The Incite Institute, a social science research center at Columbia University, is releasing a new oral history of the Obama presidency. Judging from the coverage in the New York Times, a key theme is how Barack Obama and just about the entire White House team around him were completely blindsided by the rise and election of Donald Trump.

He was, to them, a “con man,” a “clown,” a “laughingstock.” He was a thorn in the side with his birther lies and demagogic bloviating. But as it turned out, Mr. Obama and his advisers, like many others, missed the shifting mood of the country that would ultimately upend [David] Axelrod’s assumptions. …But nine years after he left office with high approval ratings and one year into Mr. Trump’s second term, what remains striking is how inconceivable it seemed to Mr. Obama and his team that populist disenchantment with the establishment, globalization and demographic changes would elevate a figure they scorned. It was a question that hovered over the interviews as they struggled for answers. “The outcome of the election was a direct rebuke of everything that we had been trying to do for the last 10 years,” reflected Josh Earnest, who was Mr. Obama’s last White House press secretary. “Trump’s candidacy,” he added, “the essence of his being and everything that he stood for and everything about the way that he carried himself and everything that he championed and his rhetoric, his campaign tactics — all were anathema to everything that the Obama campaign and the Obama era, the Obama administration, had been about.”

He was, to them, a “con man,” a “clown,” a “laughingstock.” He was a thorn in the side with his birther lies and demagogic bloviating. But as it turned out, Mr. Obama and his advisers, like many others, missed the shifting mood of the country that would ultimately upend [David] Axelrod’s assumptions.

…But nine years after he left office with high approval ratings and one year into Mr. Trump’s second term, what remains striking is how inconceivable it seemed to Mr. Obama and his team that populist disenchantment with the establishment, globalization and demographic changes would elevate a figure they scorned. It was a question that hovered over the interviews as they struggled for answers.

“The outcome of the election was a direct rebuke of everything that we had been trying to do for the last 10 years,” reflected Josh Earnest, who was Mr. Obama’s last White House press secretary.

“Trump’s candidacy,” he added, “the essence of his being and everything that he stood for and everything about the way that he carried himself and everything that he championed and his rhetoric, his campaign tactics — all were anathema to everything that the Obama campaign and the Obama era, the Obama administration, had been about.”

Later in the article, Jen Psaki asks a difficult question:

In those moments, and plenty since, it was hard for Mr. Obama’s team not to wonder what it all meant. “It’s like, was that a success?” Ms. Psaki reflected. “I don’t know, but it is a piece of history, which is important.”

In those moments, and plenty since, it was hard for Mr. Obama’s team not to wonder what it all meant. “It’s like, was that a success?” Ms. Psaki reflected. “I don’t know, but it is a piece of history, which is important.”

If the electorate chooses to replace with you with someone who is anathema to everything you and your administration are about, then no, there is no easily-justifiable way to declare that presidency a “success.”

What struck me reading about the comments from the Obama staffers was their disbelief that by November 2016, Americans could believe that the Obama presidency had been such a disappointment that they wanted to go in a dramatically different direction.

Since 1979, Gallup has asked Americans, “are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?” Dissatisfied has outnumbered satisfied consistently since 2003, but in the first week of November in 2016, 37 percent said satisfied, and 62 percent said dissatisfied. In July, just 17 percent had answered satisfied. Perhaps that reflects the American public having unreasonable or unjustifiably high expectations. Or perhaps that reflects more than eight years of media coverage of Obama that had literally described him in messianic terms and imagery, hitting the brick wall of reality. If you promise paradise and don’t deliver it, people get angry.

Of course, Obama and his team are far from being alone in believing they had delivered incredible results for an electorate full of ingrates By 2020, President Trump refused to believe that he had lost his bid for reelection, and insisted he had enjoyed the “greatest first term in presidential history.” By 2024, President Joe Biden (and many of his media allies) contended that the U.S. economy was the world’s best. (In his final interview as president, Joe Biden also contended that if he had stayed in the race, he would have beaten Trump.) As recently as yesterday, Trump insists that his second inauguration launched “a golden age.” Trump’s job approval rating is around 42 percent, and just 38 percent of Americans think the country is headed in the right direction, while 56 percent think it is on the wrong track.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is when “a person’s lack of knowledge and skill in a certain area causes them to overestimate their own competence.”

Meanwhile, those who are poor performers overestimate themselves the most,3 and may be more likely to pursue leadership roles or other positions of power. Not only are overconfident individuals extremely resistant to being taught—since they believe they know the most—but they are also guilty of sharing the most information. When these individuals confidently announce their stance, we are more likely to believe them, regardless of whether or not the information is well-founded. On a global level, the Dunning-Kruger effect can have dangerous consequences, whether that be in education, healthcare, or politics.

Meanwhile, those who are poor performers overestimate themselves the most,3 and may be more likely to pursue leadership roles or other positions of power. Not only are overconfident individuals extremely resistant to being taught—since they believe they know the most—but they are also guilty of sharing the most information. When these individuals confidently announce their stance, we are more likely to believe them, regardless of whether or not the information is well-founded.

On a global level, the Dunning-Kruger effect can have dangerous consequences, whether that be in education, healthcare, or politics.

If you want to count Trump twice, the American people have had four consecutive presidents (and supporting staff) who were absolutely convinced they did or are doing a terrific job, and that the American electorate is just too ill-informed to realize it.

© National Review