Will future historians blame Obama for not getting more done in a climate of Republican obstructionism, or will he be given a pass for it? More generally, to what degree will his presidency be seen as �transformative� (the word he used to describe the Reagan administration)?

Obama will not be a transformative president in the mold of FDR or Ronald Reagan. He may be regarded as a very successful president, perhaps even a great president, but those determinations will derive from interpretations of his tenure in ways that do not track the usual markers of transformation. So-called transformative presidents forge lasting coalitions for their political party, shape a coherent and distinctive agenda of public policy, and rebuild institutions in ways that perpetuate their coalition and their policy agenda. Crucial to all of this is a public philosophy that gives meaning to the president’s political vision and Constitution understanding. Obama has no public philosophy, save a commitment to pragmatism�a kind of anti-public philosophy. Thus it will be impossible for him to be transformative in the mold of FDR or Reagan. Should his extraordinary achievement of comprehensive health care be sustained, it will represent the culmination of the New Deal�a prior transformation� rather than a distinctly new policy trajectory. Again, this does not mean that Obama will be regarded as an unsuccessful president. In my view, the restoration of the economy under his watch, comprehensive health care, discreet foreign-policy successes, withdrawing from two war zones, and evidencing the worth of multilateral efforts in foreign policy will all, taken together, mark his tenure as very successful. These successes, however, are all pragmatic supplements to prior transformations rather than elements of a new and lasting political coalition or constitutional vision.