Politics

回顾奥巴马

Jan 13, 2017 Jeffrey Frankel

发自巴塞尔——任何对巴拉克·奧巴马八年美国总统历程的评估都应从2009 年 1 月 20 日他首次就职开始。当时美国经济陷入了自由落体状态：金融市场失灵，GDP萎缩，就业率也急剧下跌，每个月都流失近80万个工作岗位，外加两场策划不周且执行得一塌糊涂的对外战争。

总之，刚搬进白宫的奧巴马面临着比过去几十年来诸位新总统接手时更为不利的局面。虽然当年富兰克林 · 罗斯福和亚伯拉罕 · 林肯就职时分别遭遇了大萧条和内战爆发，但试问何曾有人入主白宫时要同时应对一场经济危机和一场国家安全危机呢？

为应对经济危机，奧巴马推出了财政刺激政策以及针对金融体系和汽车行业的救助计划，——这些政策对美国联储积极创新的货币宽松政策进行了补充和强化。共和党人几乎一面倒地反对经济刺激方案。几乎所有人都在对救助项目提出过质疑，敦促奧巴马要么将银行和汽车企业国有化，要么就放任其崩溃。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Obama’s Recovery?
Change in Private Sector Employment (2008-2012)

Economics 0

Obama’s Recovery?

Jeffrey Frankel
Who’s Right on US Financial Reform?

Economics 19

Who’s Right on US Financial Reform?

Jeffrey Frankel argues that a sweeping anti-Wall Street agenda could do more harm than good.
The Domestic Threat to US Leadership
Bloomberg/Getty Images

Politics 9

The Domestic Threat to US Leadership

Jeffrey Frankel warns that President Barack Obama's recent string of foreign-policy successes could be rolled back.
Why Support the TPP?
Paul Allen/Flickr

Economics 28

Why Support the TPP?

Jeffrey Frankel argues that critics of the Trans-Pacific Partnership should read the text with an open mind.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 26 Comments on this article

B Wilds Jan 17, 2017

As we move toward President-elect Trump taking office in early 2017 the National Debt Clock may already have breached the 20 trillion dollar mark. The myth that a scenario of growth coupled with a falling deficit will allow us to outgrow many of the problems we face brings with it a false optimism and hope.

The ugly truth many people choose to ignore is that starting in 2017 entitlements will become the driving force that carries the deficit higher and higher into nosebleed territory. More about just how bad this problem is in the article below that points out when Obama took office it was expected debt would stand at 12.5 trillion in 2019.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2016/11/national-debt-looms-over-america-as.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jan 17, 2017

Pres. Obama's time was a mix of accomplishments and disappointments. His election and the hope it represented was an accomplishment in itself. The Iran deal was a positive. The (currently overturned?) extension of overtime eligibility to many salaried workers was a big positive.

The ACA was a mix - it was an outstanding accomplishment for the americans who are eligible for subsidized insurance. How it the balance works for those who did experience large increases, or bought into prohibitively high-deductible options, is unclear. Pharma and HMO's may have benefitted a good deal though. Any discussion of this should mention that all other advanced western countries have single payer. We are living in the middle ages, and seem to be proud of it. People don't need insurance or HMO's, they need a health care system that delivers basic health care to any person that needs it, without having to battle past a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of clerks to health care providers.

Foreign policy was mostly a failure. Not a miserable failure like bush, just a regular run-of-the-mill failure. Wanton destruction in Libya (may or may not have been Clinton's fault), an interesting twist in Egypt (support of democracy until not), Ukraine (lets not go there), and most importantly, Syria (golf club to the nuts for the EU). Oh and providing essential material support for Saudi action Yemen. If there was any effort to rein in sometimes trouble-causing allies like the Saudis or Turks or Israelis, it was invisible. Heavy use of Drones, shamefully, and Guantanamo bay still open. Iran deal was good, but other opportunities for nuclear reduction worldwide were skipped. Normailzation of relations with Cuba was a plus (again a zillion years overdue, but better late than never).

Then there was the economy, where the president pretty clearly either sided with providing a largely pain-free "do-over" big business in the wake of the financial crisis, or was powerless to do anything about it being put in place by whoever was really in charge. The TPP and associated deals were nothing to be proud of (being kind). Then, from the first African American president, you'd think we would hear more about BLM. However, Pres. Obama's presence and generally positive character did a tremendous amount to make progress on race issues in the US, simply by him being there. In a way it was inevitable that the first african american president would be relatively conservative. Also on the plus sides you had, finally, a formal recognition of the importance of inequality, though so little and so late that it has now been thrown in everyone's faces.

Coming after Bush and before Trump, Obama is going to look very good for future historians. Probably the one thing he will not be forgiven for is allowing the Democratic party to nominate Clinton.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Jan 16, 2017

All of the serious numbers show that Obama was an economic disaster. All claims otherwise are just PR BS. Here are some basic facts. The Obama recovery was the worst (by far) since WWII. Employment peaked under Bush in November 2007 (146.595 million). The Bush employment peak wasn't reached until September of 2014 (almost 7 years). It has never taken the U.S. anywhere close to seven years to regain recession employment losses. Indeed, the worst prior recovery was under Bush when it took almost 3 years for the U.S. to reach the prior employment peak. See FRED series CE16OV for the details.

From the prior peak (November 2007 – 146.595 million), the U.S. gained just 5.516 million jobs under Obama (the FRED series ends in December 2016). By contrast, under Bush the U.S. gained 8.974 million jobs from April 2000 (137.270 million) up to November 2007 (146.595 million). Of course, the U.S. gained 18.119 million jobs from May 1990 (119.151 million) to April 2000 (137.270 million).

The Obama LFP (Labor Force Participation) numbers are truly dismal. Male LFP fell by 3.4 percentage points (from 72.4% to 69.0). No peak to peak value is possible in this case because male LFP fell under Bush as well. Female LFP fell by 2.8% under Obama (from 59.5% to 56.7%). See FRED series LNS11300001 and LNS11300002 for the details.

Real median household income declined under Obama. Real median household income is cyclic and the prior peak under Bush was in 2007 (at $57,423). In 2015, real median household income was $907 lower than the Bush peak (at $56,516). See FRED series MEHOINUSA672N for the details.

Under Obama, real weekly earnings of production and non-supervisory workers (BLS series CES0500000031) are actually lower than they were back in 1964 (the Republican record for this statistic is also dismal). The real hourly earnings data is actually a bit better. Real hourly wages are below the 1972 level (BLS series CES0500000032).

Of course, Obama was “successful” in some respects. Household inequality reached an all-time high under Obama (0.482). The prior peak was under Bush in 2006 (0.470). See FRED series GINIALLRH for the details.

It is quite true that Obama inherited the Great Recession from Bush. However, Obama did an abysmal job of handling the economy once in office. Appointing Timothy Geithner was a direct statement that Obama didn’t care about the economy (and it showed). Even before he reached office, Obama made strikingly clear that he cared about making the rich, richer, not helping ordinary Americans. Most people have heard about his “bitter clingers” remark back in 2008. Less well known is where he said it. That would be on Billionares Row in San Francisco.

Obama took office with three economic goals in mind. First, making his friends in the Cosmopolitan Elite even richer than they already were. Second, undermining the “bitter clingers” to the maximum extent possible. Third, expanding the welfare state. He was successful in attaining his goals. Sadly, none of his goals including the well-being of the American people.

Of course, Obama was (is) the darling of “The Party of Davos”. The “Party of Davos” is infinitely self-serving and rapacious. It shouldn’t surprise anyone, that the economy of the American people went downhill under Obama.
- Ted Smith Jan 17, 2017
  
  1) Recovery took longest of any recession since the South Sea Bubble (76 months to return to prior peak GDP)
  
  2) Median household income took 8 years (i.e.2015/16) to recover prior 2007/8 peak
  
  3) Employment rate took 26 quarters (6.5 years) to return to Q108 peak.
  
  US under Obama? No, UK under Conservatives. So maybe a bit more nuance is needed in your analysis.
  
  Both permitted their economies to grow outsized finance sectors, riddled with conflicts of interest and rent-seeking behaviour. Both permitted an enormous growth in private debt to GDP and both suffered the inevitable financial crash morphing into a generalised recession. Both avoided a Depression, but endured a long, slow recovery.
  
  Where the US is unique is the near total capture of its political system by special - mostly moneyed - interests. And, the abandonment of white working class interests by the two main parties as the Democrats focused on shoring up various rainbow coalitions and the Republicans became the party of the wealthy, whilst using culture wars (abortion, family, guns) to attract less wealthy voters, but doing nothing to advance their economic and social well-being.
  
  Obama is then, part of that failed system and inheritor of it too. He inherited a catastrophic, finance-induced recession. His initial stimulus plan helped avoid a world depression. But after that, with Republicans back in control of the House, he became cautious and focused on winning minor victories. He was also a model of probity and ethics, at least compared to his post-Carter successors and the current President elect.
  
  The system itself is broken and needs a reform movement. Until then, everyone who rides into the White House on a message of Hope, is doomed to disappoint. The new cabinet of soldiers and billionaires, is just more of the same.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Jan 16, 2017

All of the serious numbers show that Obama was an economic disaster. All claims otherwise are just PR BS. Here are some basic facts. The Obama recovery was the worst (by far) since WWII. Employment peaked under Bush in November 2007 (146.595 million). The Bush employment peak wasn't reached until September of 2014 (almost 7 years). It has never taken the U.S. anywhere close to seven years to regain recession employment losses. Indeed, the worst prior recovery was under Bush when it took almost 3 years for the U.S. to reach the prior employment peak. See FRED series CE16OV for the details.

The Obama LFP (Labor Force Participation) numbers are truly dismal. Male LFP fell by 3.4 percentage points (from 72.4% to 69.0). No peak to peak value is possible in this case because male LFP fell under Bush as well. Female LFP fell by 2.8% under Obama (from 59.5% to 56.7%). See FRED series LNS11300001 and LNS11300002 for the details.

Real median household income declined under Obama. Real median household income is cyclic and the prior peak under Bush was in 2007 (at $57,423). In 2015, real median household income was $907 lower than the Bush peak (at $56,516). See FRED series MEHOINUSA672N for the details.

Under Obama, real weekly earnings of production and non-supervisory workers (BLS series CES0500000031) are actually lower than they were back in 1964 (the Republican record for this statistic is also dismal). The real hourly earnings data is actually a bit better. Real hourly wages are below the 1972 level (BLS series CES0500000032).

Of course, Obama was “successful” in some respects. Household inequality reached an all-time high under Obama (0.482). The prior peak was under Bush in 2006 (0.470). See FRED series GINIALLRH for the details.

It is quite true that Obama inherited the Great Recession from Bush. However, Obama did an abysmal job of handling the economy once in office. Appointing Timothy Geithner was a direct statement that Obama didn’t care about the economy (and it showed). Even before he reached office, Obama made strikingly clear that he cared about making the rich, richer, not helping ordinary Americans. Most people have heard about his “bitter clingers” remark back in 2008. Less well known is where he said it. That would be on Billionares Row in San Francisco.

Obama took office with three economic goals in mind. First, making his friends in the Cosmopolitan Elite even richer than they already were. Second, undermining the “bitter clingers” to the maximum extent possible. Third, expanding the welfare state. He was successful in attaining his goals. Sadly, none of his goals including the well-being of the American people.

Of course, Obama was (is) the darling of “The Party of Davos”. The “Party of Davos” is infinitely self-serving and rapacious. It shouldn’t surprise anyone, that the economy of the American people went downhill under Obama.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Walter Gingery Jan 16, 2017

Any reckoning of Barack's presidency must take his personality into account. My impression is that, as a professorial type, more interested in discussing policy alternatives and bringing people together, he is not particularly well suited to the rough and tumble of politics. He doesn't have the instinct for the jugular, and that hurt him badly.

After his election in 2008, he more or less disappeared from public view in order to devote himself to "governing." He seems not to have understood that, in a competitive multi-party political system, part of the President's duties is to explain and justify and fight for his policies. If you don't present your ideas, someone else will.

He refused to fight for his stimulus plan, declaring flatly that "Congress will never accept anything more."
(How do you know, if you don't even try?)

So it is amazing how Barack, who's seemed not to care much about healthcare at the Las Vegas forum in 2007, became the president who refused to lose the fight for broad health care reform.

We should also be amazed -- and disappointed -- at how Obama treated the nitty-gritty details of implementing the law as if actually governing was below the pay grade of Ivy League visionaries.

Some of the most significant changes, in my opinion, were cleaning up of abuses of power by local police, curbing "stop and frisk," ending the practice of throwing poor people in jail without charge, or using fines as a piggy-bank.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jan 16, 2017

All I can say I want my $12 back I spent on a copy of "Yes, we can" .
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Julius Klein Jan 15, 2017

Clearly living in the Progrssice bubble. By any yardstick, we are far worse off today as a society than 8 years ago. The left still doesn't get it, Trump exists because of Obama, not despite him.
- Peter Schaeffer Jan 16, 2017
  
  CC, Eisenhower was the quintessential President of the "Greatest Generation". Eisenhower deported 1-2 million illegals via "Operation Wetback". Eisenhower never tolerated massive trade deficits. Indeed, the U.S. enjoyed trade surpluses under Ike. Knowing some history helps.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Curtis Carpenter Jan 15, 2017
  
  I say this with real sadness and shame, but to my view Trump exists because a great many Americans share his lack of integrity, decency and character.
  
  Trump has forced us to take a long hard look at who we are as a nation, and many -- maybe most -- of us don't like what we see. From the greatest generation, proud and self-reliant, to the whiny generation longing for some strongman to save us from ourselves -- in one lifetime. An incredible fall from grace.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
markets aurelius Jan 14, 2017

So, this is the first draft of the Obama reign's accomplishments?

There are two things Obama and his apologists never want to address, and will spend the rest of their careers trying to bury in the historical accounts of this profoundly failed presidency: 1) The absolutely stunning failure of Obama's DoJ and SEC to bring to justice only 1 banker -- that's right, one (1) -- responsible for the GLOBAL financial crisis (see the link below); and 2) allowing the the American economy to finish its evolution to a plutocracy, in which the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government are owned by and operate for the benefit of the richest and most powerful. The second obviously is intimately connected with the first.

And the consequence? The very people who most benefited from this final phase in the destruction of democracy and capitalism in America now are set to move into the White House, where the evolution allowed and supported by Obama will be institutionalized by the plutocracy in an orgy of self-dealing. If anyone thinks there's a polarization of income and wealth now in the U.S., just wait four (4) years. The dystopias imagined by Orwell and Huxley will be seen as child's play in their naiveté.

In some ways it has been absolutely fascinating observing a former community organizer in a city that has, on his watch, degenerated into a Beirut-like war zone with its armed factions -- i.e., Obama's Chicago -- preside over the crumbling of our society at large. A lot of this ties directly to 1 and 2 above, btw -- the rule of law and the inherent fairness of market economies was completely undermined by Obama's failure to enforce the law, which allowed criminality in banking and business generally to flourish. That will almost surely continue under Trump. It truly has been remarkable watching a former lecturer in constitutional law at one of the citadels of free-market capitalism -- the University of Chicago -- preside over the debasement of the rule of law in America, putting it up for auction to the higher bidder. (I'm sure that when Obama and Holder get together they fall to the floor laughing every time this is discussed.) Hayek, who also did a turn at Chicago, must be spinning in his grave. Still, there are enough institutions of higher learning on the east coast packed with Obama's fellow travelers who will produce a flood of apologias -- this being one of the earliest -- which will be picked up and purveyed by an unquestioning media. Of this we can be certain. The Ivy League will continue to supply the arguments, models and people that make all this possible, and can be expected to evolve into whatever shape is need to ensure its continued funding.

Obama presided over the Decline of America. Trump will now usher in the Fall.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/magazine/only-one-top-banker-jail-financial-crisis.html?_r=0
- Curtis Carpenter Jan 14, 2017
  
  I think I see Trump as move of a Republican/American right legacy at the end of a tragic sequence that started with Richard Nixon through George W. Bush. Still find Mr. Trump distressing in any event though.
  
  I do hope to get one of the new posters Shepard Fairey has created for inauguration day. I hear the Washington Post is going to be printing them as tear-outs for the big day.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- markets aurelius Jan 14, 2017
  
  @ curtis carpenter
  
  I'm betting you've still got your Obama "Hope" poster on your wall ... must be so distressing that Obama's legacy = Trump.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Curtis Carpenter Jan 14, 2017
  
  I can see that you're very upset about all this, and can imagine that it really galls you to see some of those same bankers taking up positions in Mr. Trump's cabinet. Anyway, as President Obama says, it's important to stay engaged, and you are, so well done.
  
  I have actually heard of the depression, but thanks for the informative insights. Given that though, I think I'll stick with my "simplistic view of government" appraisal. Too many otherwise thoughtful people now a days seem to think every narrative has to have an arch villain or two. The product of too much television is my guess.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- markets aurelius Jan 14, 2017
  
  @ curtis carpenter
  
  My "simplistic" view of government, particularly the AG's office within the DoJ, is best summarized by the Department's website vis-a-vis the AG. To wit, "The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws." Doesn't get any more "simple" than that. By any measure, Holder, his no. 1 -- Lanny Breuer, the equally craven and feckless head of DoJ's criminal division -- and Lynch presided over an epic fail, which will stick to Obama like white on rice to the end of time.
  
  What was your other point? Oh, yeah, something about "systemic failures perpetrated by the Clinton administration and the The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act? And who was it, exactly, that passed that act into law? Do you think bringing charges against a large number of bankers would have sped up the recovery somehow (and wasn't that, afterall, the main objective in 2008?)" Crimes are committed by criminals -- bad actors with bad intent. Full stop. Arguing that "the system" is flawed is so PC liberal -- and, once again in this case, so not true. It's worth stating the obvious again -- simple tho it may be: Crimes are committed by criminals. Prosecuting criminals is necessary for markets to work -- to the extent they are not prosecuted, and are allowed to commit crimes, they harm markets, which harms the economy. Subverting the rule of law completely undermines capitalism. In "The Constitution of Liberty" (1960) and "The Road to Serfdom" (1944), Hayek, a Nobel laureate, argued a country is free if its government is bound by the law, just as its citizens are. Obama suspended the rule of law in America. Any one who wasn't too slow-witted realized that and made a ton of money while they could, knowing outright criminality would go unpunished, particularly in banking.
  
  Obama hastened us down the path of cartel dominance of the economy and government, where plutocrats now control all branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial). The Citizens United case demonstrates this too. He could have taken a stand and defended the rule of law. He chose not to. Now comes the time of Trump.
  
  A craven and feckless president, his craven and feckless AGs and their craven and feckless lackeys failed on an historic scale. In my original post (the NYT article), mention was made re "American financial history has generally unfolded as a series of booms followed by busts followed by crackdowns. After the crash of 1929, the Pecora Hearings seized upon public outrage, and the head of the New York Stock Exchange landed in prison. After the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s, 1,100 people were prosecuted, including top executives at many of the largest failed banks. In the ’90s and early aughts, when the bursting of the Nasdaq bubble revealed widespread corporate accounting scandals, top executives from WorldCom, Enron, Qwest and Tyco, among others, went to prison." Obama had his FDR moment and completely failed. Oh, for the simple-minded, FDR was the guy who put Pecora on the bad actors who crashed the economy in lead-up to the Great Depression (you know ... the 1930s ... worth reading up on). FDR and Pecora but the fear of God into the banksters and set a standard for prosecutorial rigor that held for decades, and laid out bright lines the banksters knew not to cross, or else they'd do hard time in the joint.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Curtis Carpenter Jan 14, 2017
  
  Boy. my eyes are really getting bad. Sorry for the "You go know" :-)
  
  Do you by any chance know how many hearings were held by the House and Senate into the bank's responsibilities for the crisis? Were the problems caused by individual "banksters," or were they the result of systemic failures perpetrated by the Clinton administration and the The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act? And who was it, exactly, that passed that act into law? Do you think bringing charges against a large number of bankers would have sped up the recovery somehow (and wasn't that, afterall, the main objective in 2008?) Did you mean not to comment on Citizens United and the role of the Supreme Court in advancing the plutocracy?
  
  I can certainly be misjudging here, but I think you're taking a far to simplistic view of government, the President's role in it, the impact that the Republican's political objectives 2008 - 2016 had, and the simple limits of time and resources.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- markets aurelius Jan 14, 2017
  
  @ curtis carpenter
  
  As I noted in my reply, the three branches -- executive, legislative and judicial branches -- are owned by and operate for the benefit of the cartels dominating the U.S. economy.
  
  What would I do if I were in Obama's shoes? Gosh! That's a tough one. Oh, wait: Maybe I'd start by enforcing the law. Maybe I'd hire prosecutors at the DoJ and SEC who actually could bring a case to court, argue it and win it. I'd restore funding the the FBI's white-collar crime unit and aggressively go after all of the bad actors in the world of banking. Do you realize there were close to 900 convictions by federal prosecutors following the S&L crisis, vs. 1 -- that's right, 1 -- under Obama. That is beyond laughable. That is criminal neglect at the executive branch (1 of the 3 branches of the federal government).
  
  I'll tell you what I wouldn't do. I wouldn't use every opportunity presented to me to try to convince everyone there was no criminal wrongdoing at the banks, as Obama did repeatedly, despite the FBI testifying to Congress in 2004 that fraud was epidemic in the mortgage market, and again in 2008 when it reported the fraud continued unabated ( https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/mortgage-fraud-2008 ).
  
  Obama and Holder -- and later Lynch -- were craven and feckless before the lawlessness in the banks, and that filtered thru every level of law enforcement in Washington. seriously wonder what they were afraid of -- who had what on them that made them?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Curtis Carpenter Jan 14, 2017
  
  You go know that there are three branches of the federal government right? And that the House was the primary reason the bankers weren't brought to justice, and that the Supreme Court gave us Citizens United that destroyed a critical barrier to plutocracy?
  
  What, in detail, would you have had the President do differently if you had been in his shoes, especially after 2010?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Jan 14, 2017

Obama's only legacy is Trump.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mario Margiocco Jan 13, 2017

The article says many nice things about President Obama and some of them sound true. In foreign policy however the failure is evident vis a vis a rampant Russia and with the tremedous loss of effectiveness and prestige suffered by the US in the Gulf, the Middle East and North Africa. And in Europe, too, despite the strictly personal popularity of Barack Obama and his family. It seems to me that the first weaknees of Obama's foreign policy was the worst one: the lack of ideas, and perhaps of interest for what is going on in distant areas.
But nothing is distant nowadays.
At home, it does not look to me that in the US there is great and widespread satisfaction, in spite of the official data about gdp, jobs and earnings. People's mood is very similar to what you can ear in several European countries.
So you ended up, we ended up, with Donald Trump. How can a successfull president leave the White House to somebody who got elected promising to change everything?
- Curtis Carpenter Jan 14, 2017
  
  To the extent that the Obama administration lacked ideas, it created a significant opening for Europe and the EU to implement some ideas of their own didn't it?
  
  But what has actually happened? Germany has always had the greatest stake in the tragedy in Ukraine. France has had a historic responsibility to Syria since 1919, and Italy for Libya. But where have they and their ideas been for the past eight years?
  
  One positive that the Obama years may have created -- we'll have to see -- is the dawning in Europe that it itself needs to start carrying some of the burden of leadership in the West -- which is clearly a pretty thankless task for everyone. Instead however, it looks like everyone on the continent is retiring to his own corner in preparation for recreating the glories of the 20th century again -- resurrecting a bunch of old ideas, not any new ones.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
dan baur Jan 13, 2017

NINE (9) TRILLION dollars of added debt bought a lousy economy under Obama!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Jan 13, 2017

I would add one Obama achievement to this summary that in my view will have strategic significance if Trump and the Republicans can avoid destroying it too (Trump in his desire to play the generalisimo).

President Obama kept the U.S. out of a deep entanglement in Syria, where the U.S. has no overriding strategic interests. For the first time in generations, he refused to commit the country to a major role in another country's civil war. And he adopted this policy in the face of great pressure from elements of both political parties and a significant portion of the punditry.

If allowed to stand, this precedent should send an important signal to others who would launch civil war in anticipation of eventual U.S. involvement: it might not be forthcoming. The blanket commitment to "paying any price, bearing any burden" will give way, if allowed, to a new reflection on the reality of
the limits to U.S. power and the priority of U.S. interests abroad.
- Peter Schaeffer Jan 16, 2017
  
  CC, Obama did keep the U.S. out of Syria. I regard that (mostly) as a good thing. However, drawing a "Red Line" and than having Assad cross it (with no U.S. response) damaged U.S. credibility. However, Obama wasn't running for election in 2016. Hillary was. According to Obama (not Trump or the Republicans), Hillary was responsible for the worst foreign policy mistakes of the Obama administration.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mark St. Angelo Jan 13, 2017

Prof. Frankel's claim that "almost everybody was critical of the rescue programs, urging Obama either to nationalize the banks and auto companies or let them collapse" is patently false. There were many respected and well-known economists, including some who had won the Nobel Prize (among others) who supported the rescue of both the banks and the auto companies.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jan 13, 2017

Guantanamo?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/xzxQxdhzh

回顾奥巴马

Subscribe to PS Digital

Obama’s Recovery?

Who’s Right on US Financial Reform?

The Domestic Threat to US Leadership

Why Support the TPP?

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

回顾奥巴马

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification