In his July 10 op-ed for George Mason University’s History News Network, Harvard Law School Professor Kenneth W. Mack ’91 assesses the presidency of Barack Obama ’91, comparing it to that of Abraham Lincoln in terms of each president’s respective policy decisions.
Mack suggests that Obama’s supporters, much like those of Lincoln, are taking the longer view, continuing to support the president because they believe that, “…in the longer term, [he] may be seen as someone who advances an agenda that is closer to their own.”
Mack writes: “Presumably, those who assert that a double standard is at work are concerned about issues such as the continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, civil liberties during the war on terror, the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, the expansion of presidential power, and budget cuts for social programs. … Yet, a single action, such as Obama’s recent announcement of a drawdown in Afghanistan, can make a policy position that once earned the criticism of liberal Democrats into something that seems much closer to their own desires.”
Mack, who has taught at HLS since 2000, is the author of “Representing the Race: Creating the Civil Rights Lawyer, 1920-1955” (Harvard University Press, forthcoming April 2012).
Progressives are Disenchanted with Obama—Abolitionists were Disenchanted with Lincoln
Are liberal Democrats compromising their principles by supporting President Obama, despite the centrist positions he has taken on some partisan issues? This is precisely the kind of question that is far more difficult for a historian to answer than, say, a journalist. Historians, by definition, work with the benefit of years or decades of hindsight, and this is the type of issue about which reasonable people could change their minds within the course of a few months. Presumably, those who assert that a double standard is at work are concerned about issues such as the continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, civil liberties during the war on terror, the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, the expansion of presidential power, and budget cuts for social programs. … Yet, a single action, such as Obama’s recent announcement of a drawdown in Afghanistan, can make a policy position that once earned the criticism of liberal Democrats into something that seems much closer to their own desires. Historians take an even longer view, and perhaps Obama’s liberal supporters may as well. Perhaps, in the longer term, the president may be seen as someone who advances an agenda that is closer to their own—certainly more than his opponents would if one of them occupied the Oval Office. … Read the full op-ed on the History News Network »