Marty McFly, in Back to the Future, wound up in 1950’s where he was able to learn some things about his past, resulting in a better future for him and his family. In this Presidential election year of 2008, another trip back to that decade can shed light on the decision to be made. In 1952, and the main campaign issue was the unpopular Korean War. Many saw it as a peripheral, unnecessary war in the overall global struggle against the communists. Over 20,000 Americans had lost their lives and there was no end in sight. He sacked his theater commander, the extremely popular General Douglas MacArthur, because of his outspoken views to the press about how the war was being conducted. By the spring of 1952, President Truman’s popularity sank to the mid-twenties. The Missourian was leading the nation through some extremely challenging times with a new global security threat in the communist menace, which was intent on bringing down the western way of life. That new threat had required the Truman administration to formulate a new policy to face it. The strategy adopted was containment: a commitment to oppose communist expansion while promoting liberty worldwide. As a direct result of the containment strategy, President Truman had taken the United States to war in Korea.

In much the same way, President Bush, following the attacks of 9-11, realized that the United States faced a new global security threat posed by Islamic terrorism, with the same aim as the communists: the destruction of our way of life. He too needed to adopt new strategy to face that threat and his response was both going after the terror networks with military force and the “freedom agenda.” Clearly, treating terrorists’ acts as a law enforcement issue, as was the policy of the 1990’s, was not succeeding. President Bush believed (and believes) those nations directly supporting terrorism needed to be held accountable and the region birthing these terrorists needed to be reformed. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were a direct result of the Bush Administration’s two-pronged strategy. The President even had his own MacArthuresque moment this week, with the resignation (probably with some prompting) of theater commander Admiral William Fallon, following the Naval officer's outspoken views to the press about Administration policies. People may argue about the efficacy of the course of action Bush has chosen, but one cannot argue with the results that there has not been another attack on United States’ soil since 9-11. Never-the-less, as was the case with Korean War in 1952, in this election year of 2008, war weariness has set in for much of the electorate. President Bush’s approval rating has dropped to the low to mid-30’s, and people want change.

In 1952, possible change took the form of war-hero Dwight D. Eisenhower. His military credentials and patriotism were beyond reproach. He had bi-partisan appeal when partisan attacks had reached a fevered pitch. In fact, Truman had put the feelers out in 1948 to see if Eisenhower would be his running mate. Four years later, Presidential candidate Eisenhower pledged to see the Korean War through to honorable end: in fact, the former five-star General said he would go to the front himself to assess the situation and determine the United States’ best course of action. One of his concerns with how the Truman Administration had conducted the war was not committing overwhelming force at the beginning, and then slowly escalating our forces piecemeal. Ike’s opponent was liberal Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson, who offered no new solutions for the Korean War.

In 2008, McCain offers many of the same characteristics that made Eisenhower appealing to the electorate in 1952. Though the Arizona senator didn’t reach the same celestial heights during his military career as Eisenhower obtained during World War II, he did prove his mettle as first a fighter pilot, then a prisoner of war for five and half years during the Vietnam War. He served his nation well in the Navy again afterwards. His patriotism and national security credentials are beyond reproach. He like Eisenhower also has bi-partisan appeal and like Ike was wooed by the Democrats four years ago as a potential running mate to their ticket. McCain promises to see the war through to victory as well and, prior to the surge, had been voicing his belief that we did not have enough forces on the ground. He also faces a liberal Democratic opponent in either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, either of which promises to pull the United States out of Iraq, regardless of the consequences (and who both happen to be from Illinois).

There are other interesting parallels. Eisenhower, though not a great public speaker, was earnest and people believed what he had to say; by contrast, Adlai Stevenson was known for his outstanding rhetorical skills. McCain offers “Straight Talk” and, on occasion, some soaring eloquence; his most likely opponent, Obama, can hold a crowd spellbound. Further, Stevenson was a New Deal, big government Democrat. Both Barack and Hillary have promised massive new government programs including universal health care. Eisenhower had to win over the “Taft” right wing of his party in 1952 by assuring them he would be tough on communism and rein in an overgrown federal government. Among other things, Ike promised to balance the federal budget (and did for the first time that had happened in decades). McCain, too, has had to shore up support among the right wing, assuaging their concerns about border security and other issues. He has promised to be a fiscal hawk as well. On the social issues front, Eisenhower became a great friend of religion in fostering a virtuous culture and sought the support of Billy Graham during his candidacy and as President. McCain appears to have put his past issues with religious leaders behind him and is reaching out to them and the faith community. One final parallel is that Eisenhower, at 62, was the oldest candidate at that time to stand for the first term as President: and John McCain, at 72, looks to now take over that mantle (given the increased life expectancy in our day, their ages are comparable). There was something reassuring to the electorate with Ike’s age, both in terms of him having experienced a lot of life and not having to prove anything: he could avoid getting mired in the pettiness of party politics that so often plagues young, overzealous politicians. McCain can tap into that ethos of being slightly above the fray as well.

Eisenhower, in the 1950’s, was able to finish what Truman had started by bringing the Korean War to a successful conclusion, resulting in a country free from communism and now a strong democracy and ally in the region. For the United States, a time of relative calm followed during the remainder of the 50’s with a chance for the nation to get its house in order and face other issues on the home front. As for President Truman, history would judge the choices that he made in the first years of the Cold War far better than the American public in his day. McCain has the same goal of finishing what President Bush has started in Iraq, with hopefully the same chance for a respite and opportunity to rebuild afterwards. (Historians may also appraise Bush’s strategy in the war against Islamic terrorism better than the current public opinion).

Given all the similarities between an election in the 1950’s and today, it may just be time to go Back to the Future.

Randall DeSoto is the author of the new book, We Hold These Truths, about how leaders have appealed to ideals from the Declaration of Independence throughout United States’ history.