Election day: Most predictions of the next four years will be wrong

As President Obama or Mitt Romney will discover, the only predictable thing about foreign and domestic events is unpredictability. Woodrow Wilson didn't foresee World War I. Jimmy Carter called Iran an 'island of stability.' Terrorism got only brief mention in the 2000 Bush-Gore debates.

Ed Andrieski/AP
Keefe Perkins votes in the presidential election on the last day of early voting in Colorado at the Arapahoe County Elections Facility on Nov. 2. Polls show the race between President Obama and Mitt Romney to be neck and neck. Op-ed contributor John J. Pitney Jr. says regardless of who wins, 'the fate of the administration will hinge on things that no one can predict....The winner of the 2012 election will face foreign and domestic jolts. He may even find surprises in his own soul.'

Between now and the presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, there will be many predictions of what the next four years will bring. Most of those will be wrong. As it always does, the fate of the administration will hinge on things that no one can predict.

The future is full of unknowns. In 1912, Woodrow Wilson campaigned for president on domestic issues, and his 1913 inaugural address did not even mention the words “war” or “military.” When he delivered that speech, he surely had never heard of the man Gavrilo Princip. In 1914, this obscure young Serb assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, triggering a chain of events that would result in World War I.

Closer to our own time, Jimmy Carter was another president whose campaign had a domestic emphasis. In 1976, he made brief remarks questioning the scope of arms sales to Iran, but otherwise had little to say about that country.

During his first year as president, he said: “Iran, because of the great leadership of the shah, is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world.” Within a couple of years, that island of stability had become a caldron of chaos. Revolutionaries deposed the shah and seized American hostages, launching a crisis that would become an obsession for the United States and a political disaster for Mr. Carter.

Around the same time, another country supplied another shock. Neither Carter nor Gerald Ford had talked about Afghanistan during their 1976 contest. In fact, “Afghanistanism” was a slang term for excessive concern with unimportant parts of the world.

In December 1979, Afghanistan suddenly became important when the Soviet Union invaded. Carter, who had once spoken of an “inordinate fear of communism,” said that the invasion “has made a more dramatic change in my own opinion of what the Soviets’ ultimate goals are than anything they’ve done in the previous time I’ve been in office.”

CIA-backed rebels eventually pushed the Soviets out, and Afghanistan again receded from the American mind. In the Bush-Gore debates of 2000, the name of the country never came up. Even more striking in hindsight is that the issue of terrorism got only fleeting attention from the candidates. Instead of arguing about who would get tougher against our enemies, candidate George W. Bush said – and Vice President Al Gore agreed – that the US should be a strong but “humble nation.”

Everything changed on Sept. 11, 2001. The war on terror replaced compassionate conservatism as Mr. Bush’s priority, and the “humble nation” talk vanished.

The economy can move in unpredictable ways, too. During the 1990s, technological innovation fostered an economic boom, and so the federal deficit came down faster than Bill Clinton could have hoped when he took office in 1993. Sixteen years later, President Obama knew right at the start that the economy was in crisis. Nevertheless, his transition team projected that unemployment would drop below 6 percent by late 2012. Needless to say, the recovery has been slower than the forecasters had predicted.

The unexpected may come from within. Abraham Lincoln, who had never run anything larger than his little law office before becoming president, must have seemed like an amateur next to the president of the Confederacy. Jefferson Davis, a graduate of West Point, had served as a US senator, a general, and US secretary of War. Lincoln’s own secretary of State offered to take over some responsibilities from the seemingly overmatched chief executive. It took the Civil War to reveal Lincoln’s greatness.

Sometimes, the revelations occur in the second term. Mr. Clinton already had a reputation as a womanizer, but the Lewinsky affair was something else entirely. Few imagined that he would be so reckless as to have relations with a subordinate. And no one could have foreseen the resilience and political cunning with which he survived a scandal that would have destroyed other presidents.

The winner of the 2012 election will face foreign and domestic jolts. He may even find surprises in his own soul. So on Jan. 20, as he puts his hand on the Bible to take the oath of office, he should glance down at Ecclesiastes 8:7: “Since no man knows the future, who can tell him what is to come?”

John J. Pitney Jr. is the Roy P. Crocker professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and coauthor of “American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy, and Citizenship.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.