Obama's Brilliant First Year By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt.By Jacob Weisberg
[Barack Obama. Click image to expand.] <http://www.slate.com/id/2236712/> Barack Obama About one thing, left and right seem to agree these days: Obama hasn't done anything yet. Maureen Dowd <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22dowd.html?_r=1%26em> and Dick Cheney <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR20091\ 02104242.html> have found common ground in scoffing at the president's "dithering." Newsweek recently ran a sympathetic cover story titled, "Yes He Can (But He Sure Hasn't Yet)." The sarcasm brigade thinks it's finally found an Achilles' heel in his lack of accomplishments. "When you look at my record, it's very clear what I've done so far and that is nothing. Nada. Almost one year and nothing to show for it," Obama stand-in Fred Armisen recently riffed on Saturday Night Live. "It's chow time <http://www.afterelton.com/blog/edkennedy/daily-show-10-06-09> ," Jon Stewart asserts, for a president who hasn't followed through on his promises. This conventional wisdom about Obama's first year isn't just prematureit's sure to be flipped on its head by the anniversary of his inauguration on Jan. 20. If, as seems increasingly likely, Obama wins passage of a health care reform a bill by that date, he will deliver his first State of the Union address having accomplished more than any other postwar American president at a comparable point in his presidency. This isn't an ideological point or one that depends on agreement with his policies. It's a neutral assessment of his emerging recordhow many big, transformational things Obama is likely to have made happen in his first 12 months in office. The case for Obama's successful freshman year rests above all on the health care legislation now awaiting action in the Senate. Democrats have been trying to pass national health insurance for 60 years. Past presidents who tried to make it happen and failed include Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Through the summer, Obama caught flak <http://www.slate.com/id/2224026/> for letting Congress lead the process, as opposed to setting out his own proposal. Now his political strategy is being vindicated. The bill he signs may be flawed in any number of waysweak on cost control, too tied to the employer-based system, and inadequate in terms of consumer choice. But given the vastness of the enterprise and the political obstacles, passing an imperfect behemoth and improving it later is probably the only way to succeed where his predecessors failed. We are so submerged in the details of this debatewhether the bill will include a "public option," limit coverage for abortion, or tax Botox <http://www.slate.com/id/2236447/> that it's easy to lose sight of the magnitude of the impending change. For the federal government to take responsibility for health coverage will be a transformation of the American social contract and the single biggest change in government's role since the New Deal. If Obama governs for four or eight years and accomplishes nothing else, he may be judged the most consequential domestic president since LBJ. He will also undermine the view that Ronald Reagan permanently reversed a 50-year tide of American liberalism. Obama's claim to a fertile first year doesn't rest on health care alone. There's mounting evidence that the $787 billion economic stimulus he signed in Februarycombined with the bank bailout packageprevented an economic depression. Should the stimulus have been larger? Should it have been more weighted to short-term spending, as opposed to long-term tax cuts? Would a second round be a good idea? Pundits and policymakers will argue these questions for years to come. But few mainstream economists seriously dispute that Obama's decisive action prevented a much deeper downturn and restored economic growth in the third quarter. The New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/business/economy/21stimulus.html?scp=\ 3%26sq=obama%2520economic%2520stimulus%26st=cse> recently quoted Mark Zandi, who was one of candidate John McCain's economic advisers, on this point: "The stimulus is doing what it was supposed to doit is contributing to ending the recession," he said. "In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent." When it comes to foreign policy, Obama's accomplishment has been less tangible but hardly less significant: He has put America on a new footing with the rest of the world. In a series of foreign trips and speeches, which critics deride as trips and speeches, he replaced George W. Bush's unilateral, moralistic militarism with an approach that is multilateral, pragmatic, and conciliatory. Obama has already significantly reoriented policy toward Iran, China, Russia, Iraq, Israel, and the Islamic world. Next week, after a much-disparaged period of review, he will announce a new strategy in Afghanistan. No, the results do not yet merit his Nobel Peace Prize. But not since Reagan has a new president so swiftly and determinedly remodeled America's global role. Obama has wisely deferred some smaller, politically hazardous battles over issues such as closing Guantanamo, ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and fighting the expansion of Israel's West Bank settlements <http://www.slate.com/id/2220309/> . Instead, he has saved his fire for his most urgent prioritiespreventing a depression, remaking America's global image, and winning universal health insurance. Chow time indeed, if you ask me. http://www.slate.com/id/2236708/
