Obama's Legacy

[dmcheatw]

What do you all think about Obama's presidency? I recently watched a CNN documentary on this which i linked below. I think it's a little pro-obama biased, but overall had some good info in it.



Keeping in mind I'm not the most diligent with politics and current events, my own opinion is that he has been a solid president. Obviously by comparison to the 43 and 45th president's he'll look like a Lincoln or an FDR, but i think in the big picture he'll be in the top 1/3rd of all president's we have had as ranked by presidential scholars.

For the positives, I think his gutsiest move was how he handled the economy, especially in his first year. As disgusting as a bank bailout was, the global depression that would have followed the housing collapse if the govt. had not acted would've made the 30's look like a railroad boom town economy.

I think his signature legislation (ACA) was an excellent bet both for the literal health of our populace, and because it's almost guaranteed to be on the right side of history.

On the negative side, he (unsurprisingly) abandoned campaign rhetoric and governed from the center, while still facing the most political gridlock of any post-WWII president, so the "hope and change" were pretty much totally unrealized IMO, but beyond that his handling of the war on terror (fail to close gitmo, dramatically expanded drone campaign) are probably where I feel he failed most significantly. He'll be on the wrong side of history, and we're A LOT less safe now; in 2000 Islamic extremism was confined to Afghanistan, and parts of pakistan/Hindu Kush mountains. Now it's worldwide, with more proponents and more virulent than ever.

Related, some people have told me his line in the sand wrt Assad and chemical weapons and the failure to follow through is another big foreign policy gaff. From what the documentary said, seems like Assad had complied with destroying his chemical stockpiles leaving a question as to who was behind the sarin gas attack. In any event, I don't know enough about geopolitics and proxy wars to say whether increasing our involvement was warranted or not. Giving ultimatums is usually not a good idea, but sometimes the threat of force is effective foreign policy even if it's only intended as a bluff. He did campaign on deescalating military involvement in the mid-east, so in a sense he stuck to the original plan.

No matter what, I hope all can agree his personal conduct and the way he represented the office and the nation were second to none.

What do other people think? What were his best decisions? His worst? His most difficult? What do you think about the job he did running the country?

 

[pinochadeac]

Trump winning hurts his legacy. A lot should be rolled back.

 

[knowell]

Personally he set a fine example as a president.

Foreign policy was a disaster with almost no positives.

ACA was a disaster and needs to be undone as soon as possible.

Economy recovered but it took a very long time to do so. Could a more Reagan like approach have been much quicker? I think so. An incredible amount of small businesses went out of business over the 5-6 years of economic downturn. Had this been reduced to only 1-2 years, a vast amount of wealth would have been saved. Underemployment is still an issue.

Stock market was a definite positive for Obama. Cuba is a positive. I also see loosening of anti-drug laws as a positive and some slight movement against mass incarceration as a positive.

Overall, the greatest achievement is breaking the color barrier at the highest possible level. Otherwise, achievements will be considered modest.

 

[Deacfreak07]

Personally he set a fine example as a president.

Foreign policy was a disaster with almost no positives.

ACA was a disaster and needs to be undone as soon as possible.

Economy recovered but it took a very long time to do so. Could a more Reagan like approach have been much quicker? I think so. An incredible amount of small businesses went out of business over the 5-6 years of economic downturn. Had this been reduced to only 1-2 years, a vast amount of wealth would have been saved. Underemployment is still an issue.

Stock market was a definite positive for Obama. Cuba is a positive. I also see loosening of anti-drug laws as a positive and some slight movement against mass incarceration as a positive.

Overall, the greatest achievement is breaking the color barrier at the highest possible level. Otherwise, achievements will be considered modest.

I think this is a fair analysis.

 

[ChrisL68]

The economy wasn't going to bounce back that fast after losing that many jobs. It did about as well as can be expected. It took a year for the job hemorrhaging to stop.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Obama gave us the Bobs' turn to heel

 

[PhDeac]

The economy wasn't going to bounce back that fast after losing that many jobs. It did about as well as can be expected. It took a year for the job hemorrhaging to stop.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

This.

Many countries still haven't recovered at all.

Both knowell and 07 agree Obama's biggest accomplishment was being black.

 

[Deacfreak07]

This.

Many countries still haven't recovered at all.

Both knowell and 07 agree Obama's biggest accomplishment was being black.

I think that's an oversimplification of my position. I think while the ACA tanked, it can't be completely walked back. That was a real achievement that will benefit Americans for decades. That was the biggest investment of his political capital though. I do think we never really got a fair chance to see what Obama was capable of because left-libs can't get in line like republicans.

 

[dmcheatw]

I think that's an oversimplification of my position. I think while the ACA tanked, it can't be completely walked back. That was a real achievement that will benefit Americans for decades. That was the biggest investment of his political capital though. I do think we never really got a fair chance to see what Obama was capable of because left-libs can't get in line like republicans.

Apparently, according to the cnn/zakaria docu, on inauguration day 2008 a cadre of republicans met at the same time obama was being sworn in--when they were a minority in both houses--and vowed the only way to hold power was to obstruct obama at every turn, no matter what.

Not sure if that's what you're getting at, but id say based on that you're absolutely right we never really got to see what obama could do. He also had to use the other part of his "startup" capital on govt spending to stop the economic hemorrhage.

IMO the republican strategy was very effective, and I've wondered if dems ought do the same to trump, but the upsetting thing is the logical conclusion of non-participation in a democratic government is the failure of that govt.

Knowell - I think that was a concise and fair assessment. You're pretty insightful when you wanna be. (;

 

[simosfrostyone]

Obama's presidency will be a footnote. Imagine if he were white--what would you say about it?

 

[Deacfreak07]

Obama's presidency will be a footnote. Imagine if he were white--what would you say about it?

We would not say it was followed by the presidency of Donald Trump. That is 100% certain.

He would be remembered for Bin Laden, saving the economy, and the failed ACA. He will likely be remembered for all those things anyway.

 

[bmoneydeac]

The economy wasn't going to bounce back that fast after losing that many jobs. It did about as well as can be expected. It took a year for the job hemorrhaging to stop.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

A huge part of this was companies trimming fat and never putting it back on. I can tell a huge difference in my company both doing more with less from a personnel standpoint and also cutting way back on non-mandatory expenses (travel, big meetings, entertainment). Hence high profits with lower than hoped for economic growth.

 

[RChildress107]

I think his legacy will be defined more by what he does after leaving office than his time in it. His presidency was one of half-fulfilled potential, stymied by a GOP dead set on seeing him fail.

If things go completely off the rails over the next 4+ years, Obama will be remembered as being unable to prevent Republicans from eroding our democracy. If he is able to help the Democratic Party restore America's quest for a more perfect union he will be remembered quite fondly by history.

 

[dmcheatw]

Interesting I look at the ACA as potentially his greatest achievement while others see it as a failure.

the way I see it, if you pass fundamental, groundbreaking legislation with one party working to undermine it, there's going to be problems. Legislation like that will require across aisle support to tackle health care special interest, and several revisions to work out unintended consequences as they arise, which means a commitment to the legislation that spans multiple presidential terms.

If the ACA is a failure, you can make the argument that his legacy is a failure. But the ultimate fate of the ACA isn't in his hands. Like her or not hillary, would have worked to improve the ACA, as her entire career has been centered on universal healthcare. Trump says he'll "repeal and replace" but that's political suicide to jerk coverage out from under 20m previously uninsured americans. So we're left with a program badly in need of revision but with a successor with no interest in doing so.

Hard to say how it plays out, but it isn't just going away now that it's here.

 

[RChildress107]

I'm not sure it will actually be political suicide to take away people's healthcare. The pubs have done a masterful job of pinning all of the problems with Obamacare on Obamacare and I imagine that if they completely repeal it, taking away coverage for 20 million people, they will be able to pin that on Obama or the democrats as well. At least among Trump supporters.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Interesting I look at the ACA as potentially his greatest achievement while others see it as a failure.

the way I see it, if you pass fundamental, groundbreaking legislation with one party working to undermine it, there's going to be problems. Legislation like that will require across aisle support to tackle health care special interest, and several revisions to work out unintended consequences as they arise, which means a commitment to the legislation that spans multiple presidential terms.

If the ACA is a failure, you can make the argument that his legacy is a failure. But the ultimate fate of the ACA isn't in his hands. Like her or not hillary, would have worked to improve the ACA, as her entire career has been centered on universal healthcare. Trump says he'll "repeal and replace" but that's political suicide to jerk coverage out from under 20m previously uninsured americans. So we're left with a program badly in need of revision but with a successor with no interest in doing so.

Hard to say how it plays out, but it isn't just going away now that it's here.



the same thing?

As to the first bolded, he had 2 years without the need for any Republican influence, he could have set it up exactly how he wanted it, and he set it up as a shitshow. That is 100% on him, and he will never live that down. The ACA, and all of its flaws, are completely on him.

The second bolded reinforces my point on the first. It should have been in his hands, but he set most of the implementation (especially of the stupid shit) until after the 2012 election so that he had a shot of winning, which he most surely would not have if he put the implementation on a more reasonable timeline. So again, that is 100% on him.

Plus the disaster has his name, he isn't living that down.

 

[Shooshmoo]

Interesting I look at the ACA as potentially his greatest achievement while others see it as a failure.

the way I see it, if you pass fundamental, groundbreaking legislation with one party working to undermine it, there's going to be problems. Legislation like that will require across aisle support to tackle health care special interest, and several revisions to work out unintended consequences as they arise, which means a commitment to the legislation that spans multiple presidential terms.

If the ACA is a failure, you can make the argument that his legacy is a failure. But the ultimate fate of the ACA isn't in his hands. Like her or not hillary, would have worked to improve the ACA, as her entire career has been centered on universal healthcare. Trump says he'll "repeal and replace" but that's political suicide to jerk coverage out from under 20m previously uninsured americans. So we're left with a program badly in need of revision but with a successor with no interest in doing so.

Hard to say how it plays out, but it isn't just going away now that it's here.

Most dems on this board have fallen in with the oft-repeated right-wing lie that it is an abject, outright failure. Is it an absolute, outright success? No. If it is rolled back or eliminated, I suppose it is fair to call it a failure because it did not endure, but there is zero chance the Republicans don't make it worse.

And we would have single payer right now had dems not made concessions to pubs first on single payer, and then on the public option, and ultimately going with Romneycare to appease. Effectively, Obama's biggest mistake was making concessions to bad right wing ideas on the ACA.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

Bank bailout was a Dubya thing, not Obama. A necessary evil, I think, but would've liked to have seen some follow-up in breaking up some banks to avoid the same thing in the future. At least they paid back with interest the money owed. The GM bailout was Obama's thing. A financial loss, unlike the bank bailout. You could argue that it too was a necessary evil and worth the cost.

Obama came in with a lot of promise and a world eager to mend fences. He also had to deal with a GOP Congress for the last 6 years that was run by shitheels, although he had to do so in large part because of the ACA. I think he will largely be viewed as ineffective and detached. His insular academic style did not suit itself well for governance. His attempts to utilize executive power as a congressional run-around were political oversteps that just solidified his position in the minds of the opposition. The ACA was a disaster. Whatever benefit was gained from expanding Medicaid (and it's true that historians love anything that expands the welfare state) was offset by the damage done to the private end of things. And hell, the Medicaid expansion was still an overreach and largely gutted after SCOTUS review. The ACA was also the wrong signal to send to business early in his administration, and the subsequent 8+ years of "recovery" spoke to that. Foreign policy seemed pretty ineffective given that he had half the world ready to blow him on inauguration day.

No way he will be considered a top 1/3 President. His biggest benefit was handling himself outwardly with dignity and being articulate, something we get with about 90% of our Presidents and will probably miss for the next 4-8 years. He will be ranked in the bottom 1/5. It is mind-boggling that anybody would find him to be in the top 1/3 when his signature domestic achievement was a bad health care bill and his crowning foreign policy achievement was what exactly? Libya? Capping off a long manhunt for OBL? His first two years were not good and he kept a seat warm for the next 6 years.

 

[TownieDeac]

The bad:
While I don't place the blame squarely on Obama's feet for this, I think he leaves office with the country more divided than it has been since the Civil War, and not getting Hillary elected is his single biggest failure in office. He's not to blame for the erosion of discourse--that lies squarely with the safe spacers, whether they be cowardly Dems calling everything "problematic" or cowardly Pubs hiding behind a fear of some amorphous "PC." That, and more simply, the wrecking ball that is Donald Trump. So while the discourse low water mark of the American republic should not be part of Obama's legacy (quite the opposite, he was the most thoughtful and erudite I think we may have ever had, at least going back two generations), the failure to elect Hillary generally is.

Foreign policy is a real problem spot. I hesitate to call someone like Obama naive on any subject, but I think he was a bit naive on Afghanistan. Iraq seems demonstrably better as does Iran. Syria is obviously the biggest disaster of his presidency and now we have a Trump-Putin collective left to handle it, which is objectively terrifying. He continued to erode civil liberties and PATRIOT Act era opaque surveillance state policies, continued the drone wars, and his administration more or less decided of its own volition it was all legal with no real bipartisan oversight. Not closing Gitmo falls on a NIMBY Congress. He got Bin Laden, which, LOL Bushes.

Mixed:
I think ACA is a mixed bag. Its achievements are overshadowed by its flaws, and for that, it will never be a positive part of his legacy. Maybe if the next generation of presidents worked to make it better, it would be, but we all know that won't happen.

Good:
I think commuting sentences, walking back some of the disastrous Clinton-era drug sentencing laws, and generally being open to smarter drug policy will be viewed positively.

He fixed the economy, plain and simple. For that alone he should be considered an above average president. The fact that people even quibble about it taking too long is absurd. As Italy is about to tank again and we see other major countries around the world still feeling the effects of the crisis, America is very strongly poised to recover stronger than ever. Bank bailout had too few strings attached, auto bailout was more or less perfect. Not getting an infrastructure bill passed is squarely on the partisan Congress.

He restored dignity to the office of the President. He gave the office the international PR facelift it needed after the doofus before him, stayed entirely scandal free, and governed as a centrist. For those things alone, he should be judged above average. Like most presidents, he'll be judged harshly along partisan lines.

 

[TownieDeac]

Bank bailout was a Dubya thing, not Obama.

More or less true, though the $700BN deal in 2008 is nothing compared to the $16TN total govt commitment of TARP. People attribute the bailout to Obama rather than Bush (wrongly), but Obama deserves more blame than credit here.

Dodd Frank was supposed to be a check on all this money. Lobbyists have stalled implementing Volker until 2017, and obviously Trump is going to stall it further. Ratings agencies remain a joke. They're paid by banks in a clear conflict of interest, and we really have no way of knowing how good or toxic bank assets are as long as they're not independent.

William Banzai put the big bank problem in perspective when he said, “If we don’t get rid of the incentive to loot, then the only question is what form the next round of looting will take.”