Re-reading the history of President Obama's statecraft...I'm more sympathetic than his many critics, given the dismal hand he was dealt (War on Terror + GFC + partisan fury), and his efforts in important areas (preventing Depression, JCPOA, Cuba)...but...

One theme that recurs, that is troubling: a constant rhetorical and substantively-held idea that "history" is directional. A line Obama often deployed, to reassure or soothe or dismiss, depending on circs: "The arc of history", "wrong side of history", etc.

The belief that history has a direction, rather than being contingent, is a great divide that drives much of our politics ( @bencobley). Obama's belief that there was a fixed Progress awaiting us, eventually, is I think damaging.

Belief that the arc of history will determine things can lead to a technocratic incrementalism. Just tinker with the system - structural overhaul or fundamentals will resolve themselves, somehow. Well, consider where that led.

Not only are certitudes about history's direction false, time & again. They prompt behaviour that under-estimates problems, galvanises opposition that it cannot fathom, and encourages a self-regard, that the universe will go our way. A bedtime story we could do without.

The ahistorical "reset" mindset, ending the Russia problem by talking about getting along, without addressing fundamental disagreements and grievances...enabled by old old bipartisan failure not to take Russia seriously as a real country, rather than a dwarf or a super-threat.

Likewise, dismissing AQ as small men on the wrong side of history...suggests the winners are determined in advance. What if history changes sides in its own capricious way? It led not to revision of ME commitments but a wishing-away of problems, at times (ISIL).

Consider, too, Obama's lapses into complacency about foreign policy problems. Romney's insistance on Russia being a prime threat may have been absurd inflation, but Obama's put-down ("1980's called, it wants its foreign policy back", or somesuch), was also absurd.

Of course, we could interpret this as biproduct of having a hostile congress obstructing executive power. History's long-term promise could be consolation. But it is alsoa central feature of some progressive thought: that history is preordained, and resistance is baffling.

One dangerous consequence is cocksure (and also, nervous) belief in some quarters that demographics and social trends point overwhelmingly in a Democratic, progressive direction at home, "Carville-ism". Not only dodgy, as events suggest, but encourages opponents to fight harder.