Today is officially "Presidents Day," so it seems a perfect time to recommend a lengthy piece by James Fallows in The Atlantic entitled "Obama, Explained."
It really isn't about Obama - not much anyway. Fallows spends much more time examining how we tend to evaluate Presidents in a historical and political context - deciding, for example, who were our "greatest" Presidents. It's a theme I visited only yesterday, by accident, in discussing Dwight Eisenhower, and Fallows has some useful insights on it.
One sample: Fallows suggests, correctly I think, that our evaluation of Presidents depends heavily on whether they are elected to a second term or not. If they are, we will tend to view their accomplishments more favorably; reelection in itself suggests "success," and if there were missteps or false starts in the first term, they'll be seen as part of an overall long-term strategy. A two-term President gets "credit." On the other hand, the one-termer may be downplayed, and even his real achievements during his one term may be discounted.
If you're interested in politics, and in the historical assessments of our Presidents, this is for you.
Comments