Get Well+Being delivered to your inbox every Monday Morning.

Michael Beschloss: Shutdown Could Allow President Obama to “Reset” His Second Term
The famed presidential historian on how the situation compares to others in history. By Carol Ross Joynt
Comments () | Published October 17, 2013
On the question of whether this shutdown is a historic event, historian Michael Beschloss says, “We won’t know for decades.” Photograph by Carol Ross Joynt.

“You can’t do history in real time,” warns presidential historian Michael Beschloss when asked to talk about the federal government shutdown on the Thursday morning after it ended. Still, he allows himself some instant analysis, venturing that the deal that ended the shutdown could be “a moment that could turn out to be the beginning of a second term” for President Obama. “The best scenario for him might be a reset of the second term. He might be able to get some things done, turn lemons into lemonade.”

Called “the nation’s leading presidential historian,” Beschloss, frequently seen on NBC and PBS Newshour, is the author of nine books and is working on his tenth—a study of presidential leadership in wartime. His Twitter feed was named one of the best of the year by Time magazine. He talked with Washingtonian shortly after the President spoke about the shutdown’s end in the East Room:

President Obama on Wednesday night said, “I look forward to putting the last three weeks behind us.” Will that be easily done?

I think it will be easily done in terms of people who tried the strategy of the shutdown, since it did not turn out to be popular. The downside could be they feel all the more angry and get dug in about opposing the President on the Hill.

Harry Reid called the event historic. Was it?

The true answer is we won’t know for decades. It would have been more likely to be historic if the Republican strategy had worked; that would have been the wave of the future. Since it didn’t work, and proved to be unpopular and [is] unlikely to be tried again for a very long time, in that light it won’t be.

Will it be viewed as a pivotal moment for the women of the Senate?

When women began to be elected in numbers more than ever before to both Houses, there was campaign rhetoric that it will be different because they will talk to each other and bring a civilizing element. A lot of people discounted that. But you can’t look at the last month and say it’s not true, because they did make a difference.

After the final House vote, Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz said, “The Tea Party will do anything to stop Obama from succeeding.” How does history judge that?

That’s sort of what our politics is getting to be like: block a president by whatever means necessary. That was true with Clinton and Bush, too, but not in the same way. And it’s more present in modern times than earlier in American history.

Some people are trying to compare Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s obstruction attempt early in the crisis to Senator Joseph McCarthy and the McCarthyism of the 1950s.

Thankfully we’re nowhere near that. We have to be awfully careful about using historical precedents to describe later events. People who like or don’t like Ted Cruz should describe him in his own terms.

Is there a historic measure of American morale?

High morale during a president’s term doesn’t mean that president will be looked at favorably in history—Warren Harding, for example. When Harding died, there was one of the greatest outpourings of grief in American history, but at the time didn’t tell us much. [His] policies were terrible. After the Teapot Dome scandal, people tried to forget. From the other side, Ronald Reagan was very much praised for raising morale in the 1980s, and that has stood up.

Is Obama more toxic with the opposition party than his predecessors?

I would go back to the years 1974 [the Watergate scandal], 1998 [Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky], and 2006 [George W. Bush and the Iraq War]. Those were years when the presidents were pretty toxic to the opposition party. We do seem to be going through a period where the antipathy is intense. There’s talk radio, the internet, and the way people raise money—they say, “Nancy Pelosi is trying to ruin our way of life” or “John Boehner is an enemy of the republic.” That’s not the way you did it 40 years ago. Money was not as important as it is today.

How does this shutdown compare to the one 17 years ago, when Newt Gingrich was Speaker and Clinton was President?

You have to make the argument that it was more damaging, if only because our economic situation is more fragile than it was in 1995. The other part of this is that in 1995 people saw the President and Republican leaders talking. That’s something they didn’t see very much this time, and it made people in this country and around the world nervous not to see that.

The founders wanted our politicians and citizens to duke it out all day long. They believed the best policies came out of conflict. But they also wanted talking and negotiation. They always felt that was what would save our nation.


Local News
Subscribe to Washingtonian

Discuss this story

Feel free to leave a comment or ask a question. The Washingtonian reserves the right to remove or edit content once posted.
  • madhatter46

    Showed his lack of objectivity and professional integrity with his raves about Obama's intellect before he was in office one day. Welcome to Orwell's, 'Ministry of Truth.' Maybe the professor lives in Obama's fantasyland of self-promotion and delusion.

  • pinkbulldog

    Mr. Beschloss lost all credibility as an historian when he claimed, at the start of Mr. Obama's presidency, without any substantive facts or knowledge, that he was the smartest person ever to hold the presidency. What an embarrassing moment for an historian. Did it ever occur to Mr. Beschloss that the Republicans might be opposing the president because they knew that the ACA was bad legislation all along?

blog comments powered by Disqus

Posted at 03:01 PM/ET, 10/17/2013 RSS | Print | Permalink | Comments () | Blogs