as agreed upon by historians, say, a decade after his 2nd term
A successful rollout of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, loose monetary policy culminating with unemployment below 6.5% and a middling long run deficit agreement.
Honestly, I don’t think he’ll be ranked among the greats. If he had the capacity for greatness, we’d have already seen it - a great president would have said in his first term, “I’m going to do what I think is right as a matter of principle, even if it costs me re-election.” A president who waits for his second term to reach for greatness, doesn’t have greatness in his soul.
The only thing now that will thrust Obama into greatness would be leadership in a major crisis like a war - and hopefully something like that won’t happen.
Isn’t getting ACA through (while facing more obstructionism than perhaps any POTUS ever) nearly exactly that?
Helloooo!!! Everybody really seems to forget that Obama was a fairly good President while he had a BIG international financial crisis and two international wars on his hands, both inherited from Bush.
And he still managed to give you guys something approaching decent healthcare.
I’d say he ranks up there.
So, eventual massive inflation and high unemployment (if 8+% unemployment is the problem 6.5% is no answer!!!) is what it takes to be listed as the top ten of all Presidents???
I had no idea that Jimmy Carter was one of our best presidents,** EVER!!!**
Especially since I was an adult then, and remember how bad it sucked! I musta been high huh?:rolleyes:
No, I don’t see this as greatness. I think Obama might be heading for the ranks of presidents like Clinton and Eisenhower - successful presidents but not great presidents.
OP asked what it would take for Obama to crack the top 10 in a certain set of lists he gave. On those lists, Clinton is around 20th and Eisenhower is around 10th. If you consider Eisenhower “successful, but not great,” that’s fine; that’s enough to make the top 10!
I dunno, although it’s not on the cards right now - if Obama were to broker a deal with Israel leading to lasting peace - or if the “Arab Spring” really gathers pace and grows exponentially he could be propelled into the top ten.
ETA - if he could bring North Korea into the international fold and do something lasting for Iran as well then perhaps - both are unlikely, but not totally impossible if enough things go well in other areas.
I think there is virtually nothing that he could do that would put him on a top 10 list of presidents within 10 years of his second term. If he could successfully lead an initiative that results in a stable and peaceful Middle East AND the Affordable Care Act is successful then within a couple of generations then I could see him being rated in the bottom half of the top 10 presidents.
What he needs to get on a Top Ten list is a friendly list-maker. American politics is now too partisan for anyone to agree on how great various presidents are, and it’s been that way at least since Reagan. And if 30 years isn’t long enough hindsight to come to an agreement on Reagan, 10 years certainly won’t be enough for Obama.
Obamacare, as ugly as it is, is just a step towards socialized medicine. I dont think he will get the full credit for this monumental step.
An economic turn around would make him top ten easily.
W positioned the US to be one of the most hated countries in the world. Obama has patiently worked on coalition building without weakening us. This has probably been one of his most important feats.
I think ushering in transitions to Western-style democracies in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iran would do it (Iran obviously being the long shot).
A successful ACA roll-out would help, but I think that is somewhat out of the President’s (any President’s) hands right now.
This.
A successful handling of First Contact and our admittance into the Galactic Federation would do it, but that’s about it. He was dealt a shitty hand and has played it…adequately. Good, but not great.
In order to be great, he must be faced with a great mission. Like winning WWII or dealing with The Great Depression. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
One might argue he has a shot if the economy comes roaring back, but if it takes 6-8 years for that to happen, I’m not so sure he’s going to get credit for it.
I think the best way to approach this would be to take stock of the top ten presidents and see what he’d have to do to be ranked better than one of them. I don’t want to put my own spin on anything, so I found an aggregate list of a lot of historians on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States (sort by the last column). Going by that list, he’s on there at 14, but he’s only ranked by one survey, which doesn’t mean much. Almost all of the ones listed above him are pretty safely better historically (though I’d strongly disagree with Jackson being rated anywhere near that high), and there’s a few rated below him that I imagine many people would rate higher like Clinton or Reagan.
So my thought, if he wins a second term and things more or less continue as is, he’ll be seen as probably a bit above average, but not one of the greats. I think to be one of the greats, he’ll need a war to break out and/or oversee complete economic recovery, and we’ll still have to see how ACA rolls out and how it’s viewed a decade or more from now. Or it’s possible that, in a generation, the recent economy will be seen similarly to the Great Depression, and the Bush/Obama roles will be seen similarly to Hoover/FDR, and ACA will be seen similarly to Social Security. If that’s the case, and I think it’s probably the best case scenario barring an international crisis, he might squeeze into the 10th slot, but I also think that that’s fairly unlikely.
So I’ll say that a generation from now he will probably be seen more in the mid to high teens in all-time rankings.
Dude, he isn’t going to get credit for it if it bounces back yesterday. The Wrong Wing will make sure of that.
Historical perspective will show how incredibly dire the economic situation was when he took office and the fact we avoided a major meltdown will be a huge plus in his favor.
It takes longer for historians to recognize the accomplishments of a president who does not serve in an extreme crisis.
The economic crunch and the continuing terrorist threats are crises, but I doubt they will ever be up there with the Civil War, the great depression or the two world wars.
Eisenhower helped end the Korean conflict, led America successfully during the cold war and the 50’s economic boom, and helped integrate the south. Yet historians only recently have begun recognizing his success as a president rather than the lucky holder of the seat during good times.
Hopefully, there is no crisis that can make President Obama look great.
The current economic trajectory is hopeful and if allowed to continue will at least make Obama a success in history.