This failure, in Todd’s account, is largely due to the president’s unwillingness to embrace the transactional politics of the capital, to play on the Washington cocktail circuit, or to court the US Congress by the flattery of his attentions. ‘[Obama] came to Washington on the strength of being a stranger to the city and to the political elites, but it hasn’t always served him well.’ Todd eschews ideological or substantive analysis, focusing instead on a narrow political perspective.

Todd’s indictment relies on two assumptions, the first of which is that, in electing Obama, Americans sought to return to the logrolling and back-scratching of a Washington of yesteryear, when transactional bipartisanship abounded and the republic flourished. This is a highly questionable reading of both the history of the capital and of popular feeling in 2008.

Barack Obama meets with House Republican caucus, 27 January 2009 (source: whitehouse.gov/blog photograph by Pete Souza via Wikimedia Commons)

The second assumption is that Obama could have avoided the partisanship and rancour that has characterised his years in Washington by adopting the tried and true practices of political accommodation and deal making. Confusingly, however, The Stranger lays out at some length the Obama administration’s early efforts at bipartisanship: ‘Politically and in the policy arena, the first quarter of Obama’s eight-year tenure will be remembered as a time when the White House, perhaps naively, stretched an arm across the aisle.’

Todd acknowledges the intensity of opposition to Obama among the new base of the Republican Party – described in The Stranger as ‘ferocious’ and ‘sometimes lunatic’ – but fails to draw the obvious conclusion that the old political playbook may no longer be effective. The rise of the Tea Party, a fluid and informal group characterised by libertarian economic ideas, nativist sentiment and social conservatism, has changed the US political landscape. The Tea Party has enforced a deeply conservative orthodoxy on the Republican House caucus through aggressive challenges to sitting Republican members who are seen as too willing to compromise. Even measures with widespread community and bipartisan support, such as comprehensive immigration reform, have foundered in the House of Representatives. In this context, Todd’s argument that a few more Obama handshakes would have broken the impasse is surely wrong.

The Stranger is weakened further by its digressive structure and its sloppy language, lazy clichés, and mixed metaphors. For instance, the reader must endure sentences such as: ‘Because while [Obama] didn’t have a willing dance partner, he seemed completely flummoxed by how to navigate these political waters and ask for a dance.’ Despite these faults, many of Todd’s criticisms of Obama as chief executive are well explored. The abdication of responsibility for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 (an economic stimulus package including government investment in research and infrastructure projects as well as a variety of tax cuts) to Congress produced a bill laden with earmarks (a pork-barrelling practice Obama had sworn to end). Exhaustive negotiations over the budget and debt ceiling in 2011 went nowhere, leading to a government shutdown in 2013. Unforgivably, the Obamacare website was a rolling disaster, crashing on its first day due to a string of management mistakes.

‘Todd concludes that ‘‘the grand change Obama promised has not come to pass’’’

According to Todd, Obama fails to grasp the importance of theatre and gamesmanship in politics. While the president’s preternatural calm is often an asset, it was not helpful during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, when the country sought a mirror for its anger. Rationality in decision-making is commendable, but in highly political negotiations it is exploited by Congressional Republicans.

The Stranger reveals some fascinating political stories. We are treated to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s theory of power: ‘[P]olitical power, like chips in a poker tournament, could be multiplied only if it was exercised: make a bet, win the bet, and gain more power. Political power unused would eventually be whittled away.’

Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs voices a frustration no doubt shared by many Congressional Democrats: ‘We’ve never figured out how to transfer the passion for him to others, and I’m not sure it’s possible.’ Todd perceives parallels between Obama and Hillary Clinton – both ‘cerebral, bookish, and organized, and both had to force themselves to be politicians’ – that may help to explain the intensity of their 2008 primary battle. Politics-as-process may be insubstantial, but it can be fascinating.

‘Todd perceives parallels between Obama and Hillary Clinton – both ‘cerebral, bookish, and organized, and both had to force themselves to be politicians’’’

Yet the limitations of a purely political analysis shadow The Stranger and undermine its central thesis. While Obama may have political weaknesses, the administration has been prolific in policy and legislative terms. Obama – whom Todd describes as ‘staggeringly naïve’, arrogant, and too often found ‘sitting on the sidelines’ – secured the passage of universal healthcare legislation (something that other Democratic presidents had failed to achieve since Harry Truman), passed an economic stimulus bill larger in real dollars than any single New Deal measure, saved the American auto industry, implemented financial sector reforms (including the Volker rule that forbids proprietary trading by banks), repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and took incremental but important steps to fight climate change, among myriad other domestic changes. Later, Todd glibly observes: ‘For gay Americans, Obama’s administration will go down as being as important as LBJ’s was for blacks.’ He then moves swiftly along, scarcely acknowledging the significance.

President Barack Obama talks with Rep. Eric Cantor, 30 November 2010 (source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse via Wikimedia Commons)

Todd’s criticism of Obama’s foreign policy seems unconcerned with whether the administration’s major decisions are right or wrong (or that the success of a foreign policy is usually measured in long-term gain). The focus on politics and communications necessarily elevates small missteps and ignores the broader picture. In this way, Todd’s critique of Obama becomes emblematic of the excessively political culture of Washington and the general media landscape.

Ultimately, debate about Obama’s legacy and achievements, the lost opportunities and the long-term impact of his policies, is only just beginning. In one sense, Todd is right that Obama’s legacy will not be one of bipartisanship. Obama’s early efforts to reach out to Republicans were consistently, and often maliciously, rejected. Obama may nevertheless be a transformational president, either in the mould of Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt.

As The New Yorker’s editorial board wrote in 2012, the president ‘has been progressive, competent, rational, decent, and, at times, visionary’. Obama’s major policy positions, whether on the environment and climate change, the need to address income inequality, domestic civil rights, or foreign policy, have largely become Democratic orthodoxy. In the broader contest of political ideas, Barack Obama has presented a strong and defensible liberal vision of America. Whether it will prove durable is not yet clear. But the debate will continue.