Hence the phrase “the day may someday come,” which rather clearly means it hasn’t yet.
Historians will focus on Trump a lot more because it’s easy. It’s like presenting a glorious, beautiful puddle of wet sopping mud to a pig. Why wouldn’t the pig leap in and wallow about?
Whereas, to write a book about Obama, you have to go to much more laborious effort to dissect this or that, the pros and cons of Obamacare, the Iran deal, etc. Not much fun. It’s academic and tedious.
Historians have as much tabloid-writer in them as anyone else.
I just don’t see Trump as having that much significance as an individual.
If Trump was sui generis than he was something that happened for a four year period and now he’s over. He was a singular blot on American history.
I personally don’t feel this is the case. I think Trump is part of a larger historical movement; he’s a part of the story of the Republican party embracing the Dark Side. We’ve had a political party that has abandoned all principles and is dedicated to holding on to power by any means, legal or illegal (and to blurring the line between what’s legal and illegal). That is a significant event that future historians will talk about (assuming they’re allowed to).
But I feel Trump has a fairly minor role in that story. If I was a teacher or author a hundred years from now writing about the decline and fall of the Republican Party, I would focus on more active participants like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush (and Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater and Chuck Colson). Donald Trump would get mentioned but not as a principal mover.
I think this is his biggest role in history, and it is somewhat unique to him. Before Trump a GOP president like GWB or a defacto leader during a democratic administration like Paul Ryan would try to emotionally connect with the way most of the public views the arc of American history. All the while there was a far-right nationalist movement growing stronger in the party. Trump taking the nomination and then the presidency was the event where the switch flipped, the nationalists took over the party and they won an election without having to hide in the background any more.
I feel this is a dangerous idea. Even people think that all of the problems were unique to Trump, they won’t be watching the next guy. We need to realize there’s nothing unique about Trump and there have been and will be plenty of other people like Trump out there.
We got rid of Trump. Now we need to get rid of the organization that gave power to Trump.
Yeah I definitely don’t think the problem is unique to Trump. I think Trump’s takeover of the party and the country is unique in its significance in shifting from a nationalist base that’s in the background to being in the driver’s seat.
To what end, though?
Trump lost congress and lost his bid for re-election. His domestic accomplishments were judges (rubber stamping McConnell’s choices, anyone could do that), tax cut (going to be done by any R) and tariffs. He’s got tariffs.
Trump hearkens back more to the 1920s style isolationist Republican than anything in the Ike through W line. Which was more successful? That is part of Trump’s fascist appeal, that the past seems obliterated, even the successful past, but that never lasts. So eventually you need to get back to the reality of what is going on. So if you’re a historian, writing about Trump, you need to get down to what is actually going on.
Meanwhile Biden is going to likely sabre rattle if possible, to siphon the GOPe away or further discontent them with the Trumpists. Trump has made about as many enemies in politics as it’s possible to make, with what to show for it? Meanwhile, many people far smarter than Trump are plotting daily about drowning the Trumpist baby in the bathtub.
Unfortunately I think that Trump may represent and inflection point in our politics and we may be living with Trumpism for some time to come. In terms of a historical analogy I would point to McCarthy. Even high school text books have a section about McCarthyism that is used as an example of how the country can go astray. I don’t see that Trump had any less of an affect on our national identity that McCarthy did.
Obamas legacy will be akin to Thurgood Marshal, well regarded and trotted out every February along with George Washington Carver, but not inspiring his own ism.
In light of the videos being played into the permanent record of the Senate by the House managers, I think Trump will be the focus, hands down.
What did Obama do that has such a searing visual record attached to it?
Wore a tan suit?
“My eyes! Ze goggles - zey do nuzink!”
Well before Trump was doing it, Obama filled out a stadium for a speech (I don’t think Trump ever had over 75k folks at a stadium to hear his spech):
I think people forget what a rock star he was in that 2008 campaign.
This. History books tend to emphasize the mythic. We have had some other epic failures of presidents. They don’t get featured.
Trump had his chance: “lucky” enough to have a crisis to rise to. He flubbed it. We SHOULD be remembering these fails and learning from them, but history books cover them less well.
Three paragraphs to Thomas Jefferson’s single one (as President - he gets a few more mentions for his part in founding the country). (My kid’s AP US Textbook).
My experience is that Harding, Nixon and Hoover get far more mentions than competent but middling Presidents like Polk, McKinley or Taft. And History is judging Obama to be a competent but unexceptional President.
The deal with the first Black President (or the first Woman VP) is that its obvious. You put a set of photographs up, and its like “when does it start looking different” - Obama and Kamala stick out like sore thumbs. You don’t need to dedicate paragraphs to it. I suspect Obama will get more mentions during Black History month and during the study of the Civil Rights movement than he will during the study of U.S. Political History.
However, pushing the limits of our Constitution, pushing the limits of separation of powers, inciting insurrection - those are big deals that require context and explanation.
I think that Trump will be talked about more, by far. Obama’s presidency will be talked about for how it set the stage for Trump and triggered a white nationalist backlash and overt hostility to inclusive democracy. Obama will be talked about to put the Trump presidency in context.
How often is a backlash talked about more than the event that caused it? Is Jim Crow more momentous than the Civil War and the end of slavery? I don’t really think so. Hence, I don’t see the point of minimizing the election of Obama to highlight Trump. Obama’s election was more momentous than the backlash to it. Unless you think that the backlash quashes the election, that blacks will be banned from higher office or voting entirely because of it. Which needs to be shown.
Obama’s election was more significant that what it spawned. This thread shows that for many here, 2008 was a very, very long time ago, and more recent events seem much larger in significance.
All the time. To the extent that we talk about the Weimar Republic, it is to put Nazi Germany into context. Tsar Nicholas is remembered for the Bolshevik revolution that came after him.
Obama was the last in a line of typical American presidents. Trump is the beginning of the end of America’s aspiration as an inclusive democracy that includes all 50 states. The first in a new trend is always more remembered than the last of the previous.
Are we comparing Obama’s election to Trump’s election, or Obama’s presidency to Trump’s presidency?
Thurgood Marshall and Sandra Day O’Connor are going to get more mention than 99% of the white male Supreme Court justices.
Various Supreme Court decisions, good and bad, are going to be included in American history. Dred Scott? Sure. Mention the justices involved? I have no clue who they were. The event can be mentioned without mentioning every person in political position when it took place.
Trump had zero lasting policy impact. He does not rate significant mention in the COVID story, which is the singular historical event of his term. Maybe he will inaugurate a move towards secession, or totalitarian takeover. But that requires more competent men, and why wouldn’t the history books highlight those men, who are actually capable of implementing policy? Like W, who invaded Iraq? That’s less significant than Trump?