Only time will answer that question; it will takes year, or decades, to determine what Obama's lasting legacy will be and how it impacted the course and shape of the nation, in ways large and small. But judging by the facts as we know them today (those pesky things conveniently ignored by the far-righter who love to brand him the worst president in history), it seems clear that Obama's presidency will largely be judged a success. By every economic measure (unemployment, GDP growth, stock market performance), the economy today is much stronger than the collapsing one Obama inherited in 2009 as the Great Recession reached crisis levels. It's always debatable how much credit a president deserves for economic performance, but given the magnitude of the problems Obama inherited and the swift action he took to reverse the slide, my guess is he'll receive more credit than most.
Take for instance:
- Both began their presidencies succeeding incumbents from the opposing party who had become deeply unpopular with the American public, in large part because of the messy wars they had been unable to end (Harry Truman and Korea and Obama and Iraq). Both were elected in part on their promises to end those wars.
- Both began their presidencies with a wave of Congressional support only to see that advantage quickly disappear. When Eisenhower was elected president in 1952, the Republican Party also took control of the House and Representatives and Senate, giving the party total control of Washington. Similarly, Obama began his presidency with big majorities in Congress, giving him the ability to pass a massive economic stimulus plan (which by all accounts worked) and an overhaul of health care. But both presidents found themselves unable to maintain those majorities despite their own electoral success. The Democrats won back both houses of Congress in 1954, and would hold those majorities for the next quarter-century. Obama fared only slightly better, losing the House in 2010 but holding onto the Senate until 2014. As a result, neither man was able to achieve grand legislative successes through the majority of their presidencies.
- Despite their limited legislative successes, both orchestrated major domestic initiatives: in Eisenhower's case, it was the interstate highway system; in Obama's it was a national health care system (which is now at risk of being undone).
- Both served during periods of general economic growth that were nonetheless uneven and inconsistent. The 1950s are largely remembered for the growth of the middle class and rise of the suburbs, but there were also two recessions during Eisenhower's presidency and a fair amount of economic angst during the 1960 campaign. Under Obama, the U.S. economy avoided slipping into a full-blown Depression and slowly but steadily recovered, with years of solid stock market gains and employment growth. But the economy during the Obama years was also clouded by stagnant wages and the continued loss of traditional blue collar jobs that Donald Trump promised to bring back (but won't be able to).
- In foreign affairs, both kept the United States out of major international crises and scored significant successes; for Eisenhower, it was the armistice ending the Korean War that has kept peace on the Korean peninsula ever since, and the containment of Soviet aggression during the Cold War. For Obama, it was the capture of Bin Laden and the nuclear deal with Iran (which may also be undone).
- But both also saw the nation's prestige, and perceptions of its standing in the world, suffer in the later years of their presidencies. For Eisenhower, it was the Soviet Union taking the lead in the space race with Sputnik, the loss of Cuba 90 miles off U.S. shores to a communist dictator, and the downing of the U.S. spy plane over the Soviet Union that caught the president in an international lie. You could almost picture a 1960s version of Donald Trump railing about how we were losing the Cold War and not winning anywhere anymore. Similarly, Obama was bedeviled by the Syrian civil war and his inability to address the humanitarian disaster, along with Russia's emboldened meddling in other nations and the rise of ISIS as an international terrorist threat. In retrospect, much of the angst about the United States' diminishing stature during the end of the Eisenhower presidency was overblown; the supposed missile gap that John F. Kennedy focused on during the 1960 campaign did not exist, and the U.S. would ultimately win the space race and the Cold War. It will be interesting to see if views about Obama's supposed passivity in foreign affairs change with the passage of time. Both men largely succeeded at keeping the nation at peace during tumultuous times in world affairs.
- There's also an interesting similarity concerning the elections to choose their successors. Each saw their chosen successors lose close elections despite their own generally strong approval ratings (Eisenhower's final approval rating was 59%, and it appears Obama's will be only slightly lower than that, though Obama never came close to the average approval ratings Eisenhower enjoyed during his presidency). Just as Kennedy suggested that the United States was falling behind at the end of the Eisenhower years and losing the Cold War, Trump ran on the idea that America was no longer great. So it seems that despite their successes and good standing in the eyes of most Americans, both presidencies left enough voters wanting a change in direction to cost their party the White House.
- Finally, both may also be remembered for delivering enduring farewell messages; in Eisenhower's case, his warning about the growing influence of the nation's military-industrial complex; in Obama's, his stirring address last week warning about the dangers of division and sacrificing our shared values to fear.
In the years since Eisenhower's presidency, his stature has largely grown in the eyes of historians who now appreciate his administrative skills and behind-the-scenes effectiveness in keeping the nation moving (the hidden-hand presidency), despite his failure to solve deep problems like civil rights. In terms of grades, he's probably gone from a B- to a B+
If I were to assign Obama a grade on the day his presidency ends, it would probably be a solid B. History will determine whether that grade rises or falls. My guess is it will ultimately rise as objective observers grow to appreciate the steady leadership he showed in guiding the nation out of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, unwinding the U.S. from messy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and generally returning a sense of dignity and confidence to the office after the scandals of the Clinton presidency and the economic and international ineptitude of the Bush years. I think a strong argument can be made that Obama also faced much tougher political challenges than Eisenhower, who was already a national hero when he was elected and governed in an era where true bipartisanship and compromise were still possible. He also did not have to tackle economic problems on the scale that Obama did, though it can be argued that he faced steeper international challenges with the Cold War and growing threat of a nuclear holocaust.
But the political polarization of the years in which Obama served -- and his inability to connect personally with Americans and inspire faith in them the way Reagan and Roosevelt did -- will ultimately cost him any hope for a mantle of greatness. As was the case with Eisenhower, the nation's deepest flaws were beyond his grasp to solve -- they may well have been beyond any president's. For some problems, the only solution comes in the slow but steady march of human progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment