Book Review: Jonathan Chait’s Audacity

January 22, 2017

Review by Peter Baker

Image result for jonathan chait's audacity

How Barack Obama Defied His Critics and Created a Legacy That Will Prevail
By Jonathan Chait
240 pp. Custom House. $27.99.

If everything had gone according to plan, these would be valedictory days for President Obama. With the economy humming if not roaring and his approval ratings higher than they were through most of his time in office, Obama expected to take a victory lap, map out his memoir and hand the reins to a like-minded successor to build on his accomplishments.

But everything did not go according to plan, and instead he finds himself bequeathing his record to Donald J. Trump, a man he disdains, who was elected in large part on a promise to take a sledgehammer to anything with Obama’s name on it. Obama is left trying to explain the debacle, salvage what he can from the wreckage and make his case to history that his was still a transformative presidency.

In his corner will be Jonathan Chait of New York magazine and one of the country’s leading progressive voices, who has come to Obama’s defense with “Audacity,” a timely, trenchant and relentlessly argued book presenting the 44th President in terms that he himself would approve. Not only did Obama change America for the better, Chait writes, he also cemented a new policy infrastructure that will resist Trump’s efforts to tear it down.

What is Obama’s Legacy?–On Time Will Tell–Audacity or Mendacity


To be sure, this was a book written largely before the November election with the evident expectation that Hillary Clinton would be preparing to move into the Oval Office, and it cannot help reading that way. After Trump shocked the world with his improbable Electoral College victory, Chait tweaked the text to address the upheaval in American politics. But he did not change his fundamental conclusion or buy into the notion that Clinton’s defeat represented a harsh verdict on Obama.

Image result for hillary clinton defeated by trumpThe Gung-ho POTUS  who thinks everything is a piece of cake

“She lost despite, not because of, her association with the popular sitting president,” Chait writes. Republicans nurtured the opposite conclusion to justify a demolition of Obama’s new foundation. “The myth of repudiation had a clear purpose: to make it appear both fair and inevitable that the conquering Republican government would destroy Obama’s legacy.”

But, he adds, “the fatalistic conclusion that Trump can erase Obama’s achievements is overstated — perhaps even completely false.” Chait’s point is that “good ideas advance in fits and stops” and that Obama’s presidency “represented one of those great bursts” that will not simply be erased despite momentary setbacks.

Image result for Hillary Clinton the vanquishedThe Facial Expression that may have caused her the Presidency

Whether that is the case remains to be seen. Certainly in facing the judgment of history, much of the record that Obama will point to is beyond any Republican effort to reverse. He helped pull the country back from the brink of the economic abyss, saved the auto industry, ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and broke the ultimate racial barrier.

Yet despite Chait’s confidence in the durability of Obama’s legacy, other elements of his agenda appear to be in jeopardy. Obama’s health care program, efforts to ease immigration rules, crackdowns on emissions by coal-fired plants, regulations on Wall Street, labor rules intended to improve worker conditions and a free-trade pact with Asia all seem unlikely to survive, at least in the form he prefers. The fates of his nuclear agreement with Iran and his diplomatic opening to Cuba are at least in question, although Trump may ultimately find it harder than he thinks to unravel either.

Other Presidents, of course, have been followed by successors of the other party who in the end sustained their signal accomplishments. Dwight Eisenhower did not undo Harry Truman’s record, nor did John Kennedy undo Eisenhower’s. Richard Nixon, given the chance, left Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society largely in place. Even Obama preserved many of George W. Bush’s achievements, including the vast bulk of his tax cuts, his Medicare expansion, his AIDS-fighting program in Africa and his homeland security architecture.

Trump, on the other hand, is more mercurial, so it is harder to predict how far he will go to wipe out Obama’s imprint on the country. He has sent conflicting signals since the election about his commitment to following through on certain campaign promises while Obama has quietly tried to nudge him away from a radical change.

It could well be that Trump unintentionally helps his predecessor’s case for history as a point of contrast — that whatever Obama’s leadership flaws, his calm, no-drama performance will look better in hindsight to many Americans. At the same time, it raises the question that if Obama was so successful, why do so many Americans feel so dissatisfied and left behind? How could an America that twice chose Barack Obama decide to replace him with Donald Trump?

Beyond noting Clinton’s popular-vote margin, Chait, like others on the left, points to willful distortion by Republicans determined from the start to tear down Obama and cynical news media that were complicit in that strategy. But he also faults liberals who were too willing to flay a president they agreed with because he failed to achieve some impossible standard of progressive perfection.

Indeed, Chait’s book seems more like an argument with the left than with the right. “The yawning chasm between the scale of Obama’s achievements and the mood of his supporters presents one of the mysteries of the era,” he writes. “Its resolution also helps us understand how to judge the Obama Presidency. What would a successful presidency even look like? Would Democrats recognize one if they saw it?”

While Chait agrees that “Obama has not done the job perfectly,” he echoes Michael Grunwald in “The New New Deal” by making the case that his programs will have long-lasting if often overlooked impact. Obama’s fiscal stimulus package, for instance, was “a gigantic success,” not only by helping stanch job losses but also by investing in the future in the form of renewable energy, transportation infrastructure and scientific research.

Likewise, Obama’s health care program covered 20 million more Americans while also producing an “economic miracle,” Chait says, in slowing the rise of medical costs even though premiums for some continued to rise sharply. Obama’s green energy revolution, he adds, has already brought down climate change emissions and “changed the economic calculus irreversibly.” While Obama’s foreign policy may not have transformed the world, Chait concludes, he made incremental progress and avoided catastrophic mistakes.

For disenchanted Obama supporters, this appraisal may seem like a surprise. The Obama who leaves office has traveled a long way from the hope-and-change moment eight years ago. In his early days, he was likened to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Kennedy, even Ronald Reagan. When things turned dark, he was compared unfavorably with Johnson, Jimmy Carter, even George W. Bush.

“The various theories of disconsolate liberals all suffer from a failure to compare Obama with any plausible baseline,” Chait says. “Instead they compare Obama with an imaginary president — either an imaginary Obama or a fantasy version of a past president.”

Now he will be compared with his successor, and that is a comparison Chait thinks favors Obama. “Trump is the poisoned chalice of a failed ideology,” he writes. “Obama, not Trump, is destined to supply the model for American governance in the decades to come.”

Chait’s argument probably will not persuade many on the right, who still see a president who expanded the size and reach of government at home while undercutting American authority abroad. But it may encourage those on the left and in the middle to come around again to a president they once believed in.

For Obama, that may be enough for now. Deprived of the valediction he had sought in November, Obama may want to keep a copy of Chait’s volume on the night stand in his new home in Washington’s Kalorama neighborhood.

2 thoughts on “Book Review: Jonathan Chait’s Audacity

  1. It is too early to judge the 44th President of the United States. That said, I think Obama is a charismatic leader and on Foreign Policy, I will give him an A. It is unfortunate Trump for reasons of his own will not follow Obama’s Pivot to Asia policy, thereby leaving China with a vaccum to dominate the region. LaMoy, what do you think? –Din Merican

  2. The power of the President of the United States is often overestimated by the American public and misunderstood by the people of the rest of the world. In our system of government, the president simply does not have the legal or institutional authority to approve sweeping economic or foreign policy legislation on his or her own. The number of voters who don’t seem to fully understand this is disconcerting.

    The public likes to think of the President of the United States, no matter who’s in office, as having vast powers. He or she is “leader of the free world.” He or she holds the most powerful office on the planet, making life and death decisions every day. If the president, any president, wants a proposal to create jobs and grow the economy, it must be within his or her power to force one into the Oval Office, if necessary, through sheer force of will.

    This notion has appeal. It’s also badly mistaken. There are some modest steps a president can take, and Obama was taking them through the White House’s “We Can’t Wait” campaign, but it’s simply not possible for a president to strengthen the economy “with or without Congress.” Obama had no such option; the American political system doesn’t work this way.

    This creates a dramatic political dilemma for the White House. Americans hate Congress, overwhelmingly disliked Republicans, and the notion that the GOP was sabotaging the economy just to undermine Obama was widely believed. And yet, the president may suffer politically because many voters expected Obama to succeed, despite unprecedented Republican obstructionism, by “getting it done with or without Congress.”

    The public likes to think of the President of the United States making foreign policy through the State Department. In fact, our foreign policies are generally dictated by the Pentagon. Obama who vowed to bring all our boys home from foreign wars ended up started more wars than any presidents before him. It is only on paper that he is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. But the Pentagon is too powerful for him, or any president, to command. The President of the United States is only a “temporary employee”. He/she comes and goes.

    Australian film maker, John Pilger, made a well-researched film, “Coming War on China”, reveals what the news doesn’t – that the world’s greatest military power, the United States, and the world’s second economic power, China, both nuclear-armed, are on the road to war. Pilger’s film is a warning and an inspiring story of resistance. China is always in the defensive, struggling to survive. China does not have a single military base close to the US. But America rings China with missiles in more than 400 military bases surrounding China. Think-tanks like Rand Corporation and Center for Strategic and International Studies have drawn up dozens and dozens of war plans against China.

    Analysts around the world are worried about the prospect that bilateral tensions between China and the United States could surge once Donald Trump takes office. The fact is it really does not matter if it is Obama or Trump in the White House. It is still unclear how much of what Trump had said or done got the nod from the Pentagon. Without the support of the Pentagon, all what Trump said were just bullshits.

    If his threat of trade war and “one China policy” got the nod from Pentagon, given the nationalist emotions involved, not to mention the strategic/military stakes in China’s immediate neighborhood, it is unlikely that Beijing will back down even over such issues as the East China Sea and South China Sea. It is even less likely that Chinese officials and the Chinese people will do so regarding Taiwan. Trump and his advisers, all closely tied to the Pentagon, are charting a very dangerous course, and the current bilateral economic links may not be enough to save them from their folly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.