Historians Answered Your Questions on Obama's Win, 2008 Campaign

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: That's an interesting question, and it's a very good question and a fascinating quote. I think probably Walt Whitman would begin with affection for the country, which transcends the feelings for any temporary occupant of the presidency, but that said, there is no doubt, that presidency is the most personal of offices.

As you know, I've been director of several presidential libraries, and my experience, overwhelmingly, is people go to those places - to the museums - to have an encounter, of sorts, with not only the president, but the first lady and the family who lives in the White House. Because we can all relate to the White House as a family residence.

And so the fact that the Obamas are going to be living in America's house and will in fact be America's first family is going to be a fascinating experience for all of us. And my hunch is that they will be taken to heart, just as, in many ways, they have in the course of this campaign. And that, in the end, may do as much to dispel lingering traces, if you will, of bigotry as any law that the new president passes or any speech that he makes.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Peniel, a very powerful, not just symbol, but reality that really can reshape public attitudes?

PENIEL JOSEPH: Well, yeah, I think public attitudes - and we'll - you know, in terms of public policy, we'll have to wait and see. But I do believe that once we see the president-elect and his family in the inauguration, that in and of itself is going to be powerful symbolically. And I think that symbolism of this kind of caliber does have an effect on people's sort of blunt racial attitudes.

So, in a way, this is going to be similar, but even more expansive, to what happened in the 1980's when "The Cosby Show" was the number-one show on television for a time in the 1980's and that was hugely symbolic to the extent that that family was a very upper-middle class prominent family in New York with the husband as a doctor, the wife as a lawyer, very Obama-esque, in a way. And Americans really took to that image and this whole notion of an African-American first family, I think that's going to have a powerful impact.

Now, is that going to impact public policy and these other things? You know, that remains to be seen.

MARGARET WARNER: But let me just follow up with that because Neil of Ontario, Canada, picked up on that idea himself and said, whether life does imitate art, he said, "You all think that the strong portrayal of a confident, compassionate president such as that provided by Dennis Haysbert as President David Palmer in the fictional "24" TV series helped condition America to the idea that a black man could be entrusted with this job?"

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Well, how about Morgan Freeman? I mean, how many times has Morgan Freeman played you know, the president as a kind of omniscient wise man, you know? I mean, which, by the way, tells you a lot about how the culture, popular culture, culture more generally, including political culture, has progressed.

But, you know, not being a TV critic, as a historian, I'd just say, this is a two-way street. One reason why we still have such a vivid sense of Teddy Roosevelt long after we forgot what particular legislation he might have promoted or what reforms he instituted, in no small measure is because we think of TR as a family man. And we think of that very colorful, rambunctious brood that lived in the White House and, in many ways, helped to humanize the presidency as well as the president.

And I suspect seeing Barack Obama as family man in the spotlight, the unending spotlight that the modern White House is, will go a long way toward melting some of the - as I said, the residual prejudices that may exist in this country.

MARGARET WARNER: Peniel, let me pick up on a question that Mark of San Antonio, Texas, asked related to that. "Do you think that the election of an ethic-minority candidate indicates a change in the socioeconomic structure of this country? Are we moving from a less WASP-majority-led nation to a nation of multiple ethnic and social groups all having a share of power?" Now, you said earlier that you didn't think that having Barack Obama as president in and of itself changes those relationships, but does it indicate that such a change is in fact underway?

PENIEL JOSEPH: Well, no. I do think it indicates that there is a changing demographic and there's a new generation of white voters but also multiethnic and multiracial voters that are willing to elect an African-American president. What we have to keep in mind, though, is that his election doesn't instantly transform or change disparities. So when we think about education, when we think about the criminal-justice system, when we think about employment and jobs and wealth in the country, his election doesn't change that, but certainly indicates that a generation, a newer generation of voters, are looking beyond race in terms of deciding their president.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Well, I think I'd go one step maybe further and suggest that , symbolically, something really incredibly important for the future has happened which will clearly affect the debate.

I mean, the fact is, we can never again be in a position where people say, will America vote for a black man for president? I mean, John Kennedy's victory in 1960, in many ways, laid to rest permanently the question of whether a man could be a good Catholic and a good president, you know? And that's a huge rubicon that we have crossed.

So I'm not saying there won't be lingering pockets of people who may not accept Barack Obama as their president, but I don't think you can quantify, but I don't think you can exaggerate the psychological sort of sigh of relief, if you will, that we have crossed that rubicon.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Peniel, that raises a question we got from Joseph of Camden, New Jersey, who asked, in essence, will this also necessitate a change in rhetoric from other black leaders?

PENIEL JOSEPH: Well, yes and no. Yes, at the national level. I think that Deval Patrick; Douglas Wilder of Virginia; Edward Brooke of Massachusetts; Tom Bradley, when he was mayor of Los Angeles as a predominantly white city, you know, I think, at the national level, black candidates will follow Obama's model. And if they're trying to run for governor and senator or even president, they're not going to make race a central aspect of their campaign but rather really a secondary, tertiary aspect of their campaign.

At the local level, no. At the local level, no, because when we think about districting and we think about Tip O'Neill's famous maxim of all politics being local. If you're trying to run for congressman on the south side of Chicago, racial solidarity is just a part of the politics, just like ethnic politics all across the country.

So, at the local level, if you're trying to run for mayor of Camden, New Jersey, or Newark, New Jersey, ethnic politics are going to be a part of that, or pluralistic politics. But at the national level, I think that you probably will not see a major serious candidate try to put race out front of their candidacy.

MARGARET WARNER: But you mentioned, I mean Newark, New Jersey, Cory Booker who is mayor of Newark, his message about what is the answer to the economic problems of Newark, New Jersey, is quite different from other black elected politicians of old.

PENIEL JOSEPH: Well, certainly. I mean, Cory Booker and Michael Nutter, it's different. But at the same time, if they weren't African-American, they'd have a hard time getting elected. So you know, Cory Booker is much different from Sharpe James, so he's not this Black Power kind of candidate. But at the same time, if he wasn't African-American, he would have had a harder time getting elected. It's the same thing with Michael Nutter in Philadelphia - much different politician than John Street. John Street was a politician who did practice in the politics of racial solidarity to a degree. And Michael Nutter does not. But at the same time, him being African-American went a long way towards becoming the mayor of Philadelphia.

MARGARET WARNER: Finally, a few questions that don't deal with the racial aspects of this. And Richard, to you on this one, this comes from Terri in Concord, Calif.. "How would you compare this Democratic Obama victory with that of the Jackson victory and the promise of democracy for the common man?"

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Well, you know, both can be seen as turning points.

MARGARET WARNER: I think you've just written a piece on this.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Well, yeah, I mean, it is easy to - not only easy, it's certainly appropriate - you don't have to a revisionist historian to call attention, as we both have in this conversation, to the limits of Jacksonian democracy. But if you put yourself in the context of Inauguration day, 1829, you can understand what was in the air, why people felt that the country had really turned a page.

The first Western president, a president who - certainly more than any of his predecessors - could claim to be an authentic spokesman for, "the common man." And the old republic of the Virginia dynasty was on its way to being transformed by Jackson into what I would call an embryonic democracy.

Fast forward almost 200 years. This is the latest chapter in that process that began in 1829 with Jackson's election. It's a much more dramatic, much more obvious, much more sweeping evocation of democracy. But it is part of the same evolving process.

MARGARET WARNER: Peniel, Jason Wallace of Hamburg, Ark., and several other online visitors were asking about how "successful," you thought the Democrats would be? And particularly in light of if they're going to have at least 80 more seats in the House than the Republicans and at least - I think it's now 57 seats in the Senate. What does history tell us about how helpful this is to a president in moving his legislative agenda? Or does it lead to rifts within the party?

PENIEL JOSEPH: Well, it really depends. I mean, someone like Lyndon Johnson, in terms of moving a legislative agenda across, had a good time with Democratic majorities, at least for a time in the 1960's. That led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in '64 and '65.

Someone like Jimmy Carter, after the election on 1976, had a very tough time with Democratic majorities in trying to push legislation. And someone like Bill Clinton had a mixed time. And most of this has to do with what the president's vision is in contrast to the rough-and-tumble vision of, one, the House of Representatives, and, two, the Senate.

In Obama's case, because of this economic crisis, I think a pragmatic vision and this whole notion of the "Age of Obama," he'll have much more perhaps leeway, probably the kind of leeway we haven't seen since FDR in 1933, where the country is hungry, because FDR was the last president to be inaugurated in March of a year.

And right now, people feel as if January 20^th is too long to wait for President-elect Obama. So I don't think we're going to see - we haven't seen a president have this much sort of expectation surrounding his election probably since 1933.

MARGARET WARNER: And Richard, back to you for a final question from many viewers, but I'll quote Anthony from Indianapolis. He said, "In terms of historical shifts, how does the Republican Party shift or adapt to this new landscape? Is this a watershed historical moment that is going to force the Republican Party to rebrand itself in certain ways?"

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: It is a watershed moment. They will be forced to do that. But that is no guarantee that they will do so automatically. The fact is, if you look at the Tories in Great Britain, it took basically 15 years for them to evolve out of the looming shadow of Margaret Thatcher - not to reject Mrs. Thatcher but basically to relegate her to the history books. And I think there is a very legitimate debate that should take place.

Ronald Reagan will remain Mr. Republican. He is the founder of the modern party. And he is certainly the founder of conservatism as you and I know it. But how do you adapt whatever it is that is the essence of Reaganism to the 21^st century, to the very different country that we see from what it was 20 years ago when he left office. That should be a fascinating process. It should be an intellectual process. But there is no guarantee that it will take place any time soon. And there is every reason to believe that it will be messy.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, Richard Norton Smith and Peniel Joseph, as always, it's a pleasure to talk with you both. I want to thank you both and also thank all of our viewers and online visitors who sent in questions. Until next time, thanks for listening. I'm Margaret Warner.