Will Obama be remembered as "one of the greats"?

[opebo]

Of course not

You fellows are missing the point, he's obviously great relatively speaking.  You have to remember how bad American presidents are, normally.  Sure, he's not an FDR or an LBJ, but he's better than anything since LBJ, objectively, since no president since LBJ did anything good, and at least he expanded health care for the poor.

[angus]

he's better than anything since LBJ, objectively...

Not necessarily.  If we circle the wagons and devolve into paranoia and the Doctrine of Pre-Emption becomes de rigueur as a means of statecraft, it could be that his immediate predecessor becomes "one of the greats."

As for Obama, I have no idea.  Only time will tell.  Same for all the others.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yeah, Obama's foreign policy has been the most successful of any president in many decades. Despite a lot of hooting and hollering from the anti-drone conspiracy crowd and isolationists on the internet (plus the neocons, justifiably angered that Obama has twice defeated their candidates who would have invaded Iran mere months into their thankfully-averted presidencies), he's done a magnificent job decapitating al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations and promoting democracy and international law, all with very little loss of life or monetary cost, and while strengthening the United States' diplomatic bonds at the same time.

I wouldn't say that the opposition to drones has been from conspiracy crowds or isolationists.  There's broad opposition to using drone strikes in the way Obama has done it.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

One of the greats? No. I think his judgement by history will depend on which direction the US goes over the next decade, and where it ends up in 20 or 30 years. He'll always be the first non-white president. Beyond that, I think that he'll likely end up at best, as others have suggested, as a Nixon without Watergate. At worst, he's going to be blamed for everything wrong with the country decades from now - sort of a Jimmy Carter for both parties.

Obamacare will be a big variable. Personally, I suspect it's going to kind-of work, but get replaced within 20 years by something much better (assuming there's still a high-functioning US at that point). That's all assuming there are no surprises in the remainder of his term. For example, if the current shutdown ends up being The End - the collapse of the US and subsesquently the global economcy, I expect he'll be cursed and burned in effigy a century from now.

[anvi]

Not one of the "greats," no.  But we'll vilify him until he leaves office, and after a brief honeymoon with the next prez, we'll start hating that one...like we always do...and putting "do you miss me yet?' signs up with Obama's picture on them and admire how much he got done..like we always do...  Then we'll reelect the next prez even though we hate him or her...like...oh, you get the idea.

[opebo]

Not one of the "greats," no.  But we'll vilify him until he leaves office, and after a brief honeymoon with the next prez, we'll start hating that one...like we always do...and putting "do you miss me yet?' signs up with Obama's picture on them and admire how much he got done..like we always do...  Then we'll reelect the next prez even though we hate him or her...like...oh, you get the idea.

Who is 'we'?!  There are two sides here, and we each despise the other, or haven't you noticed?

Net result - about 40+% are going to hate the opposing party president and approve of their own either at present or in retrospect (the ones in the middle being too stupid to have any idea what is going on).

[anvi]

Sure, in the main, the opposing "sides" in American politics always hate their opponents.  But I don't think it's that simple, opebo.  I can remember conservatives who felt like Reagan and Bush I were sellouts during their presidencies, only to lionize them afterward.  I can recall conservatives that were pissed as hell at Bush '43 for running up debts and giving 'handouts" to the failing bank industry, only to say now that he was way better of a president than the current one.  I can remember lefties regretting their vote for Carter in '76, who then turned out in droves to help elect Reagan in landslides twice, liberals who hated Clinton for being a corporate sellout, who subsequently romanticized their presidencies in various ways in the aftermath.  Now, lefties hate Obama because he hasn't done enough in accord with their utopian dreams and for being a spying warmonger, but I'll guarantee you that many of them will rally to his defense after he is gone.  I think, regardless of whose "side" we're on, we love to hate our presidents while they're in office and romanticize them after their done.  The whole nation has a very Freudian psyche when it comes to politics.  And most everything else.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If Obamacare is successful, which I assume it will be, and if the GOP doesn't rape the economy with a default, which they hopefully won't, I could see him being viewed in a generally positive light. Not "one of the greats," but probably similar to Bill Clinton without the Lewinsky scandal.

That sounds about right. If anything he will look like a real statesman to the future historian in comparison to the nuthouse Republican opposition he had to endure during his term.

[pbrower2a]

If Obamacare is successful, which I assume it will be, and if the GOP doesn't rape the economy with a default, which they hopefully won't, I could see him being viewed in a generally positive light. Not "one of the greats," but probably similar to Bill Clinton without the Lewinsky scandal.

That sounds about right. If anything he will look like a real statesman to the future historian in comparison to the nuthouse Republican opposition he had to endure during his term.

Obamacare isn't perfect, but it is a start. When it gets recognition for saving lives it will be seen much like Social Security and Medicare -- unassailable except for improvement. The negative is that he provoked the Tea Party that resisted everything.

He got us out of one nasty war (Iraq) without disgrace. He whacked the most dangerous terrorist that America ever knew. He has avoided scandals, and of course he allowed the measures that undid the worst and most dangerous meltdown of the American economy since the 1929-1933 collapse.

What keeps him from being a great President is the 2010 election. That he didn't win by a landslide in 2012 that ratifies his greatness? Maybe it is best that he didn't get full of himself.

He is clearly not a disaster. Nothing about him indicates that he is leaving a mess behind that can implode on a successor.   

[pbrower2a]

Let's look at it another way:

How does he differ from the worst Presidents that we ever had? It's hard to imagine a President with more going wrong than Buchanan, but America had big problems going into 1856. The President had no control over the overall economy in 1857, and the Crash of 1857 soured many attitudes and intensified the regional polarization that already existed. Buchanan just wasn't up to the job despite the most marvelous curriculum vitae that any President ever had.

The trio of Presidents elected in 1920, 1924, and 1928 were awful -- Harding for corruption, Coolidge for inattention, and Hoover for a bungled response to an economic meltdown that came from a bubble that Coolidge fostered... Dubya telescopes those into twelve years and adds a pair of bungled wars and a preventable terrorist attack that cost the lives of 3000 Americans.

If Buchanan was elected after his prime, Barack Obama was elected before his political prime -- but he seems above average. He has created no problems that can implode on us. America went into his Presidency deeply divided, and it could yet come out less divided.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

God I hope not. That means something will have to happen in the next three years and whatever it is, I would prefer that it wouldn't.

[angus]

the opposing "sides" in American politics always hate their opponents.  But I don't think it's that simple...

agree.  they hate each other but not each other's presidents.  Plenty of Democrats like Lincoln and plenty of Republicans like Jefferson.

Anyway, you can't really call a legacy within the first couple of decades after, much less during, a presidency.  Maybe Obama will be one of the greats, maybe not.  Same goes for Dubya and Bubba.  It really depends upon what moral and political fashions exist several decades from now, and I don't think any of us really have any idea about what those might be.

I'm more comfortable making the call about Jimmy Carter and Herber Walker.  There's really no other way to spin loser than loser.  We are a shallow society.  Everyone can tell you the winner of last year's superbowl, but not many can tell you the loser.  One-term presidents will always be considered one-term presidents, regardless of moral fashions, and regardless of how dim or how brilliant they might have been.  Two-termers, on the other hand, will get the benefit of revisionism, and the flavor of revisionist storytelling will depend upon the domestic and global economic circumstances that evolve long after the two-termer has left office.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Is this real life?

Seriously, does this thread really exist?

Obama would be lucky to even be considered mediocre.

Good luck with this.

Thanks for the laugh. I needed cheering up today.

[PolitiJunkie]

Is this real life?

Seriously, does this thread really exist?

Obama would be lucky to even be considered mediocre.

Good luck with this.

Thanks for the laugh. I needed cheering up today.

Clearly you are a student of politics, not a student of history, and you are failing to see the bigger picture.

Very quick example: Truman left office with a 22% approval rating. He is almost always ranked in the Top 5.

Good day.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

First black president is probably enough to put him in the upper half by itself.

Affirmative action of the highest order (literally). The mind boggles.

And how can anyone seriously suggest that Obama hasn't continued Bush's foreign policy? In fact, he has expanded upon it and the PATRIOT Act. Kind of different when you're the President, isn't Obama?

The only difference is that Bush knew how to lead, whereas Obama is a laughing stock on the international stage, and champions the premise of "leading from behind."

It's been Amateur Hour at the White House since 2009. Sadly the hour is going to last 3 more years.

[P.S. Circa 2005 Bush was regarded by the general populace as a decent president. It didn't take long for the public to change its tune. Same thing is happening with Obama as we speak. Furthermore, Bush's approval rating right now stands around 45%, Obama has dipped to 37% in the Associated Press-GfK Poll today. One of the Greats? LOL!!]

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I agree with you, GOP_Represent... but it's a losing cause here, and you're not really justifying some of your opinions.

I'm open to the idea that Obamacare could be a success in the long term. Whether it's worth the short-term sacrifices won't really matter to historians or the general populace once we're past them, but that still doesn't mean they're insignificant.

As for his foreign policy, I'll respectfully disagree. If you talk to a lot of non-politicos who at one point or another jumped on the bandwagon to say that Bush was a laughing stock, at least many of them will admit that they knew what Bush stood for. With Bush, it seemed like there was a real goal behind his foreign policy. "Get the bad guys," "take down Saddam," "promote freedom." Maybe it was all rehrotic (and it was certainly hegemonic and overly-simplistic), but Bush pointed out wrongs he saw in the world quite emphatically. American foreign policy was always about righting those wrongs.

Under Obama, it is easy to feel like things are all over the place. He seriously lucked out with Syria, but the fact that it was even on the agenda still sort of shows that the situation in the Middle East is out of control. I guess we could debate the merits of the Arab Spring (and it's good that people are now wanting freedom—a product of Bush?), but I don't think anyone would deny that the situation is extremely unstable. Had Bush been president, the Arab Spring may not have happened (could be good, could be bad), but certainly, I think, the situation would've been less chaotic. I know I'm speaking in assumptions and generalizations, but there was just something about the feel of Bush; love him or hate him, he was firm. Things are so loosey-goosey now.

The only bright spot was Hillary, and I've always seen what she did in State as being quite distant from Obama. She ran her own operation.

[Yank2133]

First black president is probably enough to put him in the upper half by itself.

Affirmative action of the highest order (literally). The mind boggles.

And how can anyone seriously suggest that Obama hasn't continued Bush's foreign policy? In fact, he has expanded upon it and the PATRIOT Act. Kind of different when you're the President, isn't Obama?

The only difference is that Bush knew how to lead, whereas Obama is a laughing stock on the international stage, and champions the premise of "leading from behind."

It's been Amateur Hour at the White House since 2009. Sadly the hour is going to last 3 more years.

[P.S. Circa 2005 Bush was regarded by the general populace as a decent president. It didn't take long for the public to change its tune. Same thing is happening with Obama as we speak. Furthermore, Bush's approval rating right now stands around 45%, Obama has dipped to 37% in the Associated Press-GfK Poll today. One of the Greats? LOL!!]

Lmao, no one on the international stage sees that, I mean when is the last time BO got a shoe thrown at him?

Seriously, it is early.....but Obama is likely going to go down as an above-average to good president(some where in the 11-15 range).

[Frodo]

He will be remembered as a Richard Nixon of the Democratic Party done right (without any crippling scandals like Watergate forcing him to vacate his office before finishing his term).  Seen at the time as a liberal, but governed more or less as a conservative.  Even his crowning achievement (the Affordable Care Act, i.e. Obamacare) is essentially a conservative creation. 

[H. Ross Peron]

He will be remembered as a Richard Nixon of the Democratic Party done right (without any crippling scandals like Watergate forcing him to vacate his office before finishing his term).  Seen at the time as a liberal, but governed more or less as a conservative.  Even his crowning achievement (the Affordable Care Act, i.e. Obamacare) is essentially a conservative creation. 

This.