Obama and Harding: a set of similarities

Since the presidential election this year is now finished, Americans should search the history books in an attempt to predict the future of the Obama presidency.

There are 43 presidents with whom to compare Obama. Unfortunately, his best comparison is not with John F. Kennedy or Franklin Roosevelt, but rather the less than illustrious Warren G. Harding.

For starters, the President-Elect and Harding share similar backgrounds. Both used their home regions as a springboard for their political careers. Obama’s Chicago base is incredibly strong, and Harding managed to win his election by campaigning almost entirely from his own house.

Both worked their way up the political ladder very quickly and accumulated very little experience along the way. Harding spent four years (1899-1903) as an Ohio state senator before being elected Lieutenant Governor of Ohio. He served in this role until 1905. In 1912 he gave the presidential nomination speech for William Howard Taft, a candidate who would ultimately fail in his bid for the presidency.

In 1914, without a distinguished political record, Harding was elected to the Senate. He spent one term in this capacity, again with no distinguished record, before being nominated for president. He later won that election with over 60 percent of the popular vote.

In a similar fashion, Obama began his political career at the state level. He spent eight years as an Illinois state senator (1997-2004). In 2004, he announced he would run for Senate. The same year, he was invited to give a speech at the Democratic National Convention for John Kerry, a failed presidential candidate, just like Taft. Like Harding, this speech advanced his career tremendously. He easily won his bid for U.S. Senate and technically still serves until he resigns before January. He will not completely serve a single Senate term.

Clearly, Harding and Obama have an experience problem. Yet, they both managed to rise so quickly. Many attribute Harding’s rise to his outward appearance and speaking skills. His admirers said Harding “looked like a president.” And, even though high-ranking politicians of the time called his speeches “an army of pompous phrases moving across the landscape in search of an idea,” his eloquent voice and vague ideas resounded with people who wanted change.

It should sound familiar; Obama uses a similar tactic. Many have commented on his handsome appearance, and his speaking voice is powerful and well received. Also, no matter how many times he is criticized for filling his speeches with too much empty rhetoric, the masses still love his abstract and ambiguous ideas.

Other factors play in as well. Harding had reporters in his house every day, asking him questions and building his image. Obama, too, is a media darling. Harding used celebrities like singer Al Jolston, actor Eddie Fairbanks and businessman Henry Ford to increase his appeal. Obama also has connections with celebrities like talk show host Oprah Winfrey and stock market guru Warren Buffet. These associations help Obama increase his standing and credibility with the populace.

This all leads to a need for caution. Warren Harding - by sheer luck - went on to be president for three of the most prosperous years in American history. But that, of course, doesn’t mean we should expect the same from Obama.

A thick morass of corruption laid beneath Harding’s entire presidency. Many of his cabinet members took bribes and participated in other illegal activities including bootlegging and profit skimming.

The Teapot Dome Scandal took place during his term. And, while Harding himself was never implicated, he was also unable to stop the problem.

Obama is now the next president. With connections to corrupt labor unions and a lack of foreign policy experience, Obama could very well follow in Harding’s footsteps. Americans must hope he does not.

Law Loving is a contributing writer for the Hullabaloo and a freshman in Newcomb-Tulane College. He can be reached for comment at Lloving@tulane.edu.