Inauguration Day

---

---

For more than half of its existence, the United States observed Inauguration Day on March 4.

Of course, any day could be the day a president is inaugurated, due to death or resignation. But I'm talking about those regularly scheduled, once–every–four–years events when a president–elect is sworn in.

With the exception of those occasions when March 4 fell on a Sunday, presidents–elect took the oath of office on March 4 from the day George Washington took the oath for the second time until Franklin D. Roosevelt took the oath for the first time.

In Washington's time — and, through the 19th century into the 20th century — it made sense to swear in a new president in March. After doing whatever needed to be done to get his personal and business dealings squared away, a president–elect might have to travel a long distance to get to the nation's capital in the days when air travel didn't exist and rail travel was still developing.

But, by FDR's day, travel was not as formidable, and I guess it didn't make much sense to delay the implementation of the will of the people until the third month of the next calendar year.

The date for presidential inaugurations was changed by the 20th Amendment, which was ratified by the required number of states on Jan. 23, 1933. Because of the provision of Section 5 ("Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article"), it did not apply to the president who was elected in 1932. Instead, it affected the start of the next presidential term.

For a long time, I thought that the 20th Amendment was proposed and ratified because of the presidency of Herbert Hoover, during which the stock market crashed and the Great Depression began. But the older I got — and the more I researched that possibility — the more unlikely it seemed. The 20th Amendment was proposed in 1932, when Congress was equally divided between Hoover's Republicans and the opposition Democrats. Both parties have changed a lot in the 77 years since the amendment was ratified, but my guess is that lawmakers felt the same sense of loyalty to presidents of their own party that they do today.

It is certainly possible that the Democrats of that time were motivated by the Hoover experience to move up the inauguration date, but Republicans may have had different reasons. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have been glad to be free of what many must have perceived — if privately — was political dead weight, but, while Democrats may have mentioned Hoover (and the likelihood that he would be replaced by the voters) frequently when discussing the proposed amendment, my guess is that the Republicans did not pile on.

The current inauguration date — January 20 — is more than six weeks earlier than March 4, but that hasn't always been enough for some people who were eager to get past the transition. Less than three weeks after Barack Obama's election in November 2008, Gail Collins proposed, in the New York Times, that George W. Bush step down and let the Democrats take over early.

Collins had it all worked out. Of course, there were certain obstacles to get around. It would have required Dick Cheney to agree to resign as well, and it would have required Nancy Pelosi, as the third in line, to agree to give up the House speakership to become president for a couple of months (although it might have been, under those circumstances, more appropriate to consider her a "shadow president," since, in Collins' scenario, Pelosi seems to have been more of a conduit for imposing Obama's will earlier than the natural course of the law would allow, not really a president in the traditional sense of the word). And there might have been some other constitutional issues that would have been raised by such an unprecedented act.

Collins may have been writing with her tongue firmly against her cheek, but she asserted that stepping down would be a patriotic act for Bush. I'm not sure if Bush or any other high–profile Republicans felt the same way. And, obviously, it never came to pass, but, even if it had, I don't think the starting date of the next presidential term would have been altered.

Clearly there are some people who are still living who were alive on that March day in 1933 when FDR took the oath for the first time. There are even some people who are old enough to remember that day. But even those who don't remember it have heard the most famous line delivered in FDR's inaugural address that day:

---

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

---

That was an important thing to say to Americans in the 1930s, when one–fourth of the population was out of work. Americans in the 21st century think these times are hard — and they are — but this is practically a walk on the beach compared to what Americans faced in 1933.

Even so, wouldn't it be nice — even reassuring — to have a president who told us that we had nothing to fear but fear itself — today of all days?

What's the Meaning of it All?

Gail Collins has an amusing column in the New York Times that essentially rejects the claims one hears from both sides about what Tuesday's elections really mean or don't mean.

Collins, who, like many of her colleagues at the Times, is an unapologetic Barack Obama supporter, belittles the assessments that portend bad news for her president next year. Collins apparently doesn't think there is any lesson to be learned from the elections. That's true, of course.

Except that it isn't.

The point that Obama's supporters have been trying to make for months — that he is still personally popular — has been repeatedly shown to be correct in public opinion polls. But those supporters have been ignoring something else that the polls have been saying — that Obama's policies are not popular with voters.

When they go to the polls in 2010, voters will not find Obama on their ballots. But they will find senators and congressmen who voted on issues Obama has promoted. They won't be voting on Obama. They will be voting on his agenda. And, in the past, the American people have frequently shown that they have an intriguing relationship with presidents they like but whose agendas they do not like.

In part, that was a point the voters reminded us of Tuesday.

The voters said a lot of things on Tuesday. Some of it had to do with Obama. But there were other factors, too. In general, anyone who truly believes the election — which was as limited as an election held in an odd–numbered year can be — was a genuine referendum on the Obama administration either has no clue what he/she was talking about or was indulging in some wishful thinking.

But that doesn't mean there weren't some valuable lessons to be learned from the elections on Tuesday.

For that matter, in spite of her liberal leanings, Collins stumbled into truth when she remarked in her column: "The defeat of Gov. Jon Corzine made it clear that the young and minority voters who turned out for Obama will not necessarily show up at the polls in order to re–elect an uncharismatic former Wall Street big shot who failed to deliver on his most important campaign promises while serving as the public face of a state party that specializes in getting indicted. They would not rally around Corzine even when the president asked them!"

Yes, Corzine is all those things that Collins says — and less. Obama may have been snookered by polls showing that Corzine had a chance to be re–elected and, thus, unsuccessfully gambled with his political capital when he came to New Jersey to campaign for the governor.

But the election results show that those young and minority voters who helped Obama win last year were not enticed to return to the polls this year with the president's name absent from the ballot. That was a limited problem this year. It will be much more widespread next year.

Obama's victory in last year's presidential election clearly was historic. But history cannot be viewed in bits and pieces. It must be seen in total.

With that in mind, one of Collins' colleagues, Ruy Teixeira, has some worthwhile advice for folks in both parties — relax. It's not necessarily as bad for Democrats as Republicans would like to believe. And it's not as good for Democrats as they would like to believe.

"Far more consequential," Teixeira writes, "is the historical pattern that the new president's party tends to lose seats in the first midterm election."

And Teixeira is on to something with the suggestion that the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia "tell you nothing about who will gain seats in 2010 or how large that gain will be."

Very true. What happens in November of 2010 will be determined, to a great extent, by what happens between now and then. From that perspective, Tuesday was a warning for Obama and the Democrats. You can't continue to pass the buck on unemployment, the voters were saying. Millions are hurting, but little has been done to encourage job creation.

That perception can be reversed, at least in part, but Obama and the Democrats will have to be more proactive. The House and Senate took a good first step by extending unemployment benefits, but that is, at best, a short–term answer. The ongoing problem will be apparent for all to see tomorrow when the jobless report comes out at the same time Obama is signing that legislation extending benefits.

The economy, especially unemployment, will be a huge player in 2010, and other charismatic presidents — notably Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton — learned the hard way that voters have short memories. Reagan found that blaming Jimmy Carter and Clinton learned that blaming George H.W. Bush had no real value with the voters in the midterms.

In the modern vernacular, Reagan and Clinton took ownership of the economy when they were elected and, therefore, had shouldered the responsibility for it for two years when the midterm elections rolled around. Many Obama voters may not think that is fair. Indeed, it may not be. But that's been the truth about American politics for a long time.

That is the historical lesson with which each president must come to terms. And, in Obama's case, it is compounded by the problem that is presented by the demographics that led to his election. Young and minority voters do not have histories of regular participation in elections, but they turned out in droves to help Obama win last year.

The challenge for Democrats is to get these voters back to the polls when Obama is not on the ballot. History says it can't be done.

That does not mean it's all good news for the Republicans. The GOP's gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia were more appealing than their Democratic counterparts, which made it easier for Republicans to draw their voters to the polls.

But if they are expecting to ride a wave of discontent to a 1994–like victory in next year's congressional elections, it's not going to be that simple.

Once again, Teixeira seems to be on to a truism. "If any repudiation is going on, perhaps it is of the conservative wing of the Republican Party," Teixeira writes, citing the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district.

New York is clearly — to use a popular phrase — a "blue state," but its individual districts have more distinct personalities, and the 23rd is a good example. For the first time in more than 100 years, a Democrat will represent that district. He defeated a conservative third–party foe when the Republican candidate, a moderate, withdrew and endorsed him.

Republicans have long spoken of being a "big tent," but the party appears to be little changed from the party that nominated Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and both Bushes. It still uses social wedge issues in a divide and conquer strategy that worked pretty well through most of the last four decades.

But in a place like America, where the electorate becomes more diverse with each passing day, it doesn't work as well as it did in 1968.

Again, what happens next November will be, to a great extent, the product of what happens between now and then, but common sense says the Republicans will need to nominate candidates who are more inclusive if they expect to make real headway. That means shifting more to the center and seeking candidates who are more representative of the Republican Party that existed when George Romney was mentioned as a potential president rather than the party that currently seems prepared to nominate his son in 2012.

If the GOP is successful in that endeavor, that will actually be good news. It will mean a reduced emphasis on wedge issues. That may necessitate giving up on active opposition to abortion rights or same–sex marriage or mindlessly supporting a wasteful, unwinnable war against marijuana. It should mean more of a debate on the role of government — and there could hardly be a better time to examine the role of government than a time of the greatest economic upheaval since the Depression — and sources of much–needed tax revenue.

That is the challenge for Republicans. Recent history says that cannot be done, either.

Well, one of those truisms most likely will fall next year. If neither does, there won't be much movement on either side.

And history says that won't happen, either.

Don't Let the Door Hit You On the Way Out

Gail Collins has an interesting suggestion in her column in today's New York Times.

George W. Bush should arrange to resign and turn over the executive branch to the Obama team about eight weeks early.

On the surface, it seems laughable. A two-term Republican president, resigning to give his successor from the opposing political party a jump on things?

To borrow a phrase spoken by Rob Reiner's recently departed mother in "When Harry Met Sally," I'll have what she's having.

But is it so ridiculous?

Collins presents a reasonable and logical plan. She has the wisdom to insist on certain preconditions — such as requiring that Dick Cheney resign first, so Democrat Nancy Pelosi, as next in line per the Constitution, would succeed Bush. Then Pelosi would "defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing."

Collins sees even more of an up side to an early Bush departure.

"As a bonus, the Pelosi presidency would put a woman in the White House this year after all," she writes. "On the downside, a few right-wing talk-show hosts might succumb to apoplexy. That would, of course, be terrible, but I’m afraid we might have to take the risk in the name of a greater good."

The benefit to Bush's legacy, Collins suggests, would be his recognition of a reversal of public opinion and his willingness to cooperate for the good of the country.

"In happier days, Bush may have nurtured hopes of making it into the list of America’s mediocre presidents, but somewhere between Iraq and Katrina, that goal became a mountain too high," Collins writes. "However, he might still have a chance to avoid the absolute bottom of the barrel."

By making this noble gesture, Collins says, it is "possible that someday history might elevate [Bush] to the ranks of the below average. Better than Franklin Pierce! Smarter than Warren Harding! And healthier than William Henry Harrison!"

And, for that matter, more highly regarded than the man against whose approval ratings he has often been compared in the last year or so — Richard Nixon, the same president Bush's father, as Republican national chairman, urged to resign before it was fashionable to do so.

It all reminds me of something Dr. "Hawkeye" Pierce said on the "M*A*S*H" TV series in an episode in which he was being considered for one of the easiest of medical jobs in the Army — personal physician to a general, far away from combat and the "meatball surgery" in a M*A*S*H.

Hawkeye protested that he could do some real good at the M*A*S*H unit instead of periodically measuring a general's pulse and listening to him burp. "You guys always say the men come first," he said. "Well, do they or don't they?"

This would certainly be a fine way to show that the country comes first. Is George W. Bush capable of such a magnanimous gesture?

I find the suggestion intriguing, but Obama, of course, couldn't become president ahead of schedule under the existing Constitutional framework.

Pelosi would have to act as Obama's surrogate until the actual inauguration in January. She couldn't designate the president-elect as her successor and resign — the Constitution already names the next in line in case the speaker of the House is unable to continue, and you have to go through an enormous line of successors before you reach the spot currently held by the junior senator from Illinois.

The Constitution makes no provision for the inclusion of a president-elect in the line of succession before he takes office on January 20 — unless, of course, the president-elect is already in that line of succession (i.e., Vice President George H.W. Bush, when he was elected to be Ronald Reagan's successor in 1988).

The drawback, from Pelosi's perspective at least, would be that she would have to resign her congressional position to become president for eight weeks. Effectively, she would have to sacrifice her career. Would she be prepared to do that?

I must say that I find Collins' suggestion implausible. After all, we're talking about a man who still cannot identify a single mistake he has made in eight years as president.

Why would he feel obliged to leave two months early?

Collins gets high marks for creativity — but low marks for probability.