Historical Parallels

Many of late have taken to comparing Barack Obama with Abraham Lincoln, encouraged by no less a figure than the new president himself. But how many have paused to consider the possibly even greater similarity between the two men's immediate predecessors?


To be sure, the resemblance is not exact. James Buchanan enjoyed an at least nominally distinguished career as a diplomat and senator before stepping into the Oval Office, whereas prior to 2001 George W. Bush was known chiefly as the unremarkable son of a mediocre president.

Moreover, the problems confronting Buchanan during his administration were problems of long standing, for which more than one eminent policymaker could justly claim responsibility, while the major part of Bush's maleficent legacy can rest comfortably on his shoulders alone. Then, too, Buchanan was unmarried. But nothing, absolutely nothing, ought to detract from the single biggest fact uniting the 15th U.S. president and the 43rd: both men left the country infinitely worse off than when they entered office.

To what extent, if any, Obama's presidential tenure will bear comparison with Lincoln's it is much too early to say. As fresh assessments of the latter continue to be put forth even today, over 150 years after his death, surely we should try to refrain from judging a man --for good or for ill -- who has held the reins of executive power for less than a week. James Buchanan, on the other hand, has been consistently deemed one of the worst U.S. presidents ever -- and this despite his insistence that history would "vindicate" him. Perhaps the record of the latest ex-president will force historians to reconsider.