Democrats fantasize that Barack Obama is the new FDR. But I think that history will view him as the Democrats’ Herbert Hoover.

Discuss.

[Noon update]

Not that he can’t be usefully compared to other presidents as well, but the parallels I was thinking of were:

• Had a major financial crisis in his first term, made immeasurably worse by economically ignorant policies of his own
• Lost over fifty House seats in his mid-term Congressional election, and eight Senate seats
• Lost in a landslide in his reelection, cementing the fortunes of the opposing party for many years

The latter two are predictions, of course. And Hoover didn’t lose control of Congress. Obama doesn’t have that kind of margin in the House…

[Afternoon update]

Obama the undergrad:

He doesn’t know much history (he thinks Muslims invented printing), geography (his America has 57 states), or economics (he believes you can reduce health care costs by adding millions to the public rolls).

The most important thing to this president is how you feel and what you say, not all those annoying facts (50 states, the Chinese invented printing, and you increase deficits when you spend more). And, like most students, when the debate goes badly for him, the president makes fun of his critics–when he actually lets them talk a little bit. Remember when he hosted a few Republicans in the White House so he could listen to what they might say about health care…and then talked twice as much as they did?

As a typical undergrad, Obama loves to talk, and loves to talk about peace and justice. You know, the really important things. His new nuclear policy is right out of a college bull session: “Why don’t we just promise not to use them?” Nukes are bad, ugly things. Doesn’t everyone agree that the world would be better off without them?

As Michael notes, grading time is coming up this fall. Expect him to whine about them.

Today is the 245th anniversary of the Stamp Act. We’ll see if yesterday’s version plays out similarly.

..of the tyrant. Michael Totten has an interesting photoessay of a visit to Romania.

I’ve always wondered what democrats who grew up in communist countries thought of communists who grew up in democratic countries. Hardly anyone in the West ever voted with their feet, so to speak, by moving to a communist country, but communist dictatorships created millions of refugees who fled their homelands for Western democracies. East Germans were willing to risk being shot to make a run over the wall, Cubans are still willing to risk drowning to reach Florida, yet once in a while I still meet Westerners who have a warm spot in their hearts for regimes like Castro’s.

“What do you think,” I asked her, “of people in the West who think communism is a good idea but haven’t actually experienced it? There are quite a few people who admire the system in Cuba. You know the types I mean. The people who wear Che Guevara t-shirts.”

“Ah, yes,” she said. “They are ridiculous. But somehow I can understand them. Let’s take the example of France. In France they were all socialists when they were young. Sartre was a close friend of Castro’s. Gerard Depardieu was a close friend of Castro’s. They believed in this ideal, but after they saw what Stalin did they couldn’t look to the Soviet Union. So they turned their hopes to Cuba. Then they saw what Castro did. The only one who still seemed to live up to the ideal was Che Guevara. So they turned to Che Guevara. I understand them. They were wrong their entire lives, and it is difficult to admit this.”

And they are wrong still.

Hit his tip jar.