The New Republic assembled a panel of historians and veteran political observers to discuss Obama, Clinton, and Trump. I think you will find the discussion illuminating, or certainly interesting.
“TAKING THE LONG VIEW
THE PARTICIPANTS IN OUR FORUM ON OBAMA’S LEGACY
NELL IRVIN PAINTER is professor emerita at Princeton and the former president of the Organization of American Historians. Her most recent book is The History of White People.
ANNETTE GORDON-REED is a professor of law and professor of history at Harvard. She won the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize for her book The Hemingses of Monticello.
SARAH JAFFE, a fellow at the Nation Institute, is a journalist who reports on labor and social movements. She is the author of the new book Necessary Trouble: Americans in Revolt.
JOHN B. JUDIS, a former senior editor at the New Republic, is the author of The Populist Explosion: How the Great Recession Transformed American and European Politics.
ANDREW SULLIVAN, a former editor of the New Republic, is a contributing editor at New York magazine. His most recent book is The Conservative Soul, on the future of the right.”
It begins like this:
“From the moment Barack Obama was elected in 2008, he began to disappoint those who had believed in his message of change. He appointed entrenched Washington insiders to his Cabinet. He put Wall Street bankers in charge of regulating Wall Street banks. He compromised with Republicans on the economic stimulus, slowing the recovery for millions of Americans. He refused to push for universal health care, and deported two million immigrants. He failed to shut down Guantanamo, dispatched another 60,000 troops to Afghanistan, and launched hundreds of drone strikes that killed countless civilians. Today, income inequality continues to rise, and big banks are bigger than ever, and student debt has hit a record $1 trillion. Democrats have not only lost control of every branch of the federal government, they are weaker at the state level than at any point since 1920. Those who thought they had elected a bold and inspiring populist were surprised to find him replaced by a cautious and deliberate pragmatist.
“Now, eight years later, many of Obama’s critics suddenly find themselves yearning for the euphoria that accompanied his election, and fearing for the small but significant progress he made on a host of fronts: equal pay, expanded health care, nuclear nonproliferation, global warming. It’s not just that hope and change have given way to fear and loathing—it’s that so few of us saw it coming. Right-wing extremists, it turns out, aren’t the only ones who live in a faith-based reality of their own making. From Brooklyn to Berkeley, American liberals have cocooned themselves in a soothing feedback loop woven from Huffington Post headlines, New York Times polls, and repeat viewings of Madam Secretary. If nothing else, Trump’s election demands that we return to the real world in all its complexities and contradictions, and confront our own obliviousness.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Interesting read, indeed. Interesting how the divide in Clinton is by gender.
Interesting to see how his black identity has totally wiped out the white part of him – no reference at all to the fact that he truly IS African (Kenyan) American. Not raised by his father, but mostly by his white grandparents.
Interesting how many people expecting him to be a president for black America – and were disappointed.
Also interesting how the participants were politically one-sided.
Interesting how his major theme during the election was “Change” and how he brought in Washington/Wall street insiders.
I agree with their description of “the man” Obama. He is a caring, considerate person. His language about his opponents in both elections was not condemnatory. He truly tries to understand where his opponents come from.
Of course, the cry of ” one term president” is uttered every time the opposition wins, so that gets a lot more attention than it deserved.
The opposition would not do its job if that was not the intent.
Learned a lot so it was worth the long read.
LikeLike
Critics will argue about the Obama years for decades to come. Everyone has an opinion about Obama’s legacy and his missteps. It is interesting that no one mentioned his education policy as a failure, and I am sure the readers of this blog would condemn Obama’s blind allegiance to “reform.”
I hope Obama does work with the Democratic party on gerrymandering as it is a significant reason that the Republicans have taken over so many states. His time spent on this issue would help to restore some fairness to state election, and it is a far better alternative to making speeches at Goldman Sachs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. Fascinating plus depressing.
Unless I missed it, I saw not one mention of what happened in public education. Do any of those people have children? If you want to talk about legacies, one of Obama’s biggest legacies was the undermining of public school systems throughout the nation through national funding of a movement to encourage private “competition” regulated only by states with the federal government giving billions and saying “we aren’t responsible for how you spend it, wink wink”.
And I am also struck by the pure vicious hatred that Andrew Sullivan has for Hillary Clinton. He sounds as unhinged as the alt right and Hillary-hating left when he talks about her. The big difference between Sullivan and the alt right is that when he talks about Obama, it is tantamount to hero worship — you’d think Obama was the leader in bringing about gay marriage instead of the man who had to be dragged to it! Sullivan has absolutely no perspective on either Obama or Hillary and I was embarrassed for him – he added almost nothing to the conversation.
LikeLike
I agree, no mention of education and Andrew Sullivan is a damn jerk. He has Clintons derangement syndrome, he especially hates Hillary. And he accuses the left of Marxism or of using Marxist tactics. That makes him sound like the typical right wing dung throwers that we have to endure in this country. Just try talking about universal health car and the righties scream Marxism. Just try discussing a minimum wage, paid sick leave, paid maternal/paternal leave, etc., and the righties scream Marxism or socialism!!!!!! Boo!
LikeLike
Sullivan has a way of ruining everything with which he comes in contact. Painful to read because of his consistent bloviating. I actually liked the boxed commentaries more.
The one thing about President Obama I will miss is his sense of decency. The more we get of Trumpism, the more people will appreciate it. I only wish he had discarded decorum to be more passionate about the things he campaigned on in 2008. His compromising on the stimulus package and retreat on rolling back the Bush tax cuts did, retrospectively, give us all a vision of what was to come. He did not, as FDR did, revel in the hate of his opposition in his political strategy and tactics.
Also, his harsh deportation policy, war against whistleblowers, and strict aversion to the press will only serve as precedents for Republicans to act on their most sinister compulsions.
As for Clinton-bashing, I’ll leave that to future historians. Recycling this storyline over and over (and over and over) again does nothing but distract us from what we have to do moving forward. The more we engage in it, the happier the incoming fascist kleptocracy of the shouting yam will be to pursue their wrecking ball agenda.
LikeLike
I agree with you about President Obama’s sense of decency. He is a good man, wanting what is best for the country, with some human flaws that are understandable. Not perfect, but good. I too wish he would have fought for more — even if you eventually compromise, it is important to make it clear what Democrats stand for.
Obama’s position on public education, however, was incomprehensible to me. Faced with evidence that directing billions to states that did virtually no charter oversight had horrible results and enriching the few, he did nothing. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton – a policy wonk – would not have played the Sgt. Schulz “I see nothing” role that Obama did when it came to charters.
No doubt when President Obama starts making speeches for large sums of money and becomes very rich as every other President (and high profile politician) in history has done, he will be given a pass and no one will think that if he talks to Goldman Sachs for money or allows them to donate to any of his foundation he should lose his right to take any political stances because we all know that any stances he takes will only be to further the rich Wall Street pals that were so prominent in his administration.
Some Democrats get a pass, and some must be held to the highest standard ever and even the appearance of impropriety must lead us all to assume they are the most corrupt politicians ever, even if dozens of investigations can’t prove it. Andrew Sullivan’s opinions are word for word what I heard from the Hillary haters on the left. Oh, the irony.
LikeLike
One ex-president who has eschewed wealth, is Jimmy Carter. He is a fine and decent man, and he should serve as example to all ex-presidents.
LikeLike
From my perspective, GW fits in there, as well. He has let Obama be president, without second guessing or commenting.
Obama used the “Presidents Club” effectively. By allowing Clinton and GW do the fundraising for Haiti.
Happy new year to all
LikeLike
Sullivan ardently advocated a vote for Hillary on Bill Maher prior to the election.
Amen to the idea that many liberals live in an alternate reality similar to, if not quite as bad as, the zealots on the Right. The Right is very post-truth, but the Left is post-truth in its own way and they’re happy to burn heretics at the stake. The Right is faith-based; the Left has its own pieties and sacred cows that are believed without empirical evidence.
LikeLike
“Sullivan ardently advocated a vote for Hillary….”
Yes, it’s shocking that with the kind of “advocating” that Sullivan (and the Hillary haters on the left who sound exactly like him) did anyone would not vote for Hillary.
Just kidding! Their support did more harm than good. When “even the Democrats” agree Hillary is corrupt, dishonest, ready to sell out all Americans for a buck, it gave the “liberal” media license to destroy her reputation. She went from being one of the most admired women to one of the most reviled. Here’s Sullivan, and he sounds remarkably like a poster I read on here:
“But because she’s just a dreadful candidate, and someone almost no one can imagine being president of the United States, she—
She’s a terribly unpopular person. Horrible: no inspiration, no political skills, complete mediocrity. ”
No one could imagine such a terrible woman being President! They might as well vote for Trump.
LikeLike
There was a moment in the Bernie Sanders Town Hall on MSNBC in which Senator Sanders said about Trump that you don’t reform Wall Street by putting Goldman Sachs in your cabinet. All the Trump voters put their heads down in disappointment with themselves, and barely perceptibly nodded. Trump will put Goldman Sachs in his cabinet. Obama put Goldman Sachs in his cabinet. The Clintons have Goldman Sachs in their bank accounts. The Democratic and Republican Parties are in tatters, but Goldman Sachs is richer and more powerful than ever before. This is the problem. Everyone we elect gets Goldman Sached. The tools needed to oppose the big banks are not in the White House and haven’t been since FDR. It’s up to the People. Boycott. Occupy. Organize. Teach.
LikeLike
At this point the Democrats are in much worse shape than the Republicans who are getting a second wind with the election of “agent orange.” He plans to exterminate all things public.
LikeLike
SULLIVAN: His [Obama’s] other failure is not doing enough to confront the identity politics of the left. Because the left’s obsession with race and gender and all the other Marxist notions helped create the white identity politics that is now going to run this country.
Marxist notions? Geez, Sullivan was channeling his inner right wing troll.
LikeLike
all I read was the “it starts like this”……does anybody ever get around to talking about education?
Bill Gates is the biggest part of Obama’s presidency. Loss of enthusiastic support for democrats by teachers…..the republicans could not have asked for a more valuable gift.
LikeLike
That opening of the New Republic article is so very accurate. I voted for Obama twice; the first time because I actually believed his rhetoric, and the second time because I wanted to believe his rhetoric in spite of his failure to fulfill it. The opening of the New Republic article left out mention of how Obama sold out public schools to the charter school movement of billionaire hedge fund people who had funded his campaigns — and the opening left out Obama’s most infamous and damning failure: When he failed to act on his “line in the sand” pledge to defend the people of Aleppo if the Russians and Syrian government used chemical weapons, he gave them the green light to do just that…and they did. There’s a quote in The Los Angeles Times from the principal of an elementary school in Aleppo after it had been bombed: “I could see bodies everywhere. I could see children with crayons still in their hands, dead.” Obama has their blood on his hands.
LikeLike
Regardless of his educational policies, which i did not like or agree with he was an elegant and eloquent president and he will be missed.
LikeLike
Obama has been a dignified, eloquent president. No question. His education policies have been a disaster.
LikeLike