Presidential legacy

                Historians will invariably concern themselves with the legacy left by a President once they have left office. Inevitably, this requires a degree of historical detachment in order to properly identify. Although it is difficult to offer much in the way of overarching comments, we can at least state that foreign policy will usually play a key role given the President’s wider scope for action in this field. Obvious examples include Ronald Reagan bringing the cold war to an end, Nixon’s diplomatic initiative in China, FDR’s ‘arsenal of democracy’ and so on. The President’s domestic legacy will however reflect the wishes of Congress and the compromises he must inevitably make with the legislative branch.

                There is a vast swathe of literature upon the legacy of successive Presidents, and it is not my intention to cover that ground here. I simply want to limit my focus to George W. Bush and Barack Obama. As the former has now left office, it is more straight-forward to identify his legacy. The defining moment of the Bush administration was undoubtedly 9/11. This disturbing episode in our nation’s history transformed Bush into a “wartime President.” His approval ratings shot up in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington DC. The legacy of the Bush administration is therefore bound up within the narrative of 9/11. In the field of foreign policy, this would include wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In the domestic realm, the Bush administration placed greater restrictions upon civil liberties in order to deal with the threat of terrorism. Defining events range from the Patriot Act to the color-coded warnings from the Department of Homeland Security. One might also consider high-profile court cases such as Rasul v. Bush.

                In ideological terms, George W. Bush sought to govern as a compassionate conservative. During his eight years in office the scope and scale of the federal government increased substantially in order to pursue certain goals (such as protecting the national interest and improving education). The expansion in the role of the government provoked the ire of fiscal conservatives who felt that Bush betrayed the Republican Party’s mission to reduce the size of the state. Social conservatives however view Bush in a more favorable light. Religion was at the very center of his worldview, and he was unquestionably ‘one of them.’ Bush managed to promote a socially conservative agenda whilst avoiding any association with extremist elements of the religious right. Finally, Bush managed to push the Supreme Court a little further to the right.

                As for Obama, his legacy in terms of foreign policy is contradictory. In one sense, he may well go down in history as a man of peace because he brought troops home from Iraq and provided an exit strategy to NATO involvement in Afghanistan. He also received the Nobel peace prize, although that had more to do with not being his predecessor than any genuine achievement on his part. However, President Obama will go down in history as the man who ordered the assassination of Osama bin Laden and the man who ordered drone strikes on hundreds of occasions (and all this from a former professor of constitutional law). Whatever your stance upon such actions, they are surely contrary to the wishes of the founding fathers. To this dismay of liberals within his party, Obama continued many of the draconian policies instigated by his Republican predecessor. His failure to close Guantanamo Bay is a particular bug-bear for liberals in the Democratic Party.

                In the domestic realm, he has been in his own words an “extreme pragmatist” who has trimmed his ideological sails in order to govern effectively and gain a second term. This is consistent with many other occupants of the Oval Office, and one that is perhaps to be expected given the dynamics of politics in the states. His legislative achievements in the domestic field however are certainly of note. Examples that readily spring to mind include the Affordable Care Act, the bail-out of the car industry, anti-discrimination laws, cash for clunkers, student loan reform, tighter regulation of Wall Street, the Credit Card Act of 2009 and an expansion in the CHIP. Although they hardly compare with the New Deal, these are reasonably positive achievements for a progressively-minded President governing at a time of ideological polarization in the face of a largely obstructionist Republican Party (particularly in the House). In terms of the judicial branch, Obama has appointed two figures to the Supreme Court; both of which could be broadly cast as liberal.

We do of course need more time to properly assess his historical legacy, but at the time of writing; it seems reasonable to claim that historians may well reflect upon the striking similarity between the foreign policy approach of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Despite the obvious ideological differences between them, both men have adopted a broadly similar position on America’s place in the world and the need for military involvement. Both the neo-conservatism of the Bush administration, and the liberal interventionism of Barack Obama; have led towards military engagement in the world.

If we take a historical perspective, there are three figures from the 20^th century who truly stand-out (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan). Each one could be described as a figure that genuinely transformed the country. Whilst there is little ideological similarity between these three figures; their impact was truly significant. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was sworn in at a time when American capitalism was mired in deep crisis. Banks were closing all across the country, business confidence had collapsed and millions were losing their jobs. FDR campaigned on a pledge to restore optimism to a country that had lost its sense of direction during the Great Depression. During his legendary first one hundred days, FDR took decisive action to rescue the banking system and initiate government programs designed to get people back to work. In economic terminology, he implemented a bold strategy of Keynesianism in order to stimulate aggregate demand within the American economy. As the economy eventually recovered, FDR claimed credit for taking radical measures when the country needed decisive action.

                FDR was also successful in the context of the Second World War. He eventually managed to secure congressional approval for military action despite a deep-seated streak of isolationism within the legislative branch. He also managed to galvanize the country into military action at a time when memories of the First World War were fresh in people’s memory. Furthermore, the United States helped to secure victory for the Allies and thereby defend freedom from the forces of fascism in Europe and nationalism in Japan.

                FDR is not however without his critics. For instance, he was an imperial figure in that he broke the two-term convention and threatened to pack the Supreme Court with supports of the New Deal. According to fiscal conservatives, he also set the country on course for economic ruin due to the excessive cost of the New Deal. These are all reasonable comments to consider. Alas, they do little to diminish his reputation as a successful President. FDR took over a country adrift in the mire of the Great Depression, managed to take the country to the brink of victory in World War Two and implemented the most radical expansion of social liberalism the country had ever known.

                In common with FDR, Lyndon Johnson also became President when the country was facing deep-seated problems. LBJ took over a nation divided on the issue of civil rights. He managed to steer the country out of this turmoil and, in doing so; advanced the cause of civil rights in the face of implacable opposition within Congress. He utilized all his guile and physical persona in order to pass hugely controversial legislation, not least with members of his own party. The Civil Rights Act (1964), the twenty-fourth amendment (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) fundamentally changed America at a time when questions of race were tearing the country apart. It is difficult to imagine any other President succeeding in this area given the depth of opposition to such measures. He even had the courage to take on southern Democrats in the full knowledge that it might do lasting damage to his own party.

                Once again, LBJ is not without his critics. Those on the left oppose the manner in which he escalated the war in Vietnam for cynical electoral reasons. Equally, those on the right criticize both the hubris and the cost of his ‘Great Society.’ For many fiscal conservatives, the war against poverty exemplifies the very worst elements of federal overreach and government waste. Nonetheless, LBJ did more to advance race relations in this country that arguably any other President since Abraham Lincoln. This is a truly significant achievement by any standards.

                The final figure to consider is Ronald Reagan. He came to power when the country was experiencing economic and political decline. There was a deep-seated sense of malaise with the American system of governance. Moreover, the Soviet Union seemed utterly determined to escalate the cold war after an all too brief period of détente. Reagan’s political skill was to restore confidence in America at a time when the country desperately needed it. His folksy, optimistic tone connected with ordinary people opposed to what they saw as the fatalistic and unpatriotic tone of the liberal elite. Reagan took a tough line against what he memorably termed the Evil Empire, and his decision to greatly increase military spending (including the controversial Star Wars scheme) exploited the Soviet’s weak spot. In doing so, he did more than any other President to bring the cold war to an end. Frankly, it took genuine courage to make such decisions.

                In an ideological sense, Ronald Reagan launched the conservative revolution against the forces of liberal-secularism. He gave voice to widespread concerns about a decline in the moral fiber of the nation after a decade characterized by Roe v. Wade, permissive attitudes towards sex and an increase in the number of children born out of wedlock. The conservative revolution (or counter-revolution if you prefer!) marked a turning-point in the country’s history. Along with FDR, Reagan could be depicted as the leader of an ideological movement that fundamentally changed American society. Reagan could also claim to have changed the opposing party, predicating the emergence of new Democrats who would eventually concede that the era of big government was over.