How much will Obama’s being black matter in the end? In, say, 20 years, will it be a major or minor aspect of his presidency and, to the extent that it will matter, in what specific way will it matter most?
Racism is such a central feature of American history that �first black president� will always remain fundamental to Obama’s historical significance, and the fact that his election put a black family at the center of American public life will remain a major aspect of his presidency. As a historical touchstone, I expect Obama’s presidency to do several contradictory things. For some Americans, it will continue to validate �post-racial� assumptions and attitudes: They will take Obama’s presidency as evidence that America’s racial problems are mostly in the past. For others, the fact that Obama was able to do relatively little to redress racial inequality will highlight the enduring structural and institutionalized character of American racial inequality.
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)?
Party polarization is a long-term structural phenomenon, the roots of which are dug deep into American society and which has grown seemingly ineluctably for more than three decades. Party polarization has, quite simply, left politicians with very little incentive to reach across the aisle. Historians will recognize that one political figure�even the president�could have done relatively little about so profound a phenomenon. Because historians will appreciate how powerfully polarization constrained Obama’s presidency, they will ask whether more could have been accomplished during the period of unified Democratic control. In the post-2010 period, the question will be whether Obama ought to have traded off some Democratic priority�perhaps agreed to cuts to Social Security�in exchange for a �grand bargain� of one kind or another. Because this is essentially a political question rather than a historical one, answers will vary.
Will future historians conclude that Obama weakened or strengthened the office of the president? Will the policies he enacted without congressional cooperation represent a strategic victory or a dangerous escalation of executive power?
Historians will recognize that Obama’s assertions of executive power are a natural response to the intersection of two long-term developments within the American political system: the tendency of the American public to invest their hopes and expectations in the president, with little recognition of the constitutional constraints on the president’s power; and party polarization, which after 2010 made it practically impossible for Obama to fulfill the hopes invested in his presidency by working with Congress. I think history will find that he used his authority in ways which were not dangerously anti-democratic.
Will the Obama years come to be seen as a major realignment in Democratic politics? As a historian, how would you predict the longevity of his coalition?
I think probably not. Voting levels did rise significantly in 2008 and 2012 in ways that reshaped those elections; it’s unclear whether this will continue beyond the Obama years. Durable realignments tend to come when large numbers of people who previously did not participate in politics start participating and become durably attached to a political party. Obama had a chance to do this with young people and with first- and second-generation Americans. On both counts, he underperformed. Many of the young people energized by his 2008 campaign subsequently became victims of the Great Recession�a devastating event for many young people�and grew disillusioned with politics; this prevented Obama from permanently attaching millennials to the Democratic Party. The Democrats’ failure to do much for first- and second-generation Americans prior to Obama’s executive order on immigration likewise represents a missed opportunity to bind an emerging group of voters to their party.
Incidentally, this might have played out very, very differently had Obama been elected a year or two later�as the recovery was getting under way, rather than as the recession was entering its most acute phase.
Will future historians concur with the administration’s own narrative of having saved the country from another Great Depression? Or will Obama’s economic legacy be seen as a lackluster performance or, worse, a failed attempt to reform the U.S. economy in any meaningful way?
Historians will credit Obama with having presided over a comparatively successful response to the Great Recession, but they will also note that he did relatively little to enact structural reforms in the U.S. economy. In other words, they will say that he did a comparatively good job restoring the status quo ante. Six years into Obama’s presidency, the American recovery is a success story when compared to most developed nations; historians will ascribe this in part to the American policy response, as many economists have already done. However, historians will also note that Obama was able to do relatively little about the long-term trends of his age: rising inequality, stagnant real incomes, shrunken intergenerational mobility. He has made the tax code a bit more progressive and has made important investments in new technologies, but he has mounted no full-scale attack on economic inequality.
What single action could Obama realistically do before the end of his term that would make the biggest positive difference to his historical legacy?
Though it’s largely out of his hands at this point, I would say effective implementation of the executive order on immigration. If the Democrats can win the loyalty of Hispanic voters moving forward, it will be a major political legacy.
What will be seen as Obama’s single most significant accomplishment?
The Affordable Care Act.
Will Obama’s reputation have improved or declined in 20 years?
His reputation on domestic policy will improve considerably as the enduring significance of his accomplishments comes into clearer focus: the comparative success of the U.S. response to the Great Recession, the Affordable Care Act, stronger environmental regulations, and perhaps some long-range investments made via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. On foreign policy, it is too early to tell�it will depend heavily on what happens around the world (particularly in the Middle East) in the next decade or so.
Which of his speeches and phrases will be the most enduring?
His 2004 DNC speech (less for its content than for its political significance) and 2008’s �A More Perfect Union.� (Note that both of these preceded his presidency.)
Will the image of Obama overshadow his accomplishments, in the manner of JFK?
Yes, in the sense that his symbolic significance as America’s first black president will likely precede his policy achievements in the public imagination�though unlike Kennedy, he will be able to point to major policy achievements.
What will be the most lasting symbolic image of the Obama presidency?
Election Night, 2008; and the image of the First Family.