This was a good book - and it was a good time to read it, here in the early days of the (ugh) Trump administration. Chait argues that Obama's legacy: 1) is far greater than people give him credit for, and 2) will be a lot more difficult to undo that people suspect. Chait makes good points to back up these ideas, though he can overlook some aspects that explain Obama's current reputation.
Chait begins by noting how ambitious Obama's original stated goals were - and even his critics noted that. Eventually, though, people came to see his legacy as much more muted, both on the left and right. Chait ain't having that. Chait argues that Obama made major changes to help bail out the economy, to engage in financial reform, health care reform, education reform (which was actually largely buried in Obamacare as an afterthought, but in there nonetheless), environmental reform, and foreign policy. Oh, and his political coalition will endure long after Trump's time, Chait maintains.
Chait argues that people don't give Obama credit because the left tends to be excessively disappointed by any compromise, and because the daily mucky-muck of the legislative process makes any/all victories impure. Chait notes that if you look back at the actual goings-on of previous Democratic heroes, their legislation was also the product of bastard child compromises. Was LBJ the best at wrangling arms to get votes? Well, funny how he lost that ability when he lost seats in the 1966 midterms. OK, that's all true - especially the part about how the legislative process sullies and muddies everything. But one thought I had: it's also true that Obama did a bad job selling his damn programs to the people. He had a nice inside game (working Washington DC to get his shit passed), but lacked a strong outside game (selling his vision to the American people). Bill Clinton made a rousing defense of Obamacare at the '12 DNC, but Obama himself fizzled at that, oddly enough. Also, Chait's own points in the book show why Obama's legacy is easy to underrate currently. A lot of the stuff was done silently and slowly under the surface, such as funding for green energy in the stimulus bill. It's already made green energy far more efficient, but unless you're really paying attention, you'd never know that, let alone link it to anything Obama ever did. Similarly, the Obamacare act had a clause allowing for direct lending for college students and undoing a lot of the worst predatory college loan practices - but how many people knew about that at all? A lot of what Obama did is buried deep in the background, and has never been well sold/explained to the people, so it's understandable if people underrate Obama's legacy.
As to why Obama's legacy will be hard to undo, Chait clearly had to do some late re-writing of this book after Trump's shocking election, but even still based on the points Chait makes, undoing Obama's legacy will still be easier to do in theory than in practice (something we're seeing a hint of with the current efforts to repeal Obamacare). Among other things: a lot of the legacy has already been accomplished. Green energy has been made more efficient. I believe he noted that in some of the sunnier spots of the world, solar power already works about as efficiently as fossil fuels. The economy was bailed out of its rut. Obamacare has given insurance to millions who previously lacked it - and any attempt to undo that will raise all manner of hell (which is exactly what's going on right now. The GOP might hate Obamacare, but the principle of using the government to help people get insurance clearly has caught on). Chait notes that Obama's environmental legacy is most at risk, because it's heavily predicated on executive orders that can be undone by other executive orders, but even there Chait holds out hope because a lot of the biggest executive orders, like his Clean Power Plan, has pushed the nation to more renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. (The Supreme Court could also kill it, but the point Chait makes is that the push is on).
Chait does note that Obama has a mixed legacy at best in foreign policy, as his efforts at dealing with Syria have been halting and at times counter-productive. But he also adds that it's an improvement over Bush. For me, that's not a great counterpoint. Also, as Chait notes there was a lack of a clear sweeping vision for Obama's foreign policy moves (or, for that matter, many of his domestic policy ones) that hurt him. Oddity: Chait never notes the more recent success at boxing in ISIS, which I've read others claim is a result of Obama's overall plan at dealing with them. That's the sort of point that would be right up Chait's alley in this book.
One main problem I had with the book overall is that it does tend to overstate Obama's effectiveness. Yes, we have pulled out of the worst of the recession, but I think it's pretty clear that it mauled a lot of small towns in ways that they haven't recovered from. As I've seen some people point out, if we're all doing so well and great right now, that why have huge swaths of small town & rural America shifted from supporting Democrats to supporting Trump? Chait looks at the aggregate whole, but often the micro-level reality is more turbulent.
Oh, and I almost forgot one other thing: Chait is also bullish on Obama's future because he wants people to take the long view. He doesn't see Trump's narrow electoral mandate as a great sign moving forward. It's focusing on declining chunks of the population: older whites and those without college educations. In the short term, this is great for the GOP. Those guys vote most often. They are far better at turning out at midterm elections. And the GOP has harnassed the white-hot anger at Democrats to some impressive victories. But it's not a path to governing, and at some point you have to do that as well. (And without Obama to kick around up top, that's going to expose their own limitations more). More than that, Chait breaks it down generationally. The Obama coalition was a profoundly young one, as he smoked McCain and Romney with younger votes, and even Hillary Clinton - a person hardly in touch with the youth of America - won big with young voters. Chait notes there's an old logic about how people start out liberal but then turn conservative, but Chait says that's a thought not backed up by much in the way of traditional voting. People are more likely to be consistent in their voting. In fact, he notes that from 1976-2000, there really was no sizable young/old voting divide. You had one in 1972, but even there McGoven lost with the young (but not nearly as badly as he did with the old). Chait doesn't mention it, but that's also during the damn Vietnam War, which would heighten generational issues.
Anyhow, Chait notes that the Trump base is based on a highly racially inflamed populace. The younger are more racially liberal. More than that, the younger are more racially diverse. What Trump was able to to do is get a couple heavily white states to flip by razor-thin margins before states like North Carolina or Arizona flipped the other way. Chait says the nature of the current GOP base makes it difficult to reach out to the next generation - and it's going to keep growing as a size of the electorate. Polling shows that they like a bigger government. They aren't animated by the same issues firing up the GOP. That's the final reason Chait is bullish on Obama's legacy: he created a new generation of voters who lean liberal far more than they lean conservative.
Shortly after the election I remember telling someone to wake up me up in 20 years time, because I think the next decade or two is going to be rough, but as Chait notes at the end, I think it'll eventually turn a liberal direction. This isn't a perfect book, but it is a good one.