Historical Precedents

Once a re-election base-rate has been established, the next step is to look for indicators as to whether Trump is more likely to follow the trend or fall outside it. Of course, the temptation for many would be to declare that we’ve never had a president like Trump, therefore it’s all wide open. But I wanted to test this popular consensus by looking for precedents in the period running from FDR through Obama. I found several that seemed especially pertinent:

Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) had several financial conflicts of interest in the lead-up to his tenure and office, and throughout. He was a willful violator of political decency norms, regularly appealing to people’s basest instincts in order to realize his agenda. He regularly demonized the press and his political opponents as Communists or Communist sympathizers (akin to calling someone an ISIS surrogate today). He was arrogant. He was a womanizer.  He was paranoid. And he was absolutely miserable in office: Constantly hounded by protests, by the media, by a war he escalated which was not going well–by the end of his first elected term, he decided he would not stand for reelection–leaving his Vice-President Hubert Humphrey to run against Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon was paranoid, narcissistic and often petty. Throughout his tenure as president, he was loathed by the media.  Nonetheless, he was reelected in 1972 by one of the largest margins in U.S. history – winning the popular vote by more than 22 percentage points and the Electoral College by a spread of over 500. Nixon faced impeachment for the Watergate scandal in his second term because, even after his landslide reelection, Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress–and some Republicans had turned on him as well. To avoid criminal liability for his actions related to the scandal and cover-up, Nixon considered pardoning himself. However, he still could have still faced impeachment, and been forced out of office, for perceived ethical violations given sufficient will in Congress. In order to leave on his own terms and still ensure he was legally protected, Nixon resigned and requested a pardon from his vice-president and successor, Gerald Ford. And at great political cost, his request was granted. Fun fact: in 1987 Richard Nixon actually encouraged Donald Trump to run for office down the line.

Ronald Reagan was largely dismissed and disdained by the Republican establishment.  His platform was written off with derisive terms like “voodoo economics.” He defied party orthodoxy at every turn—and at times even ran against the party itself. Yet he was able to break through the RNC gate-keepers and secure the nomination in 1980–easily overcoming the centrists’ preferred candidate, George H.W. Bush. “The Gipper” was able to accomplish these feats because he was well-known, relatable and media-savvy. Despite the fact that his opponents seemed far more experienced and knowledgeable, the public found Reagan to be a visionary and inspirational leader—and awarded him two consecutive landslide victories. Accusations that his Southern Strategy often seemed to flirt with white supremacist narratives failed to tarnish his appeal. Even with the Iran-Contra Affair dragging on throughout most of his second term, leading to criminal convictions of many of his close associates, he left office in 1989 with the highest approval ratings since FDR.

Bill Clinton was sworn into office amid investigations into shady real-estate deals and financial scams which landed many of his close friends and associates behind bars. One of these, Susan McDougal, was convicted of contempt of court for refusing to answer questions related to Clinton’s involvement in the (Whitewater) scandal. Bill would later use his presidential pardon to erase the conviction she incurred protecting him, and to overturn the conviction of their mutual associate Chris Wade, for his involvement in the scheme. Clinton also used his pardon authority to exonerate family members of crimes ranging from DUIs to drug trafficking and campaign finance improprieties. Once pardoned, Clinton’s brother-in-law brokered a pardon for some of his own business associates—Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory—who would later brag to the press about how their wealth and access to the Clintons helped place them above the law. It was later revealed that Clinton’s brother-in-law had been granted more than $325,000 in “loans” by the couple while he was advocating for their pardon. Another of Clinton’s brothers-in-law earned $400,000 from his clients by successfully lobbying for a presidential pardon on their behalf as well. Clinton also pardoned fugitive businessman Marc Rich and his partner Pincus Green–without Justice Department approval–after receiving large financial contributions from his family. Former President Jimmy Carter would describe this move as “disgraceful,” and expressed certainty that the Rich family’s “gift” dramatically informed the President’s decision. However, all of these pardons were issued in the last moments of the Clinton Administration, allowing him to avoid political accountability for these decisions.

The last foreign collusion scandal

During his 1996 reelection campaign, Republican opponent Bob Dole took a hard line on China and criticized Clinton’s conciliatory approach. In response, the Chinese diplomatic and intelligence apparati worked to sway the election in favor of Bill Clinton. A Justice Department inquiry revealed that many in the DNC appeared complicit in these efforts, and resulted in the conviction of a number of Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, for conspiracy, espionage and the violation of campaign finance and disclosure laws (e.g. James T. Raidy, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, Ng Lap Seng). Others fled the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. Some close associates (such as Terry McAuliffe) remain under investigation to this day. Yet, as though none of this had been discovered–and even as he increased sanctions on Iran, Iraq and Cuba–Clinton worked to ease sanctions and normalize relations with regards to China. By the end of his second term, he had signed a sweeping trade deal that radically expanded the Chinese economy—even though his Administration’s own analysis forecast that this would come at the expense of many key American industries. Polls show that the public found Clinton’s posture on China so disconcerting that most supported appointing an independent counsel to investigate whether the Clinton Administration had been effectively “bought” by China.

Sex (and) Crimes

The Chinese collusion story was eventually swallowed up by the discovery that the President had been having an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. This was his second known extra-marital relationship: in the lead-up to his 1992 election it was also discovered that Clinton had been involved in a long-running affair with Gennifer Flowers, an employee of the State of Arkansas during Bill’s governorship there. However, throughout Bill Clinton’s political career, women who worked for him had also accused the erstwhile president of sexual harassment and even sexual assault. When federal investigators began to probe the Lewinsky incident—which was problematic in part because she was Clinton’s employee and subordinate–the president controversially evoked “executive privilege” to prevent top aides from having to testify about any wrongdoing he may have committed. Nonetheless, the President would eventually perjure himself in court, denying under oath that he’d been having an affair with Lewinsky–and was promptly impeached for this violation by the newly Republican-controlled House. However, he was eventually acquitted in the Senate because the GOP did not control enough seats to convict on their own, and no Democrats were willing to turn on the president.

George W. Bush assumed the presidency after losing the popular vote, but winning the Electoral College. His tenure in office diverged wildly from his campaign commitments. He was prone to embarrassing gaffes. He was widely panned as ignorant and unqualified. Forced to rely heavily upon his ill-chosen advisors as a result of his dearth of relevant knowledge or experience, he presided over some of the biggest foreign policy blunders in recent American history. Many of his actions in office were legally and ethically dubious. Yet he won reelection in 2004 by a healthy 3.5 million votes – in part because the Democrats nominated John Kerry to replace him. Without question, Kerry was well-informed and highly qualified. He was not, however, particularly charismatic. His cautious, pragmatic approach to politics made him seem weak and indecisive compared to Bush. His long tenure in Washington exacerbated this problem, providing his opponents with plenty of “flip-flops” to highlight – suggesting he lacked firm convictions, resolve or vision.

---

In short: Trump is not as unprecedented as he appears at first blush. Truman was reelected although he was underwater in the polls. LBJ and Nixon shared many aspects of Trump’s temperament. Reagan was accused of dog-whistle politics and key figures in his administration were jailed over the Iran-contra affair. Bill Clinton faced charges of foreign collusion–and indeed, many of his close associates were jailed for this, even as the DNC was forced to return millions of dollars in improper funds. Although he didn’t brag about it like Trump, Clinton was also repeatedly accused of sexual harassment and assault. Not to mention nepotism and corruption. Bush II, meanwhile, was completely unprepared for the job and his tenure was marked by a constant parade of gaffes, serious policy blunders and legally questionable maneuvers.

But notably, all of these people won reelection. Meanwhile, the few that didn’t (Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter) seem to have very little in common with Trump. This is a reason to be conservative in revising down Trump’s initial prospects in light of his apparent liabilities.

Next Step –>

Pages: 1 2 3 4