Welcome to the fourth historical discussion: Success and the Obama Presidency. This is running concurrently with the third discussion on the presidency of GW Bush.

The header post is a long read, I apologize, I got a little carried away I suppose. Enjoy.

Historical Discussion #1: Treaty of Versailles
Historical Discussion #2: Racial Views and History
Historical Discussion #3: The Presidency of George W. Bush

On January 20, 2009 the forty-fourth president of the United States will be sworn into office. When Barack Obama places his hand on the Bible and takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution he will at that same moment become a very notable character in the story of American history. Much has already been written about the improbability of his meteoric rise to prominence and its historical significance; we need not elaborate on this further here, except to say that even if his presidency is not a success, the name Barack Obama will likely be remembered as long as this Union is preserved.

The pertinent question of course is how will President Obama be remembered? At the present time he appears to possibly be a controversial figure; adored by some, passionately derided by others, much in the mold of an FDR or a Ronald Reagan. Surely all will agree that he will remembered for breaking down walls and for a series of “firsts” which are certainly a source of pride for the entire nation, regardless of political persuasion. However, that does not address how Barack Obama, as president will be remembered. While this cannot be determined with any degree of accuracy at this early stage, it is safe to say that there are a few specific issues that will likely loom largest when shaping Obama’s legacy. First and foremost is the economy.

A bad economy can ruin a presidency, as in the case of Hoover, Carter, and Bush I. The soundness of an economy can greatly influence public opinion of an embattled president and play a large role in determining his fate, as in the cases of Nixon and Clinton. There is no denying that this nation is in the midst of an economic crisis. The manner in which Obama handles this crisis will very likely determine the nation’s feelings for him. If history has taught us anything regarding a Chief Executive’s handling of a crisis, it is that what the nation seeks more than anything else is leadership. The populace looks to the president for reassurance; they want to be confident that there is a steady hand guiding the ship. This of course is to say nothing of the direct results of his leadership. The case of FDR’s handling of the great depression is perhaps the most poignant example of the country supporting a president even though his policies did not necessarily bring immediate relief to people on a significant scale. However, Roosevelt excelled at exuding confidence, as well as compassion and understanding for those facing hard times.

This is where Obama must succeed. The people voted the incumbent party out of power, largely due to a feeling that party leadership had become detached from what the people needed and wanted. Obama cannot allow this to happen. He must be proactive, calm, cool, and collected without appearing cold and distant. There is no doubt that the requirements of Obama are akin to walking along a high wire without a safety net. For he must do all of this while facing critics eager to paint him as a tax-and-spend liberal. His only course to fight such a label is to embark on a concrete plan of fiscal responsibility, much as Clinton and the Republican congress did a decade ago. The purpose here is not to debate the merits of small v. big government or the role government should play in regards to the economy. Rather, it is to attempt to determine what action Obama needs to take to achieve success in the eyes of the American people. Will this generation of instant gratification be content to wait patiently through an economic downturn? Will Obama’s message of hope in the future continue to resonate even if things do not get better right anyway? Or will Obama and the congress follow a plan of huge deficit spending and higher taxes? Will they rule from the left or follow a more bi-partisan center route. Only time will tell.

If Obama hopes to achieve some of his more ambitious domestic goals, including increased spending on health care and education, he may have to win a second term to do so. In the current climate of industries being bailed out at a frantic pace, it is hard to imagine that even a person as ardently dedicated to these programs as Obama is would be able to fully flesh out these policies at this time. It is likely that with the significant political capital Obama possess entering his presidency he will be able to pass a reduced version of polices rather quickly. To go much further would likely run the risk of running up the deficit in a way that Bush could only have dreamed of. (Note: this was written two months ago; it appears Obama is already running this risk before being sworn in.) In turn he could possibly lose the favor of the people, who have already shown that they are not currently disposed to enthusiastically support runaway government spending. However, unfortunately for Obama, the economy is not the only area he faces immediate challenges.

It is a near certainty that the far left will not be content with the foreign policy of Barack Obama. Those hoping for a swift conclusion to hostilities in Iraq are likely to be disappointed. The real issue is whether or not the center embraces his policies on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. He must be seen as tough on terrorism and a friend of Israel, while simultaneously embarking on policies of nuclear non-proliferation and diplomacy with traditional American enemies. Rather than focusing on a quick end to the Iraq War, it appears that Obama’s foreign policy should, and ostensibly will, be centered around re-solidifying alliances, reversing the Bush policy of pre-emption, and reworking the methods and tactics employed in the War on Terror. If Obama can accomplish these objectives without emasculating the Armed Forces a ala Jimmy Carter, the table will be set for a successful foreign policy. The wildcard, of course, is a terrorist attack, which we have already learned can instantly dramatically alter a presidency. We will have to wait and see if Obama can accomplish his foreign policy goals while appearing strong against terrorism.

Another intriguing development to watch will be how long the honeymoon period of Obama’s presidency lasts. With such immediate crises facing the nation, will people be patient as the new president adjusts to the intricacies of the nation’s highest office? Without question Obama will take office with the country facing more problems than any new president has faced in the past forty years. This does not provide an excuse. Extraordinary times create extraordinary men. History has shown that in order to be considered “great” a president must not only face tough crises, but must rise to the challenge and leave the country better than he found it. Mr. Obama, the opportunity for greatness is yours for the taking.


If you actually read all of that, thank you. Feel free to agree, disagree, and discuss.

I'm not sure if this one is more of a historical discussion as it is one of predicting the future.

I know. I'm still trying to get this little franchise off the ground, so I'm giving the people what they want.

But if you read the write-up, there is a lot of historical perspective in it.

i've long thought that the winner of this election, perhaps more than any other in history, needed to be steeped in outward showings of confidence, strength and intelligence. we've needed a positive figurehead for a long time now. policy-wise i honestly can't see things being all that much different in four years with either mccain or obama, but this "change" motif is going to go a long way toward speculating this country into the positive. bush gave a lot of lip service to the "uniter" theme, but obama has the potential to live it.

to me, obama needs to exude - and i mean positively ooze - confidence. the country needs to see what it's like to be led by an actual leader again. obviously you want to see his policies enact sizable change, and that should be a barometer of course, but his outward projection is as important as any president's in history.

I fully agree.

I heard this somewhere a few months ago, and I still believe it holds true, for me at least. For Obama to be successful in my eyes he needs to do some big things. If there isn't a radical change in politics as usual I will be disappointed. The bottom line is that this presidency will seem like a miracle after the past 8 years. Even so, I think Obama will have to at least match the success Clinton had for most people to be happy.

To me, there are more important things than the current unemployment rate, how many people are defaulting on their homes, and whether the middle class gets a bigger tax rebate this year. If these things are all that Obama deals with I will be unhappy. I am expecting a big change in the way things work, I want to see Obama take large and bold steps towards getting rid of the politics of corruption and I want him to wage war on special interests. In my opinion, those are the things that need to happen to allow for bigger and better changes to come about in the future. I don't think the government can ever be truly effective while operating the way it does now, so I hope Obama does something to change it. That is what he talked about in his speeches, and while I know better than to get my hopes up, I will not be pleased if he goes back on those things.

Damn, you took the words almost literally out of his mouth. He said something extremely similar in his speech.

Great post, aprilfifth. Not much (if anything) to disagree with.

If Obama can not make the economy worse and undo most of the blatant attacks on civil liberties that Bush oversaw I'll be happy. His people have apparently been feeling out prospects for other countries willing to accept people from Guantanamo, so I'm optimistic that he'll close that hellhole up asap.

i appreciate this viewpoint, and its sad that its become extraordinary to expect this, but you have to be realistic. a unified administration can affect change on a pretty sizable scale, but you can't roll back decades of red tape, mashed bureaucratic coils and unhealthy predispositions in that short a time, certainly not to consider his changes radical, which i certainly didn't get the opinion he was at any point in his election cycle. even if obama took office during a relatively quiet time internationally or domestically, i wouldn't necessarily expect him to overhaul washington (although thats always nice).

i think bart's viewpoint, especially considering the extraordinary circumstances by which he's taken office, should be the general consensus. im sure repubs all over the country will be crowing every moment obama doesn't make something insanely better in his first 48 hours, but lets be realistic.

im with you on wanting him to be a radical leader that casts all this shit out of washington in favor of some actual positive change. but what im expecting is for him to just not fuck things up any worse and, at the very least, get us on a track toward recovery for whoever is next in another four or eight years.

I disagree with pretty much every action Obama has taken, or is proposing to take, with regards to the economy thus far. But the guy is out there doing. He is selling his method. Even if (I believe when) this round of stimuli fail, I think people will still remember the confident activist approach he took in confronting the situation.

Can Obama the President succeed even if his policies fail? I believe he can and likely will.

Then people might as well elect Tom Cruisse. If you don't expect/demand results, well, you'll ultimately always get what you do expect/demand.

a scientologist could never get elected to office

Brad Pitt? Maybe Angela Jolie could be the first female President?

That doesn't really answer my question though. I'm asking if people will accept moderate failure if they believe that Obama was out in front leading, doing his best to restore people's confidence, etc, and had their interests at heart in his actions.

Appearances/efforts > or < results for the populace? I'm sure everyone would pick results, but I'm not so sure it isn't in actuality the former.

for most of the voting public, appearances/efforts > results, especially when whatever benefits are generated by said "results" flow mostly to his constituency.

Agreed. Though I think it isn't dependent on the second half of your statement. Perhaps a little bit, but I don't think that's the deciding factor. Especially since we're talking about "results" that are limited enough to not be considered a success or even possibly a moderate failure.

I disagree with many of these statements. Success and failure are not absolutes. Given the modesty of the stimulus proposal (it makes up less than half the projected loss in GDP), a resounding success would be decreasing the rate of economic contraction and shortening the timeline toward transition to expansion. Because of the perverse nature of politics, even success would be pointed to as failure by opponents. He'll be considered successful if he can convince the public that his policies did what they were intended to do. If they fall short of even these modest goals, then it's unlikely, as he himself has pointed out, that his presidency will be considered a success.

And it is not true that the benefits gained flow only to his constituency. Perhaps his greatest failure so far was the reduction in the already too small state fiscal stabilization fund. This benefits everyone. Unless you prefer having fewer firefighters, police officers, teachers, road maintenance crews etc.

If we're being honest here, they may not flow to Obama's constituency, but they do flow mostly towards the Democrats constituency in general.

Do you really believe this is true? If we're really being honest, who benefits most from expansionary fiscal policy? People who get a few extra dollars worth of food stamps or pharmaceutical companies who will get millions to do comparative device testing? People who get a couple of months extra in unemployment compensation or electrical power companies who will be paid to upgrade infrastructure? People on medicaid who'll get a few extra vaccinations or IT companies who will receive money for proprietary EMR software? Which of these are Democratic constituencies and which are Republican?

Guess I was obviously completely wrong on this one. I really thought he'd be forced to cut out many of his pet spending projects because of the "emergency stimulus" things he would pass through. I wasn't shrewd enough to realize he'd simply call his original projects "emergency stimulus" projects. Well played, Mr. Obama.

Well I was right about the third bolded part anyway. I guess it remains to be seen if the fourth bolded point proves to be true.