Political Momentum and Context

How can you tell the difference between a good politician and a great politician? Good politicians can succeed in good contexts, but can't change the context when things go south. Great politicians can alter the underlying context they operate under in their favor.

Many of us have wondered why John McCain can't seem to recapture the magic from his 2000 run. But maybe we should stop wondering so much. Here, it is all about context. McCain succeeded in the context of being an underdog primary challenger to an establishment candidate with the media on his side. He could deploy arguments he can't now. He's the top guy now. There's no one's eye left to poke, except Obama's, and that's conventionally partisan and not media fodder in the same way the original Straight Talk Express was.

Or look at Bush. He thoroughly owned the American political space from September 2001 to the spring of 2005. Ever since, it's owned him. Here again, Bush was highly susceptible to the political context. The long and consistent slide in his approval ratings post-9/11 suggested he was on something akin to political autopilot. It was only when he tried to exercise some control over his political destiny and define his opposition (during the 2004 campaign) that the trend reversed itself. But once Bush shifted from campaign mode into official mode, he was again subject to the laws of political gravity.

In modern history, only two politicians have been able to dramatically alter the context in which they operated: Reagan and Clinton. Reagan brought his own context -- an optimistic, can-do America to replace the dreariness of the '70s. And he was always able to bounce back from scandals or setbacks like Iran-Contra. And Clinton during impeachment was able to boomerang a personal scandal back on his opponents by making it all about the accusers, not the accused. In so doing, he was able to dodge the natural tendency of Presidents to get dragged down by voter fatigue.

Time will tell if Obama fits in the "good" or "great" category. He certainly hasn't been tested, and the media hasn't turned on him in anything more than a glancing way. But given the tendency to make stupid mistakes like "bitter" and Wright and not apologize for them, I wouldn't put him in the "walks on air" category just yet.