History teaches us that there is nothing new in the affairs of men or nations; there are only lessons, forgotten in the blur of time. Allow me to paint a word picture of a political landscape and I will ask you to determine what period of time the snapshot describes.

The sitting President is not particularly endearing to the American electorate. When compared with his predecessor, the current President never quite measures up. The man he succeeded had served as President for 8 years. He was hailed as a good communicator, was well-liked by the press and was considered to be statesman of the first order. In some circles, he was seen as a "common man" who rose above his station to become a true hero. To be sure, the previous President had made mistakes. His second term had some serious crises but, as good leaders often do, the former President was, generally, seen in a more favorable light as the years passed since he left office.

The President in our snapshot enjoys no such widespread public adoration. He is roundly, enthusiastically and frequently chastised in the press as being "ignorant" or "haughty" or, in some circles, simply "insane". His public manner is not endearing. He is not a polished speaker in the traditional sense of a Franklin Roosevelt or a Ronald Reagan. Some think (and write) that he is slow-witted and mentally dim. Absolutely no one - save, perhaps his own family - considers him an "intellectual".

And, unlike his increasingly favored predecessor, his years as President have been a period of tumultuous change. There is dramatic turmoil within his country and, even more so, throughout the world. There have been new threats to the security of the United States from foreign nations. The reigning President has made some diplomatic decisions that have been, for the most part, unpopular with most of his country’s citizens. He has made treaties with some nations that were viewed as corrupt and unstable. He has seen fit to take drastic measures to ensure the security of the United States and some segments of the population (in particular, new immigrants) have viewed these initiatives as infringements on freedoms ensured by the Constitution. The President also has strengthened the military might of the U.S. and, because of these unforeseen expenses, had increased the debt of the Treasury.

These (and other factors) have caused a dramatic resurgence in the rival political party. Candidates of the President’s party were soundly defeated in the last Congressional elections. Ultimately, the unpopularity of the President and his controversial policies brought about defeat in the Presidential election itself. The rival Party’s popularity soared directly as a result of an unpopular chief executive and (what some considered at the time) a failed Presidency.

If this sounds like the events of the past 8 years, I have made my point. In truth, I am describing the circumstances of the defeat of President John Adams and the Federalist Party in the election of 1800. His inglorious defeat at the hands of Thomas Jefferson and the "Democratic-Republican" Party marked a major shift in the ideology of American politics. The election of 1800 ushered in 24 years of rule by the new, populist faction and one-party control of the Executive and Congressional branches of government. [For those who might be interested, what was Jefferson’s "Democratic-Republican Party" evolved into the Democratic Party of current times. The establishment of the party was completed with the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828. While its populist roots began with Jefferson, it was given leaf and branch by Jackson. In one of the innumerable ironies of American political history, the man defeated by Jackson and his Democratic Party was none other than John Quincy Adams, the son of the man Jefferson defeated in 1800. Jefferson, himself, had once written to Daniel Webster that Jackson was "a dangerous man" and "unfit for the Presidency". The invisible hand that is history has many lessons to teach us all.]

John Adams was defeated by Jefferson due to the unpopularity of his foreign (Jay Treaty with Great Britain and the Quasi-War with France) and his domestic (Alien and Sedition Acts, Naturalization Act) policies. Due to the complicated nature of the U.S.’s relationship with the two global powers at the time - England and France - Adams managed to alienate both Anglophiles (Alexander Hamilton and the High Federalists) and Francophiles (Jefferson, James Madison). Thus, his Presidency energized not only the opposition Democratic-Republican Party but estranged his own Federalist Party. Similarly, President Bush has given wings to the Democratic Party and, concurrently, has managed to become (at least, to some moderate-to-liberal Republicans) a pariah. As the past has taught us, a changing world and the demand for complicated, often unpopular policies do not political harmony make.

To complete this historical roundabout, I offer this table of policy decisions of Presidents Adams and Bush. Similar decisions to address circuitous global dynamics made by imperfect men - especially, men who lacked the ability to sufficiently explain their actions - have brought contemporary America to a crossroads. It is a junction not unlike two centuries ago.

Permit me to offer a few caveats after this tedious (and, quite possibly, boring) history lesson. First, I understand that this comparison might be difficult to follow for most readers. Secondly, I will readily agree that it is a stretch to compare 1800 with anything about the 21^st century. Finally, it is important to note (but I am not sure it really makes a difference) that John Adams was running for reelection; George Bush is ineligible. But anyone who believes that the election of 2008 is not a mandate on the policies of the past 8 years is, in my opinion, mistaken. George Bush might not be running as a candidate but his impact on the voting in November, 2008 is immense and undeniable. It is simply impossible for the average voter to separate whoever the Republican Party nominates this fall from the events of the last eight years. Democratic nominees will attack the record of the outgoing President with a vengeance while Republican nominees will attempt to row clear of the current administration. It is not so much a Democrat versus a Republican as it is a Democrat versus George W. Bush.

The take-home point of this inquiry is, really, simple enough: There is absolutely nothing new under the sun. We, as a nation, face the same decision that our ancestors confronted in the election of 1800. In that era, the voters swept out the Federalist Party not only from the White House but from Congress as well. In truth, the Federalist Party of John Adams (and George Washington before him) ceased to be a political force forever after. With the election of Thomas Jefferson, the nation chose what one historian described as "a strange blend of dreamy idealism and manipulative politician; Jefferson was a virtuoso of sunny phrases and hopeful themes that became staples of American politics." Looking over the current field of candidates and listening to the rhetoric of most, this certainly sounds descriptive of the 2008 election season.

As we approach this critical historical intersection, we are firmly behind the wheel of our nation’s ship. The question we all need to ask ourselves is: Is it time for a left turn, a right turn or a steady course?