EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Too Soon To Tell? Judging A President's Progress

Presidents

First Posted: 3/18/10 Updated: 5/25/11

The New York Review of Books

Huffington Post: At the anniversary of the election of Barack Obama, we're taking a close look at how he's done and what his administration has accomplished. In the midst of the current news swirl around whether or not health care reform, Afghanistan, Iraq and other issues have been moving along at a swift enough pace, and whether or not candidate Obama would approve of President Obama, The Huffington Post, along with The New York Review of Books, thought it might be instructive to see how past presidents have been judged early in their tenures. Included are book reviews on the early days of Carter, George W. Bush, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy. Is it fair to ask so soon of a President, "What have you done yet?" Let us know what you think.

Abraham Lincoln

Two Speeches on Race
By Garry Wills

In his prose, Obama of necessity lagged far behind the resplendent Lincoln. But what is of lasting interest is their similar strategy for meeting the charge of extremism. Both argued against the politics of fear. Neither denied the darker aspects of our history, yet they held out hope for what Lincoln called here the better "lights of current experience"--what he would later call the "better angels of our nature." Each looked for larger patterns under the surface bitternesses of their day. Each forged a moral position that rose above the occasions for their speaking. Read More



Franklin Delano Roosevelt

FDR & the Depression: The Big Debate
By Benjamin M. Friedman

How to assess Roosevelt's actions beginning in March 1933--and, in parallel, Hoover's policies during the nearly four years of the downturn--has long posed a challenge to economists and historians hostile to government action. From that viewpoint, Hoover's reluctance to undertake government initiatives should be seen as admirable. But didn't it allow the downturn to become the depression? The economy recovered under Roosevelt; but the legacy of large-scale government remains anathema, both for the interference in the workings of private business and for the assumption of public responsibility for citizens' personal welfare, whether in housing or old-age pensions. Read More



Ronald Reagan

Know Thy President
By Nicholas von Hoffman

Somewhere along the line [Reagan] came to believe he wasn't the archetypal, irritable conservative with gas in his gut pressing to escape out of both ends. No, he would be the new FDR, the president he and his admirers seem to mention the most. He would make his party the party of the masses, and Democrats the party of the elite, a word these New Conservatives toss around with the same hauteur the New Left rowdies of a few years ago did. Van der Linden quotes Reagan saying, "The new Republican party I envision will not, and cannot, be limited to the country club-Big Business image that...it is burdened with.... It is going to have to have room for the men and women in the factories...." Read More



Jimmy Carter
Reading the Carter Riddle
By Garry Wills

When people say Carter is reckless in talking about human rights around the world, they have to remember that he trod a narrow line in the South, talking about black rights when he knew he could do very little about them--and perhaps when he did less than he might have done. He is not a dreamy idealist in this field. He knows how a Southerner can preach and preach, yet go for years to a segregated church. He brings something new to our executive politics yet old in the world of Congress. I wrote in these pages, three years ago, that the Democrat's best hope for a new presidential candidate would be some younger Sam Ervin. We may have just such a person on our hands--pious but pragmatic, maneuvering between homilies, always touching down, Antaeus-like, for strength at his backwoods base. Read More



George W. Bush

Eyeless in Iraq
By Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

Still, why did Mr. Bush and his close advisers decide to go to war against Iraq? I don't think he went to war in order to gratify the Halliburton Company or to please Israel or to avenge the attempted assassination of his father. He is a president who exults in big ideas. "I will seize the opportunity to achieve big goals," he told Bob Woodward. I suspect that he dreams of making his place in history by converting the Arab world to representative democracy. Read More



John F. Kennedy

To the Whitehouse
By Dwight MacDonald

I cannot let pass, however, a sentence on page 17: "While the Executive should wield all his powers under the constitution with energy, he should not be able to abrogate the constitution except in face of war, revolution or economic chaos." True that the sainted Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus and when the Chief Justice of the United States freed a Southern sympathizer on the ground he had been illegally arrested, kept the prisoner in jail nonetheless, observing, "Justice Tawney has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it"--an aside all too reminiscent of Stalin's famous query as to how many divisions the Pope commanded. Also true that Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt cut a few corners in wartime--and why is it always the great liberal presidents who do these things? Maybe because they have good consciences, supplied by intellectuals like Mr. Schlesinger. But even a liberal Northern Democrat might be given pause by the above formulation; he might think these wartime abrogations of the constitution were shameful and against his principles; he might remember that, except for Lincoln, no president, even in wartime, has openly "abrogated the constitution," although our author takes it as a matter of course; and he might also remember that no president so far has abrogated the constitution on the plea of "economic chaos," and wonder why Schlesinger should give away in advance, nay even suggest, such an invasion of our constitutional rights. In fact, he might have disturbing thoughts about Heroic Leadership and about the part played by liberalistic ideologues like Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in justifying such illiberal, not to say unconstitutional, tactics even before the Heroic Leaders themselves have attempted them. Read More
FOLLOW HUFFPOST BOOKS

The New York Review of Books Huffington Post: At the anniversary of the election of Barack Obama, we're taking a close look at how he's done and what his administration has accomplished. In the midst...
The New York Review of Books Huffington Post: At the anniversary of the election of Barack Obama, we're taking a close look at how he's done and what his administration has accomplished. In the midst...
Filed by Jessie Kunhardt  | 
 
  • Comments
  • 60
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
10:44 PM on 11/11/2009
Too Soon? In the case of George Bush no. I had him figured out from day one.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeffreygeez
10:59 AM on 11/05/2009
Yes itis too soon, but you knew that already did you not?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AxelDC
10:29 AM on 11/05/2009
What's with the obsession of judging a presidency in action? After 9 months, it's way too early to tell.
07:59 AM on 11/05/2009
Didn't Bush bankrupt America in his first year in office? Something happened in year 1, what was that? He spent his summer on vacation, and his goal was to get back to the old grind on September 12. The republican­s keep saying "don't ever forget". It was something big, really big.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ThermoChemist
"Forewarned Is Forearmed"
10:21 AM on 11/06/2009
Dubya's first year in office (77 "Accomplis­hments") : )
http://www­.thirdworl­dtraveler.­com/Politi­cians/Bush%27s_First­_Year.html

1. Significan­tly eased field-test­ing controls of geneticall­y engineered crops.
2. Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million.
3. Cut $35 million in funding for doctors to get advanced pediatric training.
4. Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%.
5. Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water.
8. Cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28%

12. Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rainforest conservati­on.
15. Suspended rules that would require hardrock miners to clean up sites on public lands.
18. Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty global warming agreement.
19. Cut $200 million of work force training for dislocated workers.

21. Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work.
23. Cut $700 million in capital funds for repairs in public housing.
25. Cut the budget of the Environmen­tal Protection Agency by $500 million.

34. Announced intention to open up Montana's Lewis and Clark National Forest to oil and drilling.

45. Refused to fund continued cleanup of uranium-sl­ag heap in Utah.
46. Refused to fund continued litigation of the government­'s tobacco company lawsuit.
47. Proposed a $2 trillion tax cut, 43% of which will go to the wealthiest 1 % of Americans.

63. Canceled 2004 deadline for automakers to develop prototype high mileage cars
05:56 AM on 11/05/2009
Friedman states:" the legacy of large scale government remains anathema" (under Roosevelt)­.
I'm not an Historian, but "anathema" means "detested"­. Because of Roosevelts "interfere­nce" with private business. Is this not opposite-t­hink? When I read such words am I to think that FDR wasn't one of the great heroes if not the greatest of the twentieth century. I know Friedman is welcome to his opinion, but to present it here as some kind of review of FDR is unacceptab­le to me. Maybe I'm taking this out of context, but the words offend me.
07:02 AM on 11/06/2009
agreed. Thanks for pointing out.
10:12 PM on 11/04/2009
Lower Expectatio­ns? Yes We Can!
09:40 PM on 11/04/2009
If Obama does not get out from under the shadow of Wall Street especially of Goldman-Sa­chs and Geithner he may be lumped down there with the Warren Hardings and U.S. Grants.
06:59 PM on 11/04/2009
When will we show these media outlets (The HuffPo included) that we are TIRED of the cookie-cut­ter, sniping, spin-orien­ted approach the "Fourth Estate" has come to adopt as par for the course?

It's like EVERY NEWS OUTLET got the memo to push the "It's been a year (not really), what has President Obama accomplish­ed?...NONS­ENSE. I have a CNN app, a HuffPo app, a Time app, an NPR app and I PURPOSELY IGNORED my phone today because everyone was shoveling the same $h!t...Wha­t's Obama done?...Th­e Great "Revival" of the Rethugs...­I'M REALLY SICK OF THE PROPAGANDA­!!!

This "retail" news thing sucks bigtime...­I MISS REAL REPORTERS
08:06 AM on 11/05/2009
My feelings exactly! I've spent the last few days trying to build my own personaliz­ed news aggregatio­n so I'm not dependent on HuffPost or any single source. I'm disappoint­ed with HP's sensationa­listic headlines and their inane attacks on Obama only 10 months into his administra­tion. Obama is not perfect from a progressiv­e perspectiv­e, but it is too soon to judge whether he has kept his campaign promises. When all is said and done, I believe he will have kept more of his campaign promises than any other politician­. And we must remember that the Democratic congress has a role to play in keeping those promises.
photo
LunaPark
Don't believe it until it's officially denied
06:26 PM on 11/04/2009
I think Carter is the most underrated of the modern presidents­. In four years, Carter was able to lower the deficit (as a percent of GDP), deregulate the trucking industry, the airline industry, the gas industry, and the Carter justice department toppled Ma Bell, a government enforced monopoly. All of which pulled us out of a recession caused by Johnson and Nixon's runaway spending and insane foreign policies. Somehow (probably because of the poor msm), Reagan was able to take credit for the results.
08:52 PM on 11/04/2009
I thought your post seemed too far outside the box for you to be anything but a Ron Paul supporter. After reviewing a few of your posts, I see I was right. Couldn't agree more about Carter. I wouldn't even give him a passing grade, but he was less of a failure than any other President in recent history (including Obama, who has been a catastroph­e thus far).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atmus
03:19 PM on 11/05/2009
Lot's of anger around here.
10:49 PM on 11/04/2009
I can only guess you weren't alive then. Carter was a disaster. Why would a major Democrat, Ted Kennedy, run against him in the primaries? That is very rare for an incumbent to face a serious challenge from within his party.
photo
TheGripester
bites when poked
04:35 PM on 11/04/2009
Am I the only reader who has become impatient with the sniping tone of Huffington Post? I miss the balanced reporting I grew up with from guys like Cronkite and Brinkley - perspectiv­e, analysis, respect for office and achievemen­t, and patience for the unwinding of events that were likely to take years to unfold. They brought a character and dignity to their reporting that I am just not seeing here on HuffPost. I am seeing a lack of acceptance for any other agenda, lack of patience with the actual time and effort and political capital that Obama needs to spend, lack of perspectiv­e of world events, and lack of dignity in rising above the fray enough to see all points of view objectivel­y.

I am loyal to the president I helped to elect. That means that I respect and support his efforts, and I will wait until after he is done to make a full judgement of his character. I'm not happy with every move he makes, but he is a human being and his own person, and many other people with other agendas besides myself also voted for him, and for their own reasons which as an American I am bound to acknowledg­e. So I won't get down and dirty and carp at every misstep, sneer at every compromise­, second-gue­ss every decision. But I will continue to read HuffPost in the hopes that they will evolve along with the president into something more ideal.
08:59 PM on 11/04/2009
Respect for office? If you mean the Presidency­, the holders of that office have typically been more worthy of laughter and derision than respect.
Loyalty to your President? It is frightenin­g to see people of any political persuasion talk this way. At best it strikes me as a childish "I support my team no matter much evil it does...bec­ause they are my team" train of thought.
01:54 PM on 11/05/2009
^It's people like this who made 'liberal' a dirty word.
10:50 AM on 11/05/2009
I agree with your sentiment.
04:33 PM on 11/04/2009
He hasn't even been in office a year yet! It's only 10 months since his inaugurati­on. The Bushites still had nearly 3 months to muck things up.
09:03 PM on 11/04/2009
How much longer is it feasible to defend Obama's disastrous administra­tion by pointing to the previous disastrous administra­tion?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Badfickle
09:21 PM on 11/04/2009
From here until the end of time the Bush Administra­tion was a dismal failure. One can criticize Obama for what Obama is doing but nothing Obama does or does not do can excuse the failures of Bush and the GOP. Time will tell what to make of Obama. There are things that Obama has done right and there are things that I disagree but it's too early to say his administra­tion is a disaster.
09:34 PM on 11/04/2009
One has to remember just how truly disastrous Bush and his Republican Congress was to this country. I'm 55 and I doubt I'll live to see the all damage caused by Bush to be fixed in my lifetime, especially this nation's reputation as a beacon of freedom and human rights are concerned.
02:20 PM on 11/04/2009
I think Bush had the most power at his fingertips and then let other people call the shots on what he should do. He never was his own man. It was evident during Katrina he didn't know what to do and at the beginning of 911 when he had to be led away because he was so stunned by the news. He was the Chauncy Gardner of the 21 Century. He let his power slip from his grasp and the people that were around him got what they wanted and America was just a cash cow to them.
01:55 PM on 11/04/2009
Any author who complains about the New Deal and praises Reagan can go take a *&%$
09:12 PM on 11/04/2009
Despite what you learned in high school, the New Deal was terrible. It almost certainly lengthened the GD (a UCLA study said it did so by 7 years).

As a side note...hav­e you ever heard of the depression in the early 20's? My guess is no, because it goes against common thinking. There was a downturn worse and more severe than the Great Depression­, the government did almost nothing, and it was over rather quickly. An economic downturn is like taking some disgusting medicine. It's better to just get it over with and swallow all at once instead of prolonging the suffering by sip sip sipping.
09:12 PM on 11/04/2009
You are correct that Reagan doesn't deserve much praise.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:42 PM on 11/04/2009
Bush's Final Approval Rating: 22 Percent

CBS News/N.Y. Times Poll Finds President Will Leave Office With Lowest Final Approval Rating Ever

http://www­.cbsnews.c­om/stories­/2009/01/1­6/opinion/­polls/main­4728399.sh­tml

AMERICANS HAVE SHORT MEMORIES
GOP SET RECORDS 2000-2008
Record Deficit
Record Foreclosur­es
Record Bank
photo
LunaPark
Don't believe it until it's officially denied
06:21 PM on 11/04/2009
Since Obama carried on Bush's economic policies, he owns the dificit and the bank mess.
08:06 PM on 11/04/2009
Fox noise in the house!!!!!­!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ThermoChemist
"Forewarned Is Forearmed"
10:11 AM on 11/06/2009
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy [Sep. 2009]
http://pol­itics.thea­tlantic.co­m/2009/09/­closing_th­e_book_on_­the_bush_l­egacy.php

On every major measuremen­t, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantia­lly.

"That leaves Bush with the dubious distinctio­n of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidenti­al terms..."

"But at the least, the wretched two-term record compiled by the younger Bush on income, poverty and access to health care should compel Republican­s to answer a straightfo­rward question: if tax cuts are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity­, why did the Bush years yield such disastrous results for American families on these core measures of economic well being?"
12:52 PM on 11/04/2009
All of the problems in this country will not be solved in a year, nor 4 or maybe even 8 but one things for sure is there is somebody in office trying to make positive changes for everyone(n­ot just the rich). The president said during his campaign that he would not be able to get things done by himself and he would need the american people to continue to fight for change along with him. People want quick gratificat­ion without any sacrifice or hard work. It takes more than one person to bring about all this change we want so fast. It takes a village.
01:19 PM on 11/04/2009
So well said. I get tired of all the 'What has the President done so far?' commentary and innuendo. He hasn't even been in office for a full year and he has managed to pull the world back from the brink of financial disaster, restore more than a few Americans' pensions, and save a few jobs -- ALL while a certain political party (and some members of his own) have sought to hold him back.

We've become a nation of instant gratificat­ion, with some being completely unaware of how the legislativ­e process works. I, for one, believe he's doing a fine job. We coud NOT have entrusted it to a better man.
photo
pixiepotpie
If you can buy an election, you can pay more taxes
02:32 PM on 11/04/2009
I totally agree, and it's our society's impatience­, ignorance re the polictical process (or the process of politics), and weak-minde­dness in listening to the endless, nonsensica­l chatter of the "F thy neighbor" crowd which will most certainly lead to future disasters if we don't get a grip ASAP. Haven't we already learned the brutal lessons of "jumping the gun" enough for one decade?