Thesis, AntiThesis, or Why Clinton Will Win

In every past crisis of America's political history, the new Thesis emerged first from the old AntiThesis.

• Abraham Lincoln was a Whig.
• Theodore Roosevelt was a Mugwump.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Wilsonian Populist.
• Richard Nixon was an Eisenhower Republican.

The AntiThesis to the Nixon Thesis of Conflict, as I've written here before, is Bill Clinton's Third Way. The Third Way accepted the legitimacy of the Nixon Thesis and leaned against it, sought to moderate it, while holding liberals at bay. This is precisely what Dwight Eisenhower did for Republicans, he leaned against the Roosevelt Thesis of the New Deal while holding conservatives at bay.

So if history is any guide, our next President will be Hillary Clinton. She was, face it, far more her husband's Vice President than was Al Gore, who has proven himself more of a futurist, a man of the next Thesis, than of the AntiThesis he was serving in the 1990s.

Hillary Clinton has also taken on Richard Nixon's historical role, before his 1968 election. Her "stand by her man" interview during the 1992 election campaign looks more-and-more like Nixon's Checkers speech with every viewing. Her role within the Clinton Administration was just like Nixon's, that of a nod to the liberals as Nixon was a nod to the conservatives of the 1950s.

Even the attitude of Democrats toward Hillary Clinton, both now and in the past, mirrors that of Republicans to Nixon. While placed in power as a link to liberals, liberals don't like her, don't trust her, never did really. Just as with conservatives and Nixon.

Today's Democratic Party is coalescing around Hillary Clinton for the very same reasons Republicans rallied to Nixon. They fear standing for their true beliefs. They are desperate to win. Despite polls indicating Clinton is their weakest candidate (as Nixon was seen as the Republicans' weakest candidate in 1968) they believe she has the sharpest elbows, and believe sharp elbows will be needed for victory.

I write these historical truths with great sadness. I support John Edwards. In 1968, when I was 13, I supported Ronald Reagan. This doesn't mean Edwards will ever be President -- his institutional support within the party is far weaker than Reagan's was. But I do think that whoever is seen at the end of this campaign as the true leader of the Netroots could easily emerge as the next great American President.

So what will President Hillary Clinton be like? She will be a lot like her predecessors in this historical role. She will feed her most ardent supporters the rhetoric they like, but she will govern leaning into the wind, going boldly only when absolutely necessary, and then tentatively.

Given the collapse of the U.S. economy, which is ongoing, the weakening of America's role in the world, the wearing-away of our military might, conservatives may be well-advised to support Hillary Clinton for President.

History shows she's the best hope they've got. It's a faint hope, but she will give them many victories they don't deserve, and she might over-reach, giving someone in their party a shot at redemption. Who that will be is anyone's guess. In 1967 Jimmy Carter was a first-term State Senator.