Dwight D. Obama?

On foreign affairs, pundits, political writers and more than a few historians are forever comparing Barack Obama to past presidents in a mostly futile effort to understand the enigma currently residing in the White House. Surely there is a clearly defined box in which we can fit Obama. He can't be unique. No way. Banish the thought!

Continuing the parlor game, the estimable Ronald Brownstein makes the latest stab at molding Obama into the marble bust of a President Past. His (not so original) pick: Dwight D. Eisenhower.

But giving credit where credit is due, Brownstein makes a surprisingly compelling case:

"Whether he is confronting the turmoil reshaping the Middle East or the escalating budget wars in Washington, Obama most often uses a common set of strategies to pursue his goals. Those strategies have less in common with Kennedy's inspirational, public-oriented leadership than with the muted, indirect, and targeted Eisenhower model that political scientist Fred Greenstein memorably described as a "hidden hand" presidency. [...] But, like it did for Eisenhower, this style has exposed Obama to charges of passivity, indecisiveness, and leading from behind. The pattern has left even some of his supporters uncertain whether he is shrewd--or timid."

Obama does bear a resemblance to Ike. Like his predecessor, Obama has a keen diplomatic mind and is an instinctive coalition builder. Both men eschew ideology in favor of pragmatism. In the case of both presidents, however, Brownstein overstates the charges of weakness stemming from allegedly passive styles. Ike's role as Supreme Allied Commander during World War II was anything but docile. And as president, Ike was, if anything, overzealous in running roughshod over foreign opponents (see Iran, Bay of Pigs). As for Obama, the 24/7 news cycle too easily goads people into mistaking calm deliberation and patience for "dithering." Moreover, rendering any verdict on Obama's operating style is a bit premature. The man has six more years in the job (assuming he wins re-election).

Brownstein concludes by asking, "Can a 'hidden hand' presidency thrive in the 24/7 information maelstrom?" Well, given what Obama has already accomplished in a mere 25 months -- from reshaping world opinion to pulling the economy back from the brink to winning landmark legislation to deft statesmanship (Libya) -- I would say he is thriving amid this epoch of train wreck journalism and partisanship. The rest is largely "optics," a consideration history will largely dismiss, just like it has done for Ike, a man once dismissed as a "do-nothing" president.

Consider this: One reason why Obama is so difficult to decipher is that we are witnessing something wholly unique. We're present at the moment of creation, if you will, and the unfamiliar light is disorienting if not blinding. Obama may yet implode like a super nova and disappear into an Arthurian black hole. (That's President Chester A. Arthur. Who? Exactly.) Or he may evolve into a brilliant sun whose radiance will endure for ages as it has for the likes of Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR. For now, all we can do is wonder.