This is a very pellucid comparison among FDR, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. In this article, Cannon points out several parallels among these presidents: 1) they became presidents when the nation was having an economic hard time; 2) their popularity faded because their economic plan did not efficiently improve the economy; 3) they have been regarded as "socialized" or "overreaching". However, FDR, Reagan, and Clinton's temporary unpopularity did not keep them from winning the reelection because they all had created a robust economy by the time they were reelected. Therefore, Cannon thinks that the economy status will compass President Obama's reelection.
I think we should take the historical background into account when comparing these presidents. We should not merely pull out independent facts. Also, even though they all experienced economic downturns, the global economic environment and the level of globalization make everything harder. We should renew our standards when evaluating our current president and think what would work the best for the United States in a long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment