01-19-2017, 03:14 PM
(01-19-2017, 02:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:In a previous post on the old forum site, I gave Obama a provisional B- grade, which was consistent with what a poll of historians gave him around the same time. I would have rounded that up to a solid B if (1) his heir apparent had won the election (She didn't.); (2) or his Supreme Court nominee had been confirmed (He didn't even get a hearing.); (3) or his signature legislation--the Affordable Care Act--appeared secure from repeal (A foregone conclusion that it won't be).(01-19-2017, 11:18 AM)David Horn Wrote:(01-18-2017, 05:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As has been pointed out, if voting for Trump was voting against the Establishment, it seems he has appointed the Establishment to all his top assistants and advisors. The people who voted for "Trump as anti-Establishment" were merely conned by a reality-TV star.
Obama didn't go far enough against Wall Street, although he went farther than Bush, who started the process without the accountability requirements which Obama added, and without the Wall Street reforms in Dodd-Frank that the Republicans and the Tea-Party-so-called "populists" are crying to repeal. So, Obama was not far enough left for "populist-socialists" like me, but that doesn't mean he wasn't farther Left and more anti-establishment than the Republicans and Trump, whom many were duped to vote for.
So my statement is not wrong at all; no-one here is duped into thinking that Democrats are reliably Left or socialist-populist. The Reagan memes have continued their domination through all administrations Democrat or Republican for 37 years. As for Democrat vs. Republican, there is a clear difference in degree. But these two parties do not represent Left vs. Right in any absolute sense.
Hurting them less is not the same as easing their pain. That's the long and short of it.
The recession was cured; more people got jobs. More got health insurance, and lives were saved. Another crash was prevented. Jobs were created in new clean energy. Fewer people were killed in needless wars. I'd say Obama eased some pain.
Given the sheer enormity of the challenges that he faced--the Great Recession, first and foremost--I would probably place Barack Obama somewhere in the second quartile of US presidents. Better than mediocre, but definitely not great. And if S&H theory is to be believed, greatness was called for.
I agree with Stephen Walt's overall assessment of our 44th president:
"53 Historians Weigh In on Barack Obama's Legacy"
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...egacy.html
Obama’s presidency was restorative, not transformative.
He was most effective as a “normal” president, and he helped put the presidency back on a human scale. He was a devoted and involved father, a loving husband, a man with acknowledged (albeit minor) vices, and someone who made it clear that he did not regard himself as omniscient. As president, he showed that effective governing requires careful deliberation, discipline, and the willingness to make hard and imperfect decisions, and he let us all watch him do just that. Even when one disagreed with his choices, one knew that his acts were never impulsive or cavalier. Future historians will give him full marks for that.