Exceptions (Or Non-Exceptions) That Prove the Rule

A couple quibbles with Matt here:

I think this is a mistake. An enormous amount of significant legislation passed in Lyndon Johnson’s second term. As I wrote yesterday, the 1950 amendments to the Social Security Act in Truman’s second term were extremely significant, though little-remembered today. And the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 in Eisenhower’s second term were also important. The 1986 tax reform was important, and I’d say the majority of the important legislation from the Clinton era came in the second term.

• LBJ is, at best, the exception that proves the rule.   Because of the tragic circumstances of his ascension to office, he wasn’t a lame duck in his second term, which changes the political dynamics substantially.  (And, as noted in comments, the same goes for Truman.  So the only counterexample is two examples of legislation passed under Ike that were symbolically important but trivial in practical impact.)
• The claim about Clinton is just indefensible.   An extremely high percentage of the major legislation, good or bad, passed during his presidency was during his first term: NAFTA, welfare reform, the FMLA, the 1993 budget, the omnibus crime bill, DOMA, the line item veto, the death penalty/habeas corupus atrocity, the Brady Bill — all first term.   Other than perhaps the repeal of Glass-Steagall I don’t know what passed in his second term that could be considered comparably significant, and in terms of numbers it’s not remotely close.

I’d also add that those who are inclined to be nostalgic about Clinton when evaluating Obama should look carefully at that list.