The historical analogies for the phenomenon that is Barack Obama have already stretched credibility. For a while pundits likened him to the effete loser Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic party’s 1950s version of Labour’s Hugh Gaitskell, the greatest prime minister we never had.
But Obama doesn’t seem like such an airhead after his gritty, crushing defeat of Hillary Clinton in Iowa. I long thought he’d win – but I never thought it would be by eight points, or that he’d push Clinton into third place.
So now the favourite analogy is JFK: the young, hopeful rhetorician urging a New Frontier after two terms of conservatism. But that doesn’t work either: JFK won by out-hawking Nixon in 1960, and Obama is a clear antiIraq war candidate.
Bobby Kennedy is more apposite: a mix of inner steel and an evolving moral candidacy. Just as a vote for RFK in 1968 was seen by many as a form of collective self-absolution for Vietnam, so Obama resonates among many Americans who do not recognise what their country has become these past few years.
The analogy that worries Republicans the most is a more recent one. Could Obama be a potential liberal version of Ronald Reagan? Could he do for the Democrats what Reagan did for the Republicans a quarter century ago?
It’s increasingly possible. Reagan was the cutting edge of the last realignment in American politics. With a good-natured, civil appeal to Democrats who felt abandoned by their own party under Jimmy Carter, Reagan revolutionised the reach of his own party.
He didn’t aim for a mere plurality, as Bill Clinton did. Nor did he try for a polarising 51% strategy, as George W Bush has done. He ran as a national candidate, in search of a national mandate, a proud Republican who nonetheless wanted Democrats to vote for him.
He came out of a period in which Americans had become sickened by the incompetence of their own government. Reagan shocked America’s elites by pivoting that discontent into a victory in 1980. And by his second term, he won 49 out of 50 states.
You can see the same potential in Obama. What has long been remarkable to me is how this liberal politician fails to alienate conservatives. In fact, many like him a great deal. His calm and reasoned demeanour, his crisp style, his refusal to engage in racial identity politics: these appeal to disaffected Republicans.
He is particularly attractive to those on the American right who feel betrayed by the Bush administration’s version of conservatism, just as many Democrats felt betrayed by Jimmy Carter’s liberalism.
These voters – nonevangelical, fiscally and militarily prudent, socially tolerant – do not feel at home in the angry, Southern, antiimmigrant Republican party of the past few years.
Almost a quarter of those voting in the Democratic caucus last Thursday night were Republicans or independents. In both categories, Obama beat Clinton by more than two to one.
In New Hampshire on Tuesday, independents are even more prevalent and may well represent 40% of the Democratic vote. (In both Iowa and New Hampshire, you can change your party registration on the day of the vote.)
Reagan won a national victory on the strength of “Reagan Democrats”. Obama could win with “Obama Republicans”. That’s remarkable in itself. When you realise he’s also a liberal urban black man whose middle name is Hussein, it’s gob-smacking.
Put these disaffected Republicans together with a spectrum of minorities and a black vote potentially greater than at any time in history, and you begin to see what Obama offers his own party.
The other strikingly Reaganite aspect to Obama is his appeal to the younger generation. People forget that the oldest president was extremely popular among the under30s.
Obama has an almost cult-like standing on college campuses. The youth vote is always touted every four years but never materialises on polling day.
Last Thursday, it came out in force. In Iowa, where the over65 cohort usually outnumbers the under30s by five to one, the old and the young were evenly divided. Among the under30s, Obama beat Clinton by 57% to 11%.
This generation, moreover, is a huge one: the Boomer Echo. Between Bush’s pushing them and Obama pulling them, the Democrats’ advantage could define a generation’s politics. And that’s increasingly Obama’s ambition. He has kept his ego in check, but he is clearly aiming not for a small win, but for a major mandate. He isn’t a Clinton in this respect or even a Bush. He is a Reagan, a Thatcher – of the left.
Mike Huckabee, meanwhile, is being discounted as nothing like this significant. But it is, I’d say, very foolish to underestimate him as well. In the wreckage of the postBush Republican party, Huckabee is the most talented natural politician. And he has taken Bushism to its logical conclusion.
He argues – proudly and simply – for a politics based overwhelmingly on religion. He refuses to apologise for previous statements that he wants to reclaim America for Christ or that people with Aids should be quarantined.
In Iowa, he won the born-again vote and the vote of Bush fans. He’s the kind of preacher who lets you know he likes a beer and knows his rock’n’roll. It works. One slogan seemed as powerful as it is simple: “I Like Mike”. And so many do.
And, unlike Bush, Huckabee has combined a belief in the paternalist state with a hostility to Wall Street. He is a potential builder of a future Republicanism that is as socially conservative as it is economically populist: extremely hostile to illegal immigrants, gay couples and abortion, but just as angry at big corporations, free trade and the globalised gilded elites.
In making the case against Mitt Romney – a multi-millionaire former business consultant – Huckabee argued that it was a choice between the bloke you work with and the man who sacks you.
The simmering class resentment, which is just beneath the surface, clearly motivates his supporters. When they were attacked by Washington Republicans as know-nothings, they responded by surging to the polls. They can smell the condescension. And it angers them.
It may be that Huckabee, as the conventional wisdom has it, cannot win the nomination. Underfunded, underorganised and a foreign policy embarrassment, he is unlikely to win New Hampshire against that state’s favourite old codger, John McCain, or slick neighbouring former governor of Massachusetts, Romney.
But South Carolina, brimming with evangelicals, is another matter. And talent counts. Huckabee’s underrated skills have already begun to bring in more established advisers such as former Reagan aide Ed Rollins (now Huckabee’s campaign manager) and Clinton’s scruple-free guru, Dick Morris.
Bill Clinton himself is a fan. Even if Huckabee falters this time around, he represents a viable future for the Republicans, even if it is a very different one from the past. Huckabee represents the consolidation of the Republicans as a Southern, religious, working-class party.
If he wins the nomination, he could push a lot of economic conservatives into the Democratic camp, lose badly and yet reshape his party: a reverse Goldwater, turning Republicanism into something more like religious populism than Yankee conservatism.
Am I extrapolating too much? There is, of course, a natural tendency to overestimate the import of a single caucus. But so far, the underestimaters have been the ones who have got this election wrong. Washington’s elites assumed a match between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani this year. But they didn’t see the turmoil remaking America, and the deep hunger for a new direction. As unrest grows in Pakistan, as the American economy looks headed for a nasty downturn, I see no reason to think that the forces behind Obama and Huckabee will abate soon.
Yes, history happens. And Americans, exhausted from fear and war and economic insecurity, have just informed us that they can shape it again. I wouldn’t bet against them.
Simon Jenkins is away
1)AIDS, not Aids
2)Huckabee, in the early stages of the epidemic, suggested the quarantine in 1992 as part of a senate campaign. Sullivan uses "should be," which is the wrong tense.
3)"Am I extrapolating too much?" (Yes.) "There is, of course, a natural tendency to overestimate the import of a single caucus." (And see where overestimation got Sullivan with regards to GW Bush!)
Gene Touchet, Palm Springs, California, U.S.A.
You mean Jimmy Carter, right?
DANNY Peters, Nampa, IDAHO
Looks like he appeals to a lot of Americans:
www.republicansforobama.org
Tom, Manchester, UK
"Could Obama be a potential liberal version of Ronald Reagan?"
Yes, another over-hyped and useless media star with no personal ability. This lack, repeated, may lead once again to the very brink of armgaeddon.
dominic, Teddington,
I am not a woman, but there are differences between American and British women. In America there is a massive sex divide, and because of that I fear that if America elects a woman as President, God help the man!
Ray, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Chief Constable Brunstrom's views are rather like the 'parson's' egg' i.e. good in parts. About three years ago you printed a letter from me advocating much the same points with regard to drugs (drop the moral approach, de-criminalise drugs, make clean regulated drugs available through controlled outlets at sensible cost for those stupid enough to use plus re-hab programmes) so what he says is neither new nor original. Such changes would save millions in police time and public money. I disagree with his views on speeding. Statistically our safest roads are our fastest - the motorways! 'Speed kills' is not the whole truth. ACCIDENTS kill, WHEN there is an accident increased speed increases damage and injury. A programme of driver education, improved road and signage design, re-building danger spots etc. The real route to reducing road deaths statistics is to reduce accidents to the barest minimum.
Roy SHAW, Portishead, UK
I'm 24, so my age puts me at a disadvantage to compare Obama and Reagan campaign promises. However, I can point to facts that advise against this over-extrapolation.
Since the Iowa caucuses came into the national spotlight in 1972, no Democratic winner (other than incumbent '96 Clinton) has ever become President. Even '76 Carter lost handily to "uncommitted". Also since '72, only once has the Republican victor in Iowa become President (Bush Jr. '00) besides incumbents in '84 and '04.
Another fact to consider: since JFK, the only Democrats to win the White House have come from the south (LBJ from Texas, Carter from Georgia, and Clinton from Arkansas). Despite the coveted 'change' that has become the marching song of the Left and even myself, Southern Evangelicals aren't going anywhere. Edwards would stand a chance if he didn't shoot so far left.
History isn't on Obama's side, even if things are suddenly about 'change'. Bush might be a lame duck, but the Right isn't in pieces.
Michael, Bartlett/Memphis, U.S./TN
The man has skip loads of carisma. I am not racist, but there are differences between American racism and British racism.
In America there are massive racial divides, and because of that I fear that if America elects a black man as President, God help the white man! Black Americans are bound to want revenge for the racism that is still rife in many parts of America. Black people there do the worst jobs and many don't have a hope of getting through that glass ceiling!
Ray, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Another great article Andrew - I find your analysis around what Huckabee may mean for the Republicans (consolidating them as a southern, religious working class party) particularly interesting. Does this mean, extrapolating even further, that you think we will never hear from them again and they will be unelectable? - God, I hope so.
Chris , Sydney, Australia
Interesting comment from Mr. Page. While there remains a great, and oftentimes unspoken, racial divide in America, any alternatives to Obama fall very short for the African-American voter. Hillary Clinton doesn't have the charisma or warmth of her husband -- a favorite among African-Americans. Edwards -- likable, authentic and a populist, has a much greater chance of garnering the African-American vote away from Obama. However, I think the failures of 2004 will taint his run to the White House. What a change for America if an Obama-Edwards ticket went forward in November 2008. The hope that so many of us have yearned for since 2000 will finally come to pass.
Melissa, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
I'm an American who remembers the Carter administration well, and I have no idea what Mr. Sullivan means when he says Democrats felt "betrayed" by Jimmy Carter's "liberalism." First, as President, Carter's policies weren't all that "liberal." Second, the real issues that killed Carter's Presidency were the Iran hostage crisis and oil prices.
There's a difference between "glib" and "smart," And Mr Sullivan would do well to try to understand that.
Barbara OBrien, Bronxville, NY, USA
The one individual who can unite the diversity of America as President is NOT Obama who is nothing but another big-government, pretty-boy, no matter his skin colour, but RON PAUL, the one whose name seems to be anathema to the mainstream media, not only in America but strangely, in the U.K. as well. In one day over the internet, his supporters collected over $6 million in hopes of overthrowing the likes of Barack Obama, whose appointment to the Presidency would bring 'more of the same', despite the more attractive 'wrapping'. Interestingly, your very own correspondent, Andrew Sullivan, in America has come out to endorse "The man with no name" - yes, the same RON PAUL. Of course, this will never be published on your site so I don't know why I bother. And, by the way, I am a Canadian, who like so many of RON PAUL'S supporters, has the vision to see where America, and theresfore, the Western World is heading if a man like RON PAUL is not elected. Don't say you weren't warned!
V, Story, Toronto, Canada
Obama is a liberal Reagan. It's something sort of odd to swallow but in so many respects it is starting to echo the feeling among his many supports in the United States. Most who bash Obama are responding to his buzz and haven't taken the time to listen to him speak or read his book.
The interesting difference here is Reagan was 69 when he ran for president. Obama is 46.
What this means is that unlike Reagan, whose party lapsed into something bewildering like neo-conservatism, Obama will still be alive and well to shape it for the many many years to come.
If Obama is elected to be president, and I have the utmost faith that he will, it not only means that America is back, it means America will be back for many many years to come.
Cody Brown, Denver, CO
This moment in time is seeing the economic equivalent of a reversal of the poles. Brazil, Russia, India, China - the so-called BRIC countries are the new exciting story unfolding and it is refreshing the stale old familiar world order.
The world is really ready to stop making strange with 'difference' which for so long has expressed as prejudice of all kinds.
Barack Obama is part of this 'coming of age' of the world order and he is needed both symbolically and actually. He is no airhead. He is highly educated and a serving Senator.
Roll on the change and God Bless you America: you need to change.
Predictor, Hove, E. Sussex, UK
If you want to reach and compare Obama to JFK and Ronald Reagan, fine. However, beyond possibly having the same demeanor, there is no comparison. For example, JFK and Reagan both stood for a strong national defense and smaller Government (lower taxes). Obama stands for neither. Unfortunately, I don't believe there is a JFK or Ronald Reagan from either party in the field.
Garry, Colorado Springs, US/Colorado
"His refusal to see the tremendous racial divisions that even now exist in America will only serve to alienate him from black voters."
Black voters will come out in droves for Obama if they think he can win. Period. If they feel cynical about his chances, if they're convinced that even a light-skinned black man can't win in racist America, they'll flock to Clinton.
South Carolina will be the test of that, where 50% of Democratic primary voters are black. If Obama wins South Carolina, you will be proven wrong. If Clinton takes it, you can take that as an indication that black voters have no confidence in Obama.
Marcus, Arlington, VA,
Mr Sullivan, what planet do you live on ?. Senator Obama has a lot more in common with Hugo Chavez than JFK. " America exhausted from fear and war and economic security" ? I ask again what planet are you from ?. Mrs Clinton can buy her ticket to the finals. Senator Obama will burn out after a brave attempt. Then Mrs Clinton will go down in to a huge defeat because people just do not like her. Try living here outside Manhatten.
Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Tx
I read your article in relation to police officers retiring and their pensions and the cost to the relevant Police Forces. Whilst it is factually correct, what is not mentioned is that we officers pay in upto 15% of our wages each month towards this pension and have done so for all our service. I fear the article is from leaked scources in the Goverment who are trying to discredit us as we are in dispute with them, they have again been found to be without principle and evade the truth as was the case with Blair and now Brown. The facts are the pension problem was identified years ago by the Police Federation and it was suggested that money be put asisde and the interest used to pay the pension. This was not taken up by the then and other goverments since, hence the problem. Of note the same issues occur in the Civil Service which includes the MP's., I don't believe that they actually pay in any money towards their pension. Why not give a fuller factual article telling the real truth
G.Brennan, London, England
Obama will never win the nomination because he's "white enough" not to offend white voters but - crucially - not black enough for the voters he needs onside. His refusal to see the tremendous racial divisions that even now exist in America will only serve to alienate him from black voters. In that respect, Clinton is the better bet.
Chris Page, Letchworth Garden City, UK
Interesting comparison between Obama and Reagan. Reagan was more confrontational, however; one can't imagine Obama snapping "I paid for this microphone" to a bossy debate moderator. Or invading Grenada, or initiating showdowns with Congress.
Obama more resembles Bobby Kennedy: the elevated moral tone, the eloquent appeals to idealism, and most of all the charismatic cult of personality that permeates the campaign. A FEELING, an emotion, that with him something big is about to happen, something good for the poor and the weak. Obama and Kennedy also share a "preppy" polish, Harvard, etc., their respective parents' incomes notwithstanding.
Reagan promised to return America to greatness; Kennedy promised transformation of America into something greater and grander than ever before. Obama is more the Kennedy model.
Johnny, Harrisonburg, USA