Former President Bill Clinton left office with some regret that historians would not remember his presidency, a self-described success, as “great.” Clinton recognized that to be considered great, a president usually has to usher citizens through some herculean challenge like secession, war, or depression. Peacetime presidents who preside over a period of economic prosperity, do not stand a chance.

While most Americans might pity President-elect Barack Obama for inheriting national and global crises, he has the chance Clinton never had to stake his claim alongside Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt.

George W. Bush had that opportunity in 2001. After September 11, even his greatest political foes were rooting for him and, despite a political career that was marked by mediocre ambition and uninspired oratory, Bush delivered a coherent and powerful address to Congress. In a time of great anxiety and confusion, Bush offered Americans a means of making sense of the attacks, and offered a response to state-sponsored terrorism. Some in the media actually dubbed him “Churchillian.”

This praise and success in the first two months of Operation Iraqi Freedom emboldened him to land a plane on the deck of the USS Lincoln and declare, “Mission accomplished!”

But if Bush had wanted to conjure the ghost of Abe Lincoln, he would have done better to listen to William Tecumseh Sherman’s forewarning to Lincoln about expectations for a short war: “You might as well attempt to put out the flames of a burning house with a squirt-gun.”

Needless to say, Bush was premature in both his assessment of the war and his place in it. Well-written speeches, publicity stunts, and a climate of fear could only mask the poorly conceived and executed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for so long. Now that Bush’s ambitious plan of remaking the Middle East has failed to materialize and the economy is in shambles, there is nothing left of his earlier hubris. He seemed all too eager for a quick exit.

Obama, more humble and pragmatic than either Bush or Clinton, understands the dire crossroads at which the nation finds itself, but appears to relish the challenge.

Like Clinton, Obama experienced a remarkable personal journey and meteoric political rise. He shows resolve and an acute sense of history.

It is not difficult to imagine that Obama, despite all the perils that await his presidency, does so with anticipation of demonstrating his greatness. His “audacity of hope,” originally a vision for healing racial, regional, and economic divides, has morphed into an even greater promise of national economic recovery and global peace. It is a bold vision, though there is a fine line between audacity and hubris.

A common question asked of historians these days is whether or not the challenges facing Obama are greater than those encountered by past presidents on the eve of their inaugurations. On the domestic front, Obama will inherit a Wall Street collapse, rising unemployment, a credit crisis, a failing automobile industry, long-term energy challenges, a broken health-care system, a Social Security system in jeopardy, and widespread environmental degradation. Add to that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, renewed Arab-Israeli hostilities, a resurgent Iran, a nuclear Korea, an increasingly rogue Pakistan, superpower China, a newly aggressive Russia, and the persistent threat of terrorism.

On the surface, Obama appears to be inheriting an America that is in worse shape than at almost any moment in its history. The apocalypse, it would seem, is right around the corner.

But if historical comparisons are to be fair, it is also worth noting that the union is strong, exceptionally so. Yes, there is much division between blue and red states. But there is no threat of violent insurrection or civil war.

George Washington came into office having to hold together a republic of citizens whose allegiance was far greater to their home states than to the United States. The federal government was so weak it was ill-equipped to raise taxes, regulate trade, support an army, or put down internal uprisings.

Lincoln faced the secession of seven southern states before he even came into office. During his presidency, Americans made war upon one another, resulting in the deaths of more than half a million citizens.

On the eve of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s inauguration, more than one quarter of the nation’s population was unemployed. Farmers used intimidation and violence to prevent foreclosures on their property. Henry Ford mounted machine guns on his factory gates to prevent workers from protesting on his property. For at least a million Americans, the economic situation had grown so dire that they were willing to emigrate to the Soviet Union for the comforts of communism.

During the 1960s, many Americans, frustrated with the way their government functioned, rejected civil discourse, took their politics to the streets, engaged in violent confrontations with police, and destroyed property. How long ago all of this seems.

Obama inherits an America riddled with enormous domestic and global challenges, but he will also take charge of a nation uniquely characterized by consensus rather than conflict. Cynics might view this as a reflection of American apathy, but surely there must be some greater glue that holds the nation together.

Despite the “trifecta of war, national emergency and recession,” Americans of all political stripes maintain a fundamental faith in their democracy and its potentially benevolent role in the world. Few Americans are willing to make war on one another, abandon the union, or use violence to further their political means. Whether this is the audacity of hope, or hubris, remains an open question.

¢¢¢

Andrew Darien is a professor of history at Salem State College.