It is always difficult to discuss a recent President objectively. If he is a Democrat they would like him because he pursued the liberal agenda and if he is a Republican they would like him because he pursued a conservative agenda. He would then be hated by the other party for the exact same reason. When I write that Obama was a terrible President, I say it not because he pursued a globalist agenda which I am against, but rather how he pursued his globalist agenda.
Once you observe the various agreements Obama pursued you can see the general pattern he uses to strike major landmark deals. He would pick an issue and then give so much benefits up front while requiring so little back that the other party that they would have to be stupid not to agree. To make the deal defensible there would be some sort of commitment the other party would have to make in the far future but the US would have no way to force the other party to comply. After all the benefits have already all been given up front. In essence all of the landmark deals he made were just to improve his image while providing no benefit to the United States.
Let us go thru some of his agreements to see Obama in action. The most popular would of course be the Paris agreement on climate change. The fact that he did not go thru the senate already makes this suspect as it would be easily cancelled.
As everyone knows Paris was supposed to get a commitment from all its signatories on how much they can reduce emissions every year. Once you take a look at the actual commitments you will realize one thing. The United States is one of the very few countries that actual put forth a meaningful commitment and is sticking to it. If you look at countries like Germany, India, and China they are actually increasing emissions not decreasing. The US is one of the very few countries that are actually decreasing its emissions.
In effect Obama pushed for a deal which limited US industry and promised billions to developing countries. In return he got a commitment which countries had no incentive to keep. Of course getting that many countries to agree to free money looked good to the press and got good coverage.
The Iran deal returned billions of dollars the US froze to Iran, allowed Iran to continue enriching Uranium, and promised to lift economic sanctions in the future. In return Iran agreed to inspections from the UN. Inspections that they will be forewarned about from a organization that has a vested interest in giving them a clean bill of health to keep the peace.
I don’t think I have to explain any further about how this was another deal which America paid a lot for but was just a way to generate positive coverage for Obama.
Compare this with the carrier deal for President Trump. Yes it did generate positive coverage for him and yes incentives were given. But those incentives are contingent upon maintaining a certain level of employment in the state of Indiana. If carrier reneged on the deal they would not get the incentives. If Iran reneges on this deal we are not getting the billions back.
A good leader makes decisions that may be unpopular now but is necessary. Take Truman and the nuclear bomb for example. He knew he may be condemned by history after he used the bomb but he still made the choice to do so because he wanted to save American lives that would be thrown away in an invasion of the home islands. On a personal note I think this may have saved Japan as a country as well. Resistance like they showed in Okinawa and Iwo Jima would not have left enough Japanese afterwards to continue having their own country. You can even see this trait with Trump. There would be nothing easier than to join the rest of the country in condemning Russia. The media and all the politicians would all join together in praising him. Yet we would ruin our relationship with Russia and Trump knows we would need them as leverage on China in the future.
It is not a coincidence that the democrats lost the greatest number of seats they ever did under Obama.