Presidential Idol: Lincoln the Best, Bush Not the Worst

C-SPAN has released the results of its second annual presidential leadership survey. The survey asks historians to rank U.S. presidents using a pre-determined list of criteria. This year, Lincoln tops the list.

I have always found these types of surveys bizarre, yet innocuous. First, "ranking" a president seems strange because multiple factors will determine how a president's contemporaries view him or her (perhaps, some day). But as time passes, new issues will shape a president's standing among future generations. Also, most of these studies poll historians. Although I respect the expertise that historians have in discussing the historical impact of particular presidents, scholars in other fields, such as political science, economics, and law, could make valuable contributions to this subject as well. Nevertheless, the study provides annual space for harmless trivia and debate.

Yes, Democratic Underground: Andrew Johnson Ranks Much Lower Than Bush
This year's study, as do most others, places Lincoln at the top. Although many liberal historians and politicians have recently argued that Bush is the absolute worst president (a claim I vigorously dispute), Dubya ranked 36 (out of 42). Immediately following Lincoln in the top five are: George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

The bottom five included (from bad to worst): Warren G. Harding, William Henry Harrison, Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson, and James Buchanan. Previously, I described Andrew Johnson as possibly the "worst" president due to his callous efforts to kill Reconstruction and perpetuate the subordination of black people, and based on his awful conflicts with the Republican Party, which almost led to his removal from office. My analysis upset the crowd at Democratic Underground who seemingly believed that any argument that did not consider Bush the worst president emanated from a vile and corrupt mind. Does anyone know how the kids are reacting to the release of this survey?

Lyndon B. Johnson: Number 11
I am happy to see that LBJ ranks number 11. Many liberals despise Johnson due to the Vietnam War and his crass Southern persona. But Johnson actually did more than any other president -- including Kennedy -- to advance racial equality, assistance for the poor, public education, public health care, and general civil rights concerns.

Nevertheless, Johnson typically gets less credit on these liberal issues than he deserves, while Kennedy tends to receive far more acclaim on these matters than his performance warrants. Of course, social movements played a critical and essential role in pushing Johnson towards these accomplishments. The engagement of social movements with presidential leadership allowed for the dramatic political and social changes of the Johnson administration.

Chicken Little Politics: Moderate Obama Causes Progressive Panic

Reality Check for the Left: Obama Is a Moderate
With every new Cabinet appointment, guarded and nuanced statement about the prospect of reform, and "shocking" embrace of policies that progressives vehemently oppose, the Left continues to discover what it refused to see earlier: Obama is a moderate politician (which I do not view as an inherently negative quality). If Obama is not a moderate, he has strongly indicated that he will likely govern from the middle nevertheless, probably in order to maximize his political support and ensure reelection.

In a normal year, this rather standard assessment of a president governing a politically divided, yet moderate, country would not warrant extended debate. But progressives have formed high expectations of Obama's presidency. Progressives have heralded Obama's victory as a triumph of the righteous Left over the corrupt Right. The Democratic primaries provided the initial stage in this battle of good versus evil, and Obama's victory over Clinton supposedly renewed the Left's influence in Democratic Party politics. According to progressives, it also dethroned the Clintons and reduced them to useless relics of a nightmarish political past filled with selfishness, immorality, and triangulation.

Although Obama's campaign focused broadly on "change," liberals and Leftists largely interpreted this mantra as progressive change. His presidency would rid the country and world of the worst elements of the Clinton and Bush legacies: free trade, deregulation, wealth inequality, and foreign policy marred by hawkishness and unilateralism. Obama would also strengthen labor unions, enforce and augment civil and individual rights, protect the environment, appoint liberal judges, bring about world peace, and generally restore the "dignity" of the United States. Although the Left is usually skeptical of establishment politicians, progressives truly believed Obama could deliver this enormous basket of liberal reforms.

Obama's general election victory has only heightened the dramatic claims of liberals and progressives. Now, many of them have argued that the nation has become center-left and that a new generation of political and social dominance by liberals has finally arrived. Liberal commentators have begun eulogizing the GOP and declaring the death of "old white wealthy male heterosexual" power (see 2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But Melodrama).

But now that Obama has hired several individuals most despised by the Left, including Clinton, many progressives have shifted gears and now argue that Obama has betrayed them. Their anger, however, is misplaced. Progressives must blame themselves for believing that Obama was anything other than a moderate politician in the mold of Bill Clinton. They have only recently discovered his true political ideology because their irrational hatred of the Clintons and desperate desire for a progressive president caused them to accept Obama uncritically and project their own desires upon him. He became "their" candidate, even though he designed his campaign to appeal to the broadest audience possible. Now that Obama has signaled that he will not transform the White House into a leftist space, progressives are experiencing collective shock, dismay and a sense of betrayal.

How and Why Progressives Constructed Obama as a Progressive

Anti-"Clinton" Hatred
During the Democratic primaries, progressives exhibited an extreme level of animosity towards Hillary Clinton. Much of their disgust with Clinton stemmed from lingering disappointment with Bill Clinton's presidency. Progressives hate former President Clinton's compromises with conservatives, his failure to fight for some progressive causes, and his embrace of the center. They refuse to acknowledge or diminish the significance of his liberal accomplishments (e.g., protecting abortion rights, making liberal judicial appointments, reducing black unemployment, and negotiating the Irish peace accords). Leftists unleashed their pent up anger with Clinton's administration upon his wife. Progressives helped construct the two Clintons as a pathological "Billary" and refused to take Hillary Clinton on her own terms. Although Clinton contributed to this by claiming "experience" related to her husband's presidency, she never said that she was simply his political clone. Progressives, however, refused to distinguish the two. Both represented unmitigated evil.

Liberal Sexism
Many progressives also harbored deeply sexist hostility (explicit and unconscious) towards Clinton. To these individuals, Clinton was a dangerous (b/w)itch, Tanya Harding, shrill, nagging, dominatrix, etc. Prejudice prevents a realistic assessment of its victims. If, as I argue, Clinton experienced sexism from progressives, this could explain their distorted and negative view of her and their unrealistically positive understanding of Obama.

Naive View of Race Relations
In addition, a large number of white progressives and liberals supported Obama in part because his success could prove to them that the United States had finally become a post-racist society, despite the fact that people of color lag severely behind whites in every significant indicator of social well being. One liberal white academic told me that he was content campaigning for Obama because as he "knocked on each door, he realized that we were finally putting this race thing behind us."

Even before Obama secured the Democratic nomination, political commentators opined warmly about the tremendous progress his successful candidacy symbolized. Many said that it proved that race no longer mattered in American society. Obama represented a younger generation of black politicians for whom race politics (thankfully) did not play a significant role. Obama became the treasured antidote to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Linking him with either of these men constituted racism; Bill Clinton discovered this when he compared Obama's South Carolina victory with Jackson's.

Obama's success in the general election has led to even more sweeping claims about American post-racialism. A close examination of exit polls, however, demonstrate that Obama only won the election due to an increased presence of black and Latino voters in key states and to his greater level of support among these demographics relative to Democrats in the recent past. Despite media commentary that suggests a fundamental transformation in race-based voting, Obama failed to win a majority of white voters in eleven "blue states," and he only won a slight majority (51-52%) in five others, including his home state of Illinois, where he received just over 1/2 of votes cast by whites. Furthermore, Obama, like all other Democratic presidential candidates since 1964, failed to win a nationwide majority of white voters. Without a surge of black and Latino voters, Obama would have lost the election (see Reality Check: Obama's Election Victory Does Not Mean That Era of Race-Based Identity Politics Has Died ).

Obama as Rorschach
Progressives so desperately wanted a left-leaning president -- without Clinton as a surname -- that they projected their own political fantasies upon Obama. Progressives constructed Obama, with his tacit acceptance, as the progressive leader they "had been waiting for." They also reacted swiftly to any dissenting voice that offered a complicated appraisal of Obama. For example, progressives responded with hostility when liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman began criticizing Obama's economic and healthcare proposals and statements he made on the campaign trail. Often, the popular media along with progressives would imply that people who preferred Clinton or McCain over Obama were racists. This racist lot included Latinos who voted for Clinton during the primaries, but who later fueled Obama's general election victories in Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado.

Regardless of the merits of Obama as a candidate and president, an atmosphere that rejects dissent cannot sustain progress. Because the Left helped to silence inquiry regarding the details of Obama's political commitments, while lauding him effusively and bashing his opponents, they must blame themselves for not discovering his moderate political status earlier.

No, Chicken Little, the Sky Is not Falling

Progressive Social Movements Can Create Change With Moderate Presidents
Being a moderate does not make Obama (or any other candidate) unfit for office, nor does it preclude progressive change. Many progressives who are angry that Obama is a political moderate seem to have a gross misunderstanding of the history of social progress in the United States. Advancements in terms of race, gender, class, and other liberal causes did not occur because a progressive president governed the nation. Instead, these changes occurred because of progressive domestic social movement activity, international scrutiny and criticism, extreme factors like economic depression and warfare shifting voter attitudes, and a convergence of interests between dominant forces and minority groups.

Great Historical Changes With Moderate Presidents
Obama's supporters have likened him to President Lincoln in order to portray his presidency as potentially generating tremendous change. But Lincoln was not a radical. He would have preferred to maintain slavery or to end it gradually. Exigencies of the war led him to a more dramatic path, however. And while he personally opposed slavery, Lincoln embraced many of the prevailing racial prejudices of his generation and devised a plan to send blacks "back to Africa." He was not a card-carrying member of the Radical wing of the Republican Party. Lincoln was not Charles Sumner. But abolitionists and Radical Republicans used him to help create change.

Liberals have also made very warm comparisons of Obama and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But labor and other liberal groups pressured Roosevelt to design and implement his New Deal legislation. Furthermore, despite his commitment to forward looking economic legislation, Roosevelt had a shaky to horrific record on civil rights and is responsible for the racist internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Progressives also frequently compare Obama to John F. Kennedy. Progressives have long overstated Kennedy's contribution to racial equality movements. Although he was prepared to sign comprehensive civil rights legislation before his death, civil rights leaders constantly pushed him into this direction, and it took witnessing state-sponsored and private violence against blacks in the South before he finally endorsed the legislation. Johnson, by contrast, whom progressives despise due to his role in the Vietnam War, actually did far more than Kennedy had indicated he would do in terms of advancing racial and economic justice. Clinton was right in saying that it "took a president to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964," but it took a politically active village to make sure that he did so.

What Today's Progressives Must Do to Create Liberal Change with Obama
Historically, nongovernmental actors have pushed moderate, though sympathetic, politicians to implement progressive reforms. In order to make sure that Obama's presidency delivers progressive change, the Left needs to take inventory of and admit to its own responsibility in misreading him. Progressives also need to acknowledge that sexism, Clinton-hatred, and an understandable but naive desire to move beyond race politics combined to create a situation where they idealized Obama and assigned to him values that he did not specifically espouse. Finally, progressives need to begin articulating specific political agendas that they want to see accomplished in the next four years and to design strategies to bring these goals to fruition.

Bickering over Obama's moderate status -- something many others knew or suspected a long time ago -- will not do the work necessary to generate progressive change. If the Left actually believes in the ideas it espouses, then its members will quickly begin the task of constructing a new progressive agenda. If they simply continue to whine, then maybe "more of the same" satisfies them well enough.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

* Leftists Finally Realize Obama Is a Moderate; Huffington Post Suddenly Embraces Clinton and Political Center

* The "Left" Responds to Obama's "Centrist" Foreign Policy Team

* Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State

* 2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But Melodrama

* Reality Check: Obama's Election Victory Does Not Mean That Era of Race-Based Identity Politics Has Died

* Head Explosion at The Nation: Left "Duped" by Its "Own Wishful Thinking"

* Warning to Progressives: NYT Proclaims Obama Will Govern From Center-Right

* Back Down Memory Lane: A Review of Anti-Clinton Rhetoric by "Progressives" on Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and AlterNet

Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State

Every day, reality rears its ugly head for progressives. During the Democratic primaries and in the general election campaign, I often thought that the left was collectively in an Obama-Vegetative State. Like zombies, they moved along, unable to muster up the slightest analysis of Obama that did not sound like messianic blather. I do not blame Obama for this. On the contrary, I have come to view him as one of the most skillful politicians in U.S. history. Progressives, however, frightened me because most of them abdicated dissent.

Recently, however, the EEG has detected signs of brain activity among the left. Now progressives seem to realize that an "election is not a social movement" (something I argued weeks ago). Gradually, more of them now argue that in order for Obama's presidency to generate meaningful reform, grassroots political activism around specific issues (rather than ambiguous appeals to change and hope) must take place. This will not occur if leftists and liberals remain lulled into an hypnotic state by their excitement of having a Democratic president and their utter shock and amazement that this Democrat is also black. Here are some examples of renewed signs of life among progressives.

The Nation
For the last year, The Nation (a liberal magazine) was passionately uncritical. Anything Obama did generated chills, tears, smiles, and warmth. Euphoria comes to mind as an umbrella term to describe the mental state of writers for the Nation. Now that the election is over, kinks have emerged in the liberal Utopia. For example, Francis Fox Piven has published an essay arguing that liberals and progressives need to generate activism to push Obama to implement progressive policies. No, Virginia, he will not do it on his own! Piven accurately argues that FDR -- the storied leader of progressive change in the U.S. -- did not come to power with a radical agenda. Instead, labor movements, consumer activism, and political protests helped push through meaningful reform. A coalition of progressive causes also supported the progressive changes that took place during the Johnson Administration.

The Executive Director of the NAACP has also joined the conversation at The Nation. Benjamin Todd Jealous acknowledges the historic nature of Obama's presidency, but he argues that: "[W]e cannot stop here. This victory is momentous but ethereal. Progress is eroded when not pushed forward, taken to the next level."

Reactions to Cabinet Selections
Obama's cabinet choices so far have probably done the most to jolt progressives out of their slumber. Many people on the left feel "betrayed," if not horrified, by Obama's personnel decisions. They are particularly upset by his choice of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff and are sweating bullets over the prospect of Hillary Clinton heading the State Department and Larry Summers getting the nod at Treasury. But perhaps they got some relief when Penny Pritzker, the 135th wealthiest American according to Forbes Magazine, declined to accept an offer from our beloved community organizer to become Secretary of Commerce.


Matthew Rothschild at The Progressive criticizes Obama for not appointing persons with progressive credentials to serve in his cabinet. He argues that "there are a lot of talented progressives who could be in an Obama cabinet." Rothschild's list of potential nominees includes Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of State. Back at The Nation, Tom Englehardt argues that it almost seems as if Clinton won the election and that "Clintonistas are just piling up in the prospective corridors of power" (I have made similar arguments).


And over at the liberal blog Open Left, David Sirota has blown a gasket reacting to the current line-up of Obama appointees, calling the situation "creepy." Sirota argues that:

For all the talk of "change," I'm really curious whether Barack Obama thinks
there are any worthy, smart, well-qualified people who aren't part of permanent
Washington and who didn't serve in the Clinton administration? Certainly, his
campaign apparatus appreciated that. But it doesn't seem like his transition
team does (a transition team, of course, dominated by former Clinton officials).

My take: This is great stuff. If you read my background area, you will notice that I started this blog because I believed that during the campaigning progressives completely abdicated engaging in dissent and that liberal academics were doubly wrongheaded because as liberals and (especially) as academics they have a greater duty to examine society with a critical lens. Many progressives now realize that broad social change does not magically occur, while some of them simply thrive on criticism (like I?). None of this detracts from Obama or his victory. Instead, it just treats him like any other president or presidential candidate. Obama is positive, but imperfect, and he will do whatever it takes to get elected and re-elected. Consequently, social movements must apply pressure on him in order to ensure that he will press for progressive social change. Otherwise, he has no incentive to do so.

Related reading on Dissenting Justice: 2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But Melodrama.

Reality Check: Obama's Election Victory Does Not Mean That Era of Race-Based Identity Politics Has Died

Since 1964, no Democrat has won a majority of white voters in a presidential election. Although most media accounts of the 2008 election suggest a reversal of fortune for the Democrats, Obama's recent victory did not alter this statistic.

In 1964 Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed major civil rights legislation, which prohibited racial discrimination in a host of contexts, including employment and places of public accommodation. One provision (Title VI) also banned racial discrimination in the usage of federal money. Enforcement of this law would have bankrupted southern schools systems, because the federal government provides large amounts of financial assistance to state educational systems. Although the Supreme Court had decided Brown v. Board of Education 10 years earlier, in 1964 only 1% of white and black kids attended schools together in the South. Standing alone, Brown did not affect the racial composition of schools, although the case became an important symbol that organized blacks and their supporters to lobby for more progressive changes. After reading this blog entry, you might view Obama's victory in a similar light.

When LBJ signed the 1964 legislation, he predicted that the Democrats would lose a whole generation of the South. He was correct. But following this year's election, many commentators have argued that race relations have dramatically shifted and that the South (and other red territory) has now become blue (or at least purple), citing to Obama's victories in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, and Indiana.

Furthermore, much of the commentary surrounding the election has concluded that Obama's success in red states means that most Americans have discarded race-based identity politics and that the electoral map has permanently shifted as a result. Some of the most wildly hopeful liberals assert that the nation is now left-of-center and that Obama's administration will implement a comprehensive liberal agenda, while an impotent GOP watches in utter dismay.

Well, here at Dissenting Justice, I like to combine a hopeful outlook with a healthy dose of down-home southern "straight talk" (not the McCain-Palin variety). Consider me the designated driver among political commentators this year. Despite the dramatic discourse that proclaims a radical shift in U.S. race relations and political ideology, my analysis of exit polls in the state-to-state contests suggests that starry eyed commentators need a reality check.

In many blue states, for example, Obama failed to get a majority of white voters. In several others, he only won a very slight majority of white voters. The vast amount of support he generated from black and Latino voters helped deliver him the victory in those states where he was unable to secure a majority of white support. To Mr. Obama's credit, Gore and Kerry faced similar obstacles. But while the media announce the end of race, identity politics -- in terms of race-based voting -- clearly played a significant role in Obama's victory. Below, I provide a breakdown of the results of my analysis, which relies upon CNN exit poll data.

*11 Blue States Where Obama Failed to Get a Majority of White Votes:

Colorado (50-48), Florida (42-56), Indiana (45-54), Maryland (47-49), New Jersey (49-50), Nevada (53-45), New Mexico (42-56), North Carolina (35-64), Ohio (46-52), Pennsylvania (48-51), and Virginia (60-39).

*5 Blue States where Obama Received a Small Majority (51-52%) of White Votes:

California (52-46), Connecticut (51-46), Illinois (51-48), Iowa (51-47), and Michigan (51-47).

Data Summary and Big Picture

Obama lost the white vote by a wide margin in the traditional red states. Of the 28 states that voted for Obama, he only won a majority of white votes in 17 of them. 5 of the 17 are in New England; two of them include his birthplace of Hawaii and his current home state of Illinois. Obama' received only a small majority (between 51-52%) of white votes in Connecticut, California, Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan. UPDATE: Initially, I neglected to pull the white-voter data from Iowa and Illinois. Now I have corrected this. Incredibly, Obama only won 51% of white voters in both states!

Black and Latino voters helped secure his victory in key states. In Pennsylvania, for example, blacks and Latinos made up 17% of the electorate, and Obama received 95% of black votes and 72% of Latino votes. In Nevada, blacks and Latinos represented 25% of the vote, and Obama won blacks by 94% and Latinos by 72%. In Florida, blacks and Latinos cast 27% of the votes, and Obama won blacks by 96% and Latinos by 57%. In Indiana, where blacks and Latinos cast 7% of the votes, Obama won blacks by 90% and Latinos by 77%. In Ohio, blacks were 11% of the electorat, and Obama won 97% of their votes. In North Carolina, Obama secured 95% of black votes; blacks represented 23% of all votes in the Tar Heel State. Finally, in California, blacks and Latinos were 28% of the votes, and Obama won 95% and 74% of these important votes.

This breakdown does not mean that Obama only won because of blacks and Latinos. It does demonstrate, however, that race remains a very strong factor in voter preference -- despite all of the hoopla about the demise of race, racism, and social conservatism. A sizeable gender gap also remains pervasive in virtually all states. And California voters, who approved an anti-gay constitutional amendment, remind us that "sexual orientation" divides even the heart of the Democratic Party. Although blacks in California (and nationwide) gave Obama even more votes than they have delivered to Democratic candidates in the recent past, they also flexed their heterosexual political strength and helped to enshrine bigotry in the state constitution. Florida, Arizona and Arkansas also passed anti-gay initiatives, and affirmative action survived in suddenly blue Colorado by a hair.

Although I am happy to see very jubilant people of color and energized voters, liberals need to come back to Earth very soon because their distorted perception of the current political landscape will only harm social justice efforts. At some point (hopefully soon), the election-night buzz must concede to sobriety, and then all of us who desire concrete progressive change must engage in the tough work of organizing and developing strategies to make these changes a reality.