Obama, Clinton, and future presidential rankings

The sublime irony of today's prevailing discussions of President Obama's "rescue"--just in the nick of time--by President Clinton is an obvious one, perhaps too obvious to qualify as true "irony," but which I'll qualify anyway. And the irony is this:

In roughly 10 years, Obama, I would wager, will be ranked by presidential historians as "near great," while Clinton will retain his ranking of "average." In 50 years, Obama well may achieve "great" status, joining the likes of Franklin Roosevelt; Clinton, however, will remain average, as average as Taft.

Some of Obama's "greatness" will emerge from the deliberate and determined: healthcare reform, for example, was, until Obama, a mere presidential aspiration for a century--now it's the groundwork for achieving true universal coverage and a vital overhaul of America's insanely expensive healthcare system. Dramatic improvements in that system will take years to materialize and be recognized by historians, however, just as the long-term benefits of Obama's deliverance of the auto industry or pulling us from the brink of another Great Depression will settle in the historical mind only over time, lots of time.

And Obama, almost certainly, still has another term to go, one in which he also may well preside over the total disintegration of the nearly two-century-old Republican Party.

Meanwhile, Clinton's place in presidential history is essentially fixed. Yes, he balanced the budget and oversaw a booming economy. So did Calvin Coolidge.

In short, Barack Obama will be remembered as a great or near-great president (again, that's just my bet, but there you have it). Bill Clinton, on the other hand, though surely remembered as a pol's pol, much like a Henry Clay, will be--presidentially speaking--largely forgotten by future generations.

The irony of rescues and reputations, then, becomes pretty obvious. 

Comments

[Turgidson]

I don't disagree, but I think you're selling Bubba a little short. Part of what makes a president's legacy is whether a crisis occurred on their watch or awaited them upon taking office, and their response. Hence FDR and Lincoln at the top, Hoover Buchanan and GWB at the bottom.

This isn't to say Obama was lucky to inherit the biggest shitstorm we've seen in 80 years - far from it. But as far as building and cementing a legacy in the long haul goes, it was an "opportunity" of sorts. And I totally agree that when the dust settles, when the right wing's nonsensical blather about how everything he does is pure evil becomes a memory, his legacy will blossom. Perhaps sort of like Truman's did, justifiably.

I don't think Clinton will be forgotten, though. He'll be a lower-tier version of Ike in terms of reputation. Eight years of relative tranquility, a booming economy, and warm feelings internationally, even if they didn't shift any paradigms, will be warmly remembered as they should.

[Robert Lipscomb]

Clinton, as with Nixon, is a conundrum for anyone trying to assess him. He has a genius for politics, great ambition and a need to be seen as great. Both men had a conservative governing streak, in that they targeted the possible.

Clinton achieved many important things but nothing truly "historic". All those achievements were overshadowed by an inclination to self-destruct via sexual liasons. As with Nixon, he was forever tainted with impeachment.

Both men lived relatively long lives after their presidencies. Nixon morphed into the reigning sage on the subject of international politics. Clinton is becoming the reigning sage on domestic politics.

Clintonism is basically triangulation which he used to great effect. But that this governing technique more than a governing philosophy. He tried a big thing (healthcare reform) and failed.

Obama's even temperment masks a riverboat gambler's instinct for going big. And like most professional gamblers, he has an instinct for not going too big.he remindsme more of Theodore Roosevelt - without the bombast.

[Peter G]

Since Turgidson already made the point I was thinking about I'll leave Bubba's legacy to those future historians. Personally I like Clinton and I believe he deserves some historical respect. I concur that Obama will be seen as one of the great ones in the long term. He has certainly had more than the standard ration of crisis/opportunity. I wonder, though, what historians will make of the daily fulminations of nuttiness emerging from the right. Mass psychosis?

[japa21]

At age 65, I hope to be able to smile as those ratings start popping up. In my mind, and I admit to a little bias, he already is in the near great category simply because of what he has accomplished despite all the opposition.

[priscianus jr]

At first I was kind of startled by your remarks about Clinton, and I asked myself if you could be right. Don't misunderstand, I never was a great fan of Clinton. But his speech last night was phenomenal, reminding us of what a really brilliant guy he is -- Coolidge didn't come anywhere near him in that regard.
So I ask myself, what is it about Clinton? Why wasn't such a brilliant man one of the really great presidents? And I think the answer is that Clinton, for all his tremendous abilities, was always too much of a go-along-to-get-along guy. The GOP hounded him from day one, and all he did was try to get along. I know a lot of people perceive Obama that way, but it's not so. Obama has always had a firm vision of where he wanted to take things, Clinton never seemed to realize where he was being taken.
Ironically, it is Obama's leadership that allows Clinton a little more perspective and to work WITH him in that speech, for the good of the country. I don't know if he "saved" Obama, he certainly helped him a lot. But that's only because working to help Obama allowed Clinton to get out from under his own ego a little.