TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 3:55 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:45 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:06 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

November 20, 2008 | 2:15 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:52 PM
November 20, 2008 | 11:06 AM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
01.10.2008
Analogy Watch: Palin Edition

As I've noted earlier, 2008's may be the most heavily analogized election in American history. Barack Obama has been likened, often quite convincingly, to leaders ranging from Abraham Lincoln to Jimmy Carter. John McCain--the American Disraeli to admirers, the second Bob Dole to critics--isn't far behind.

Sarah Palin, though, seems to conjure up just one historical parallel: Dan Quayle, the dubiously qualified, polarizing newcomer who graced the GOP ticket two decades ago. Obama fans tend to see Quayle's deer-in-the-headlights look when they see Palin; the best many Republicans can do is note that Quayle's candidacy didn't prevent his ticket from winning a landslide victory.

Now, a month into her candidacy, the battle is joined: In a speech at the Harry Truman Library today, McCain sang the praises of the little-known, oft-derided Missouri pol thrust into the presidency by the 1945 death of Franklin Roosevelt. The comparison, of course, is a little scary--evocations of successful veeps tend to involve evocations of the presidential deaths that elevated the veep to greatness, as FDR's did less than three months after Truman's election. But the comparison is also analogistic gold: Truman is a bipartisan presidential hero, the patron political saint of underestimated middle-Americans and unpopular presidents. McCain's speech didn't even mention Palin. Given the stellar popular-culture image of the plainspoken Harry S., it didn't have to.

So long as we're going back in history for both positive and negative comparisons, let me nominate my own scary vice-presidential analogue for the Alaska governor: John Tyler, the nation's 10th vice president. Running alongside an elderly war-hero candidate, the Virginian was nominated as a balancing gesture, to soothe the sectional divisions within his Whig Party. It worked, as Tyler helped reassure both slaveholding Southerners and stalwarts of party hero Henry Clay about the man at the top of the 1840 ticket, William Henry Harrison.

Of course, the dangers of nominating an extremist on the day's big issues soon became clear: Harrison, the great hero of the Battle of Tippecanoe, went on to die a month after being sworn in, making Tyler the first veep to succeed following a presidential death. True to his political roots, Tyler took a series of strongly pro-Southern stands that fractured the coalition that won the 1840 election. He didn't serve a second term and wound up dying in 1862 in Richmond, where he lived as a loyal citizen of the Confederate States of America.

--Michael Schaffer

Posted: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 2:27 PM with 15 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

satyendra said:

I didn't know that (or anything else for that matter) about William Tyler.  Wow.

October 1, 2008 2:44 PM

miceelf said:

And Palin has some secessionist ties, making this analogy even more apt.

October 1, 2008 2:49 PM

gflibCDL said:

Palin reminds me a lot of former Montana Governor Judy Martz, same bubbly personality (she was an ice skater ex-jockette too) and fact-challenged abilities. Martz was such an awful governor, the next election turned right-leaning Montana to a Democrat Brian Schwietzer. Hopefully Palin will not get a chance to be elected in the first place. BYT Tyler was no dunce, he was an ideologue deeply devoted to states rights but also determined to assert powers many in his own party felt the President should not have. Unlike Palin Tyler held views different from the mainstream of his own Whig party and his running mate Harrison.

October 1, 2008 2:50 PM

stgla said:

Palin = George W. Bush, our last Hack in Chief

Catapulted into high office in spite of low intellect.

They are both divisive airheads who appeal to social conservatives while actually serving the interests of economic conservatives.

October 1, 2008 3:02 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Tyler was officially expelled from the Whig Party that nominated him for the vice presidency just a few months into his presidency. For vetoing the party's entire legislative agenda, including measures to help the country recover from the Panic of 1837.

Which shows the difference between politics then and politics now. Today, when Republican presidents follow policy agendas seemingly contrary to the GOP principles, the party does not expel the apostate president. The party changes its principles.

It also shows what fools the Whigs were. The next time they won the presidency, they did so with another "former Democrat" in the VP spot. Then Zachary Taylor died early in his term and Millard Fillmore went on to betray Whig principles as president. Destroyed the Whig Party. You'd think they'd have learned the lesson with Tyler, but no.

October 1, 2008 3:06 PM

adaglas said:

I like this analogy quite a bit, not least because I knew the second the Whig Party was mentioned, Rhubarbs would be all over it like William Henry Harrison on a jug of hard cider.

October 1, 2008 3:12 PM

Political Animal said:

SHE'S NO HARRY TRUMAN.... About a month ago, in her Republican convention speech, Sarah Palin subtly compared herself to Harry Truman, describing a "young farmer and haberdasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency." Today, John

October 1, 2008 3:34 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Sure, let 'em talk about hard cider. And log cabins too! It'll only help to speed the ball for Tippecanoe -- and Tyler too.

October 1, 2008 3:50 PM

poldpf said:

Tyler is a bad case in point, he was an awful president.  Millard Fillmore was lackluster, Andrew Johnson was a disaster, Chester Arthur is actually underrated, Teddy Rooselvelt was a great president, but Coolidge was a stiff, Truman was great as well, Johnson was a near great and Ford, with all due respect, was not a good president.

It's a mixed bag - which makes you wonder if Vice Presidents have never been vetted very well, and many of them turn out to be fine presidents, maybe we would do just as well picking our leaders by lot.

October 1, 2008 4:17 PM

ryanburke said:

Rhubarbs-  Fillmore was actually the most Whig President; they learned thier lesson by putting the non-loyal Whig at the top of the ticket, and Zachary Taylor opposed the whole Whig domestic agenda

October 1, 2008 4:21 PM

liberal reformer said:

This is a good post, Michael, in contradistinction to the Tina Fey silliness. Sarah Palin is a piece of work and her self-comparison to Harry Truman is hilarious.

October 1, 2008 4:48 PM

gflibCDL said:

Well another major difference between Palin and Tyler was that Tyler was an aristocrat and Palin, likes to been seen as a woman of the people. As for Fillmore the major difference between him and Taylor was that he was a traditional conservative who supported and signed the Compromise of 1850, while Taylor despite being a southern slave-owner opposed the Compromise of 1850 (which allowed for the possibility of slavery in New Mexico) and was more apt to support banning slavery in the Mexican cession to the horror of the South. Taylor's death in July 1850 delayed the Civil War by ten years. Fillmore despite being from Buffalo New York generally did not support the prosecution of the Civil War by Lincoln.

October 1, 2008 4:56 PM

ironyroad said:

"contradistinction"

Ah.  Is that your "word for today," LR?

October 1, 2008 5:22 PM

icarusr said:

Irony, you beat me to it.

Lib, here is the same thing you said, in English:

"This is a good post, Michael, better than the Tina Fey silliness."

October 1, 2008 5:46 PM

Crock1701 said:

Oh, if only McCain could debate Palin: "I knew Harry Truman.  Harry Truman was a friend of mine.  Governor, you're no Harry Truman."

October 2, 2008 12:55 AM