In Sean Wilentz's volume on Andrew Jackson, one of a set of small books on the presidents, he references a famous controversy during Jackson's first term. Jackson's one close ally in his Cabinet married a woman of plebian roots that women of society generally thought uncouth or worse, snubbing her. Upset especially since it reminded him of libels against his wife (an improper divorce led to claims he was a bigamist), it led to a major upheaval of his administration. Not directly saying it, Wilentz (who actively opposed the impeachment) compared it to the Clinton years:
The scandal described a social divide that would reappear in Washington politics down to our own time, pitting sanctimonious social and moral arbiters against new arrivals and commoners whom they deemed vulgar and uppity. Jackson took the matter so personally that he invested in it more time and energy than he should have thereby distracting him from his reform agenda and causing him to fall prey ...
History is interesting to me for various reasons. It covers so much ground and topics. It boils down to stories. And, it reminds one that nothing is truly new under the sun. Though we should not read into the past too much of the present, or attempt to unite things too easily into a bow, themes do arise. I referenced Overthrow ... how can we understand Iran without considering the overthrow of a legitimate government by ours in the 1950s that in various ways led to revolution two decades later, and led us to where we are today. But, when do we hear it mentioned?!
The government surveillance program, now targeting the press, also is better examined with a healthy respect of history. I deal with some themes here, but the sudden well trod principles of Justice Jackson's Youngstown opinion respecting the proper sphere of presidential powers suggests as well the past can help us clarify the present. FISA itself is after all a result of history, the history of governmental overreaching. Again, and attempts to suggest the likes of FDR had comparable programs sort of underlines the principle, a bit too often this is not respected in the coverage.
Going back to the Jackson book -- and I'm only half way thru it -- Jackson was also concerned with moneyed capitalists. He targeted the Second Bank of the United States in part because he feared it favored special interests, supplying illegitimate privileges that violated basic rights of equality of the people at large. One might compare this to the ban on titles of nobility. Or, the current practice of giving special benefits to corporate interests.
Anyway, what was with that Rove story? He even went to his scheduled appearance.