From the moment he was sworn in as the nation’s 44th President, President Barack Obama made clear his resolve to get right down to work to deal directly with a huge order of both the United States’ and the rest of the world’s emergencies and predicaments.

Despite the scope and depth of these crises, he has promised solutions for the withering economy and two abysmal wars that have created far more bad than good. With plans laid forth to create and save millions of jobs, repair our image as aggressive hardliners through diplomacy and talk of shifting to soft power — and perhaps to take inspiration from European models of social welfare through leading Congress to pass Universal Healthcare — Obama has shown the kind of determination to meet these problems head-on and to change business-as-usual in Washington by fostering an atmosphere of bipartisanship and consensus.

Even with all of this, the President showed no display of hesitancy when we saw him speak before Chief Justice Roberts had a chance to finish the ritual. But since he created such a aura of hope, there have been some difficulties with problematic Cabinet appointments, a Republican Party that is more ready to revert to ideology than be cooperative, and now in this new era of lightening-fast news cycles and exceedingly high expectations, to face questions as to whether or not his presidency has already failed. That question comes from respected economist Martin Wolf in the Financial Times.

And so with reality in full gear, the public awaits the President’s stimulus plan to kick in. He has a comfortable job approval rating (67%), but a slight majority with public approval of the stimulus bill (51%), both according to Gallup, and we all wonder what he thinks now of his ability to accomplish ushering us into a new era?

Looking at history makes it even more interesting.

If we remember Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address in 1860, he stated, regarding the major issue of the day, slavery: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”  He then declared he had taken oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

By the end of his office, Lincoln set the nation on a path to a long recovery period.  He was not entirely the visionary often taught in school (though he did personally state he detested the institution of slavery), but rather he was part visionary and part political animal.
Then there is FDR who said during the campaign that, “Our industrial plant is built; the problem just now is whether under existing conditions it is not overbuilt.” He eventually won because his campaign was that of an urgent problem solver. His main intention was to balance the budget. But like Lincoln before him – who freed the slaves in order to save the Union – FDR set in motion budget deficits in order to finance expansion of the welfare state.

Another interesting case study of our nation’s leaders in times of crisis is George W. Bush. These years can be best described as crises both inexorable and exacerbated by poor judgment. The attacks on Sept. 11th gave way to a strong push for a new world order- like vision.

And so, after looking at the above crisis-time leaders, the question that remains is who is President Obama behaving like? Is he the more calculated and political animals like Lincoln and FDR, or, as his inaugural address may make us wonder, does he see himself as a George W. Bush-like savior? One thing we learn from studying history, is that unforeseen events do indeed change the course of how leaders respond, despite their lofty-stated intentions. – Jeremy Zogby

Jeremy politics animals, economy, health, history, ideology, Obama, war, work, zogby