As the comparisons of Presidential transitions inevitably unfold with each passing week, prior to January 20th, 2009, we are often "asked" by the media whether the Bush/Obama transition will go down in history as one of the most civil and best executed. It should be all of our hope that it will set the standard for other future Presidential transitions to match and mirror.
But my deeper question is: which past Administration will Obama's actually reflect?
Dems love to present a comparison of current economic times with FDR's entrance into national politics. GOP-ites tend to use the same comparison...but not in a favorable light...
It would do us all well to remember that, like the Obama Presidency, the Herbert Hoover Administration's difficult times came directly as a result of the crash of '29. He essentially came INTO the Presidency in the first months of the national hard times...and his four year Administration attempted many government-birthed economic stimuli to move the nation along. Sound familiar? Herbert Hoover was a believer in greater government involvement, not unlike Barack Obama. Hoover was no conservative.
I wonder if President Obama's Administration, like President Hoover's, will be forced to deal in any way possible with what their predecessors (Coolidge/George W) gave them...or better yet, NOT be able to deal with those problems...
Hoover had his inevitable Honeymoon - even during those days, Obama will have his. The greed and avarice which brought about so much of BOTH economic downturns had/has its own tiger by the tail. Hoover was ultimately unable to put a government-issue saddle on that tiger...
Yet, the tiger tired...FDR ultimately experimented in his tiger-training, even more creatively with his GI-issued chair and whip.
He built much of the New Deal on the Hoover's governmental involvement.
So, are we watching President Barack "Hoover" Obama prepare to be sworn in or Franklin Delano "Obama"? Your thoughts?