How will Barack Obama be remembered in 2067?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I think it will depend on how America trends culturally.

A right-leaning US will not treat Obama's memory kindly, particularly if world events or the economy go poorly for us.

A more liberal US will probably see him in a positive light, as a strong step to a better future. Although if we've gotten there through a painful struggle with the right, he may be criticized for not doing enough for the ideals he was supposed to support.

[pbrower2a]

Even if the partisan identities of the states are almost opposite in the elections involving Eisenhower and Obama, the blocks of states involved suggest that Ike and Obama got (and lost) many of the key constituencies in their elections. This, if you are aware of my posting history, is one of my favorite contrasts.

..........................

When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both had practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

It is simply amazing. Eisenhower won states that were unusually difficult wins for a Republican --
Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island... and won them twice. Neither Nixon nor Reagan won all three of those states in 49-state landslides -- but Eisenhower won them twice. Both flipped Virginia which had usually belonged to the other Party for three subsequent elections. In 2008, Obama won Indiana, an unusually-tough state for a Democrat to win, even if that is only a one-time win.

In 2008, Obama won only one state that Eisenhower never won. In 2012, even with a decisive win of the Electoral College, Obama did not win a single state that Eisenhower didn't win twice.

Neither really built the strength of their parties. The big difference is that the successor of Eisenhower is the well-honored John Fitzgerald Kennedy who was able to win a bare victory in the Presidential election and build credibility.  President Obama has what may be the worst President in American history following him -- and I know about Dubya, Buchanan, Harding, Pierce, Fillmore, A. Johnson, and Nixon.   

Despite vast differences in their curriculum vitae, Eisenhower and Obama will be seen as good analogues.

   

Great analysis, interesting thoughts here. I would like to return to this after some studying.

Same set of states =/= same electorates, decades and decades apart.  The Vermont that voted for Ike is more comparible to Wyoming than it is to the Vermont that voted for Obama.

But without changes in demographics or political culture, Vermont in 2017 is closer to the Vermont of 1957 in its political sensibilities. It's the Parties that have changed, with resulting shifts in political tendencies.   

[SWE]

He'll be remembered primarily for being the first black president. Beyond that, the consensus on Obama's legacy will probably be similar to how Carter is viewed by most: a well-intentioned failure with few lasting achievements.

[Coraxion]

Well... the 111th Congress was the most productive since the Great Society. And, for right or wrong, the President typically gets credit for legislation passed by Congress during their presidency.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

He'll be remembered as a top 10 President for sure (and rightly so).

[Devout Centrist]

The takes in this thread are f**king terrible. Wow.

[pbrower2a]

Let's put it this way - conservatism circa 2040 will owe more to Obama than to Trump. 

[Yank2133]

Fairly well.

He will be ranked some where in the backend of the first quartile or at the top of the second quartile.

Also the Carter comparisons are wishful thinking. Carter couldn't get anything done and is the symbol of ineffective government, Obama was the most productive president since LBJ.

[SoLongAtlas]

First black president, populist-liberal, moderate in governance, major goals stymied by pushback both politically and electorally (Congress) by the right/tea party. Also definitely not as strong willed legislatively as LBJ.

[Pericles]

I think he's the Democratic Nixon in his overall historical place-of course unlike Nixon he was pretty scandal-free and served out both his terms fully. I agree with what the OP was saying. And he was a good President who did shift the country quite a bit to the left. The big accomplishments will be Obamacare and saving the country from a second Great Depression (or if coronavirus gets really bad, delaying it), with him also being remembered a lot for being the first black President.

The takes that he destroyed the Democratic Party haven't aged well because the Democratic Party has already partially rebuilt itself and there's a good shot of a Democratic trifecta in 2020 (and a trifecta in the 2020s is pretty likely). I don't think the country was ready to be realigned completely and have a reverse Reagan in 2009. So he won't be the Democratic Reagan, but the beginning of the realignment with a future Democratic President being the reverse Reagan. It's hard to imagine Biden as this reverse Reagan (not impossible but unlikely), maybe the 2024 or 2028 nominee will realign the country away from neoliberalism and/or to social progressivism.

[R.P. McM]

First black president, populist-liberal, moderate in governance, major goals stymied by pushback both politically and electorally (Congress) by the right/tea party. Also definitely not as strong willed legislatively as LBJ.

But the conservatives of this era will be viewed, correctly, as the same sorts that spit on Jackie Robinson, so I think Obama will be credited with behaving in a dignified way, whether or not all of his legislative priorities were accomplished in the face of a racist opposition party.

[OSR stands with Israel]

James Buchanan 2.0

How

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Transcending politics for the better, not only did a black get elected Prez, women are gonna be Prez or Veep; consequently,  Baldwin, Harris and Klobuchar are the future leaders of the Dem party

[T'Chenka]

Harris and Klobuchar are the future leaders of the Dem party

AOC will easily defeat them in the 2023/2024 primaries.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Harris and Klobuchar are the future leaders of the Dem party

AOC will easily defeat them in the 2023/2024 primaries.

Lol

[Meclazine for Israel]

The first black President.

If Corona virus knocks off Biden and Bernie, we will see the first gay President.

[GP270watch]

 He will always be studied because he was the first black president in a nation with a terrible stain of racism. He will be championed for saving the American economy. He will also be seen positively for trying to give Americans universal healthcare. His opponents will also be vilified for opposing him for nefarious reasons, trying to stop universal healthcare, and blocking his judges in unprecedented fashion. Mitch McConnell in particular will be a bad guy of history for his loathsome opposition.

 

[Orser67]

He'll be remembered in the same tier of good presidents as Truman, Eisenhower, etc. People underestimate how rare it is for a president to:

1)Pass major legislation,
2)Avoid a major scandal, foreign crisis, or economic meltdown, and
3)Leave office reasonably popular

Holding office during Trump's election will always be a bit of a black mark, but I don't think that posterity will look kindly on the Republican Party of the 2010s. And Biden winning in 2020, combined with Trump's narrow margins in 2016, would make Trump look like a bit of a fluke.

[President Johnson]

As a successful and transformative president, who has been obstructed by a distructive Republican Party. He will be seen as "near great" president. And, of course, as the first African American in the Oval Office.

[It’s so Joever]

A good person who didn’t get much done and thus couldn’t prevent the populist tide. Still, he will be viewed as a decent president (probably in the top 50%)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

He'll be remembered in the same tier of good presidents as Truman, Eisenhower, etc. People underestimate how rare it is for a president to:

1)Pass major legislation,
2)Avoid a major scandal, foreign crisis, or economic meltdown, and
3)Leave office reasonably popular

Holding office during Trump's election will always be a bit of a black mark, but I don't think that posterity will look kindly on the Republican Party of the 2010s. And Biden winning in 2020, combined with Trump's narrow margins in 2016, would make Trump look like a bit of a fluke.

I think this is especially true because in 47 years people will hopefully be able to look back on Hillary Clinton with clearer eyes. She doesn't get the recognition she deserves as a trailblazer, and blazing trails necessarily requires trudging through thorns, brambles, and all kinds of other nonsense.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

He'll be remembered in the same tier of good presidents as Truman, Eisenhower, etc. People underestimate how rare it is for a president to:

1)Pass major legislation,
2)Avoid a major scandal, foreign crisis, or economic meltdown, and
3)Leave office reasonably popular

Holding office during Trump's election will always be a bit of a black mark, but I don't think that posterity will look kindly on the Republican Party of the 2010s. And Biden winning in 2020, combined with Trump's narrow margins in 2016, would make Trump look like a bit of a fluke.

I think this is especially true because in 47 years people will hopefully be able to look back on Hillary Clinton with clearer eyes. She doesn't get the recognition she deserves as a trailblazer, and blazing trails necessarily requires trudging through thorns, brambles, and all kinds of other nonsense.

I will go to my grave thinking she was the best president America never had. I admire Obama so much, but she should have won 2008. We'd all be better off. I'm particularly bitter about this because I just finished Hillarly on Hulu (which was fantastic.)

[Catalyst138]

Harris and Klobuchar are the future leaders of the Dem party

AOC will easily defeat them in the 2023/2024 primaries.

AOC would suffer the exact same problems as Bernie did this time around. Youth vote doesn’t turn out and she won’t appeal to rural WWCs or old people.

[Person Man]

Harris and Klobuchar are the future leaders of the Dem party

AOC will easily defeat them in the 2023/2024 primaries.

AOC would suffer the exact same problems as Bernie did this time around. Youth vote doesn’t turn out and she won’t appeal to rural WWCs or old people.

Maybe AOC will connect the way Bernie didn't? The great thing now is that we have pretty much depleted the boomer bench.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Probably in the top 10. He'll be remembered for many things, but probably most notably for moving this country in favor of some form of socialized medicine, which following Democratic presidents will attempt to act on.

And LOL at the idea that Bill Clinton campaigned as a left-wing populist either election.

No, that was LBJ.

And Truman (unsuccessfully) before him.