As we enter a new year we find ourselves, as we do at least every eight years, with one presidency ending and another presidency beginning.
Is it possible to evaluate presidencies objectively? How do you do it? How do you evaluate a presidency objectively as it begins or while on an ongoing basis?
In the past I’ve suggested that the best way to do that is be comparing what the president accomplished to what he said he’d accomplish. There’s a phrase describing any other yardstick: bait and switch.
Is that fair? Is it adequate?
No, it isn’t fair to use that as the primary criterion because it ignores changing circumstances. A foolish consistency, etc… FDR didn’t say he’d win WW2 but we do rather consider that when judging his presidency. And of course with Donald success will be measured in how many of his ‘promises’ he jettisons in favor of rationality. Let’s hope it’s a lot. Like 100%.
I judge presidents (or anyone, I suppose) on how well they played the hand they were dealt. Lincoln was dealt the toughest hand ever and managed to win. FDR likewise had a very tough hand. Obama did as well, though if Lincoln’s hand was a 10 on the scale of badness and FDR’s was a 9, Obama’s was only a 7. I think it’s too early to say what history will say – and history changes its mind frequently, see: Harry Truman. The biographers will battle it out over the next couple of decades. But I suspect that sandwiched between the genially dumb George W. Bush and the nastily ignorant and unteachable Trump, Obama will at least seem to be an island of intelligence, elegance and humanity, however ineffectual he may be in the end. There’s nothing like standing between a couple of trolls to make a guy look handsome.
That’s fair enough, Michael, although I’m not inclined to provide too much wiggle room on defining “the hand they were dealt”. Otherwise you get into the situation of the guy on trial for killing his parents who threw himself on the jury’s mercy because he was an orphan.
Using a combination of the criteria I’d grade Clinton as C+ and GWB as D- on the grounds that Clinton played a good hand in a mediocre way and GWB had a tough hand that he played poorly and probably actually made worse.
By your criteria, I think you penalize someone who had a very ambitious agenda. Who is the better POTUS? The one who says he will accomplish 20 things, and does 10, or the one who says he will do 8 things, and does 5? Hard to say, and of course, the composition of those wins matters a lot. How good was the Congressional leadership? How intransigent the opposition? And, I think Michael is correct that you have to account for the degree of difficulty, especially the unexpected.
While you focused on accomplishments, let’s not forget the negatives. If someone said they would accomplish tax reform, and did, but then makes a couple of bad foreign policy decisions that cost us thousands of lives, how do you measure that? What we need is a WAR (wins above replacement) or something.
Steve
I’m not sure there is a metric or standard that would suffice to satisfy different partisan evaluations of a POTUS’s performance. This blog has attempted to elicit such responses. And, for the most part, commentary is varied, sometimes being in direct opposition to each other, depending on the writer’s own POV of what they either expect or want from their goverment and it’s presiding leader.
For instance Steve sees the PPACA as at least addressing health care issues & giving insurance to some not having it. Consequently, he defends the law, giving the administration credit for passing something, which probably is incorporated into a higher grade of achievement he might calculate for Obama. My perspective sees the unilateral passage as a fatal flaw that has crippled it’s public acceptance & effective implementation. Along with the failure of it’s exchanges, shrinkage of insurance providers, medical services and personnel, and the grief it has caused those who lost insurance coverage they liked, or have witnessed premiums and deductibles6 soar, I see Obama’s biggest touted achievement – the PPACA – as a myopic, partisan attempt in delivering a fair healthcare alternative.
I see economical gains and losses attributed to Obama’s presidency differently from Michael as well. He cites a lowered UE number and a muscular stock market as evidence of Obama’s skill in bringing the economy out of the 2008 fiscal collapse – applauding his presidency. OTOH, I look at the type of jobs created in the last 8 years – 94% of them being part time – as a treading water kind of employment feat, at best. In the meantime, poverty, racial divisiveness, crime, has all increased., and people are calling our current fiscal state as stagflation, with a GDP that struggles to reach 1-2%. Furthermore, the stock market gains are generally considered to be due to Fed manipulation and it’s overextended QE policies, rather than a substantial increase in good paying jobs and viable economic growth.
So, my evaluation of the achievements and reign of Obama are far different because they reflect different standards and expectations of a US leader. I would give him a D+ to C-.
BTW, a new AP poll, for what it’s worth, says that 55% of people feel 2017 will be better – a 12 point swing from the mood signaled last year.
I also personally feel Obama’s approval numbers will go down from the spectacularly high ones currently enjoyed. In these waning days of his presidency Obama is proving to leave under a cloud of petulance. The UN vote re Israel, emptying more prisoners from Guantanamo, installing rapid fire regulations, creating last minute federal muments and freezes, hiring federal employees as fast as he can , choosing symbolic punishments to finger-poke Putin – it’s all about exerting more power rather than simply managing and cooperating with the eminent change in power that is only weeks away.
I doubt it. After the end of their presidencies presidents’ approval ratings tend to go up from wherever they were when they left office. They rarely reach their highest approval rating while in office, however.
In Obama’s case that suggests his approval rating will go up a bit after he leaves office.
Hi all. There were some really great posts and comments recently but I’ve been too busy to respond until now.
This is a tough one. Personally, the metric I prefer is to look at accomplishments (they can be good or bad accomplishments), particularly those that are likely to be remembered in 50 or 100 years. By this criteria most Presidents are just average, with a couple of accomplishments that are historically important, but probably unknown to most people a generation or two down the line.
In those terms I see President Obama as being average. He’ll of course be remembered for his historic achievement of becoming the first black President and I think that alone will probably guarantee him a spot in the American collective memory. As far as political accomplishments I see him as a President during a time of transition and so I think his achievements will be viewed historically in that context.
For domestic policy, there isn’t much frankly. Obamacare was never meant by its proponents as a final end state and the reality is that it will have to be changed and subsumed into whatever future Congresses and Presidents do. What else is there that people will look back on and, more importantly, will be test questions on High School American history tests:
– Dodd Frank?
– DADT repeal?
What else?
On foreign policy I think he’s a transitional President. He will be the last, or near the end, of a line of Presidents, starting with Clinton, that pursued an aggressive policy of American exceptionalism around the world in what will ultimately be a vain attempt to export our values and democracy. His efforts did not succeed anywhere, but in fairness I don’t they would have succeeded under any President. Despite that I think he might get a couple of lasting accomplishments:
– Iran deal – a real accomplishment if it lasts, and I hope it does. I think he got the best reasonable deal he could have given the circumstances. The problem is that it is a political agreement and isn’t binding on future Presidents.
– New START treaty.
– Cuba opening
As for the rest, not much there or not stuff that is likely to be remembered by an average person:
– Iraq – Got out, then got back in.
– Afghanistan – Surge failed, war continued for his entire term
– Syria – Thankfully he will not be remembered for getting us into a stupid war with Russia’s client state. I doubt people in 50 or 100 years will know or care about the differences between Al Qaeda and ISIS.
– Libya – Created a North African Somalia – this has great potential to haunt his legacy.
– Drone strikes – indeterminate effect on terrorism, but could be remembered for intentionally killing the first American terrorist overseas with a drone.
– Normalization of relations with Vietnam
I’m probably missing some things.
What domestic accomplishments did any president achieve that we could all agree upon as being good? Not many. Reagan tax cuts for instance? Mixed reviews. Also, do we give them credit for avoiding scandals? How about just basic competence? After FEMA was such a disaster under Bush, would Obama get credit for the more professional efforts seen during his presidency? I think Obama will go down as average to a bit above average, given the level of opposition. Of course, some of that might just be his looking so much better than his predecessor and, so far, the guy following him.
Steve
I find myself fairly aligned with Andys comments. It will take time, if for no other reason than to see how much Obamacare is modified and how all those executive orders are unwound.
A second point, and contra the bias for action on this site for years, is that sometimes just steady stewardship is OK. Evrery president cant go to China or drive the Cold War to its conclusion.
But can anything make Jan’s point more than this: “and, so far, the guy following him.” ? “Evaluating a Presidency” based upon comparisons to a guy who hasn’t even been sworn in yet. Now THATS entertainment.
“…comparing what the president accomplished to what he said he’d accomplish. ”
Hope and change? Heal the earth? Lower your health care premiums by 25%? By that standard it was a sick joke.
It does occur to me, there is one metric that does not require time to evaluate. While the self congratulations was (still is) constantly on display, and the wild eyed adoration of some continues unabated, to have been a Democrat candidate for office has been akin to being a participant (on the less desirable side – heh) in a firing squad. Obama, we don’t know how to thank you.
Fair, but incomplete. Fair because it’s more objective and democratic to be judged by your own commitments. A POTUS who doesn’t create or seek an agenda is going to be drifting. Incomplete because developments will arise, particularly in foreign policy.
Since the question includes both foreign and domestic affairs, there is a pretty clear agreed criteria used first before others, which is did they win or lose a big war. That’s what ties Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Polk is rated very highly due to winning and Mexican war. Reagan has an outsized reputation among the post war presidents for winning the Cold War. Johnson, Nixon, W all rank low because they lost wars(among other factors)
On that score Obama is mixed, he didn’t lose any wars, but the US is no closer to winning then conflicts that started with Sept 11 then when he came to office.
After that you get into subjective and partisan criteria like domestic legislation, political influence, scandals (or lack of), and general prosperity.
It’s pretty hard to rank Obama, while there is time for disasters to happen on his watch, and many of his potential achievements requiring years to reach fruition or fail.
There may even be things we don’t talk about now, but may turn out to be big in future evaluations. In particular the rising white mortality rate and spiking crime in certain inner cities could definitely become a major topic when discussing Obama in the future. In 2000, Al-Qaeda and the economic bubble did not figure as much into Clintons legacy as they do now.
As an additive to the above comments there is something most presidents do – whether they are incoming, while in office or outgoing. They all deliver speeches to the people. As speeches are scripted beforehand, there usually is a finessed smoothness to their tone and wording, in order to deliver intentions or some ulterior purpose.
I see common ground between the incoming and outgoing men in such speeches, in that their words do not necessarily reflect their ultimate behavior.
For Obama, his words are laced with euphoric rhetoric – always denoting some higher, philanthropic goal. However, his actions and policy outcomes usually are far afield from his lofty words. Unfortunately, his memory bank seems to hold onto what his intentions were meant to produce. Consequently, when he reflects backward, he talks in glorious terms on his accomplishments, and dismisses any wrong turns or wreckage streaming behind him. Thus, I excpect his departure speech to be as grand and inspiring as was his 2008 ” A Perfect Union” Philadelphia speech was, aimed at his views on racial tensions before entering office. Of course most of us know how his presidency effected racial harmony during the last 8 years.
As for Trump, his primary and GE speeches were all weighed with pushing the envelop of sacred cows and political correctness. He appealed to base instincts, unspoken grievances, and people who usually provided the backdrops to society, rather than being ones with elite microphones, attending swanky fundraisers. Basically, Trump directed his focus and attention to the waiters at events, not the suits or celebrities. Consequently, his speeches were seen as uncouth, inflammatory, and aimed at creating societal upheavals . However, even before entering office he has dialed his rhetoric back. And, I think the policies and stances he attempts to execute will be far less drastic than his words initially signaled during the months leading up to his inauguration. I also see him as compromising more and interacting more with the opposition party than his predecessor, making him a more responsive and perhaps responsible POTUS.
So, while one man spoke softer, intellectual words, his actions were profoundly unilateral, ideologically aggressive, and insipid in dealing with world issues. And, while the incoming president-elect delivered harsh words, I think his actions will be more inclusively implemented – probably disappointing some of his hard core supporters, and surprising his critics.
We’ll see……..
Steve,
“What domestic accomplishments did any president achieve that we could all agree upon as being good?”
For the purposes of my criteria, I’m not placing any value judgments. Accomplishments, in this case, are things that are remembered or stand the test of time. I do think, however, that domestic policy failures rarely stand the test of time or are remembered – probably because future administrations fix failures so they don’t end up being lasting effects.
Andy, Re your comment about the Iran deal being a success…what about the IAEA reports suggesting Iran is breeching some parts of their end of the deal in buying armaments from Russia, missile testing, and most recently devulging “secret” aspects of what the US and other countries actually agreed too – asides that apparently Congress or the people weren’t privy to? What is good about something that was passed deceptively?