have a lot more in common with Obama, than the Democrat vision of a Kennedy redux. There are three reasons for this. First of all, Obama like Carter and Harding ran on a populist platform. The former presidents were truly Washington outsiders, and though Obama is a sitting US Senator, his brief stint representing Illinois makes him appear an outsider.  

Secondly, each was elected on a platform of “change” and “hope”, that pitted them in opposition to a wearisome war and an unpopular president.  Warren Harding ran on the slogan: “return to normalcy,” as he successfully tapped into a nation that had become tired of the First World War. Even though Wilson was still somewhat popular, it seemed obvious that the high-moralism of the Progressive Era Democrats had worn thin. Jimmy Carter, likewise, tapped into a nation that was tired of Vietnam, Watergate, and all the associated baggage including the infamous pardon of Richard Nixon. Gerald Ford, a Republican, was easily portrayed as the last vestige of a corrupt administration and an unpopular war. Carter thus exuded change and hope.

Third and most unfortunately, all three candidates were neophytes. Harding had little executive experience, for his training was a newspaper man. Many historians have felt that he was unfit for the job as president; that he wasn’t smart enough—he attend a small college that perhaps was more akin to a business school—and that he was not serious enough. He was known to be a womanizer, and a gambler—the complete opposite from a dour and rigid Wilson. Carter similarly was portrayed as unfit for the job. Though he was the governor of Georgia, this state was (and perhaps in some quarters still is) considered a political backwater, like all of the Deep South. He was shown in the press with his toothy smile and “all shucks” attitude that painted the picture of him as a country hick. His beer drinking brother did not help to convey the sense of “gravitas” that his administration seemed to lack.

Obama’s supporters do not seem worried that their nominee has no executive experience. He ran to end the unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to abolish the high-mindedness of the Bush Administration. The nation, as in the 1920’s and 1970’s seems to be in a mood to return to “normalcy”. The fact that he is not a Republican, for many was reason enough to vote for him. The fear that we on the right have is that he too has joined the ranks of the least prepared and least matured men to ever become president. However, unlike those men, he is portrayed as magnificently intelligent, who is prepared and ready. But unfortunately the real danger is not knowing how much danger, and how inexperienced, you really are. What Obama thinks he knows may be more harmful than what he actually does.