How much will Obama’s being black matter in the end? In, say, 20 years, will it be a major or minor aspect of his presidency, and to the extent that it will matter, in what specific way will it matter most?

In 2008, nearly every political commentator argued that Obama’s election signaled “the end of race,” the emergence of a “post-civil-rights era,” or the culmination of centuries of struggle for racial equality. Those pronouncements were premature.

Obama’s staunchest supporters and his harshest critics alike believed that he would use the presidency to advocate for black advancement. They were wrong.

Obama has been incredibly cautious when it comes to racial controversies. Most of his statements about race have two components. To whites, he calls for unity and understanding across racial lines. To blacks, he calls for personal responsibility. This reflects Obama’s individualistic understanding of race. He overlooks the ways that racial inequality is the result of still-deep-rooted patterns of segregation, especially in public education. He downplays the long-term effects of disinvestment in minority neighborhoods and the fact that blacks and Hispanics are grossly overrepresented among the precarious working class.

Anyone who expected Obama to take strong positions on racial inequality was not paying attention to his speeches and writing well before he entered the White House, or his rhetoric on the campaign trail. Over his entire career, he has mostly avoided racial controversies unless circumstances forced him to do so. He has offered up uplifting bromides about racial reconciliation, but mostly asserted that discrimination and injustice are residual. Part of Obama’s blandness on race has to do with political calculation. Every time Obama mentions race, even in passing, it becomes national news. Critics on the right accuse him of “playing the race card,” of “hating white people,” of being “divisive.”

In the end, the fact that the United States elected a black president might have narrowed the possibilities for addressing ongoing racial inequalities in the United States. African-Americans are twice as likely as whites to be unemployed. They have about 5 percent of the household wealth of whites. And as events in Staten Island and Ferguson have reminded us, minorities bear the brunt of a discriminatory criminal-justice system. Obama might be remembered for his uplifting rhetoric but not for fundamentally shifting the arc of racial history.

Will future historians blame Obama for not getting more done in a climate of Republican obstructionism, or will he be given a pass for it? More generally, to what degree will his presidency be seen as “transformative” (the word he used to describe the Reagan administration)?

Obama has not been a “transformative” president. Only a few presidents, notably Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, have been. Obama surrounded himself with seasoned hands from the Clinton administration and, in most respects, he has governed as a Clintonite. On many key issues, in areas as diverse as counterterrorism policy, intelligence, presidential power, federal education policy, and banking and financial regulation, Obama’s presidency has not broken much new ground.

Obama has faced a more hostile legislative branch than any president since Truman and the "do nothing Congress” elected in 1946. But Obama was also constrained by what I call his aspirational bipartisanship, particularly during his first term. He believed that if he took a middle-ground position, he could win concessions from the Republicans. He was unwilling to play hardball with Congress; for example, he began budget negotiations by conceding key issues to the GOP, with hopes that he could demonstrate his reasonableness. He did not account for the fact that Republicans in Congress would denounce even Obama’s most moderate to conservative proposals as “far left,” and use their clout to push policy in a rightward direction.

In assessing Obama’s historical legacy, what do you believe will be the aspect of his presidency that is currently least understood or misunderstood? In other words, for better or worse, what single thing looks smallest now but will matter most to future historians?

Much of the important work of a presidential administration happens behind the scenes in the offices of federal agencies. Every once in a while, the Department of Labor or the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice or the Department of Agriculture makes the news. All but the most hard-core policy wonks would find the everyday work of these agencies boring. Only in moments of controversy does the media pay attention to the arcane work of drafting regulations, enforcing laws, and awarding government contracts.

We won’t get a full reckoning of the impact of administrative changes for a while. But here are some hints. Look at the Department of Justice. During the George W. Bush years, many veteran staff attorneys—both Republican and Democrat alike—left or were pushed out during a period of intense politicization of the agency. The DOJ had arguably never been as partisan as it was during the Bush years. Obama, by contrast, appointed many highly regarded professionals to the DOJ. Those appointees have professionalized the hiring process and reinvigorated many of the DOJ’s divisions. A similar process has played out in the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Labor.

Will future historians conclude that Obama weakened or strengthen the office of the president? Will the policies he enacted without congressional cooperation represent a strategic victory or a dangerous escalation of executive power?

Obama has not been exceptional in wielding presidential power or using regulatory and administrative powers to end the run Congressional intransigence. He has used the veto less than many of his predecessors; he has not relied heavily on executive orders.

Will the Obama years come to be seen as a major realignment in Democratic politics? As a historian, how would you predict the longevity of his coalition?

Obama was a brilliant campaigner and surrounded himself with immensely talented strategists. They did not, however, realign the American electorate. Rather, they used the most sophisticated data-gathering techniques available to date to identify and mobilize voters. Obama’s coalition—younger voters, Latinos, African-Americans, women—is an unstable one. Will African-American voters turn out in such large numbers for a white Democratic candidate? Will second- and third- generation Latinos continue to support Democrats? Will libertarian Republicans win over more young voters? Right now, all of these groups are likely to remain in the Democratic camp, but more because of the growing homogeneity of the Republican Party than the enduring effects of Obama’s electoral coalition building.

Will future historians concur with the administration’s own narrative of having saved the country from another Great Depression? Or will Obama’s economic legacy be seen as a lackluster performance, or worse, a failed attempt to reform the U.S. economy in any meaningful way?

Obama responded to the economic crisis cautiously, as did Congress. The stimulus was too small to turn around the economy, though it helped. The administration put a greater emphasis on stabilizing the financial markets than on dealing with unemployment and underemployment. Obama gave too much weight to deficit hawks who, even in the depths of the recession, argued for slowing spending. And Obama validated pro-austerity arguments. The decline in federal support to the states and localities has had particularly devastating long-term effects. Most states have cut services, public works, and, especially, funding for public education. The decline in public employment has slowed economic recovery.

The administration has presided over a period of growing economic inequality. The Obama administration continues to put faith in market-based solutions to social problems and to promote pro-business regulatory and tax policies on the grounds that unleashing market forces will create new, better-paying jobs and uplift the economy. As a result, the Obama administration has not put a halt to the most important socioeconomic transformation of the last 40 years: the stagnation or decline of income and wealth for most working Americans.

What single action could Obama realistically do before the end of his term that would make the biggest positive difference to his historical legacy?

Acknowledge the disastrous mistakes of the War on Terror and hold intelligence officials accountable for policies that encouraged torture and systemic human-rights violations.

What will be seen as Obama’s single most significant accomplishment?

Health-insurance reform.

Will Obama’s reputation have improved or declined in 20 years?

It depends. Most presidents—even unpopular ones like Harry Truman or George H.W. Bush—look better in retrospect, in large part because of historical amnesia. Carter was able to redeem his reputation through a prominent, humanitarian post-presidency. That said, if we are embroiled in wars in Iraq and Syria for the next decade or more, or if a future Republican president and Congress unravel Obamacare, Obama’s reputation will suffer. If the economy continues to grow but wages remain stagnant and inequality worsens, Obama, his economic advisors, and Congress will take the blame.

Which of Obama's speeches and phrases will be the most enduring?

Obama’s March 2008 race speech in Philadelphia is the only one that will appear regularly in anthologies. His December 2011 speech on economic inequality in Osawatomie, Kansas, would have been a contender if the president had put economic inequality at the center of his domestic-policy agenda. But he didn’t, so that speech is likely to be forgotten or simply remembered as an example of his lofty rhetoric running far ahead of his actual policy.

In which presidential mode was Obama the most effective: orator, legislator, commander-in-chief, consoler of the nation, or some other mode?

Obama will be remembered as one of the most effective campaigners in American presidential history. Both of his campaigns were well orchestrated, extraordinarily well-financed, and technologically innovative. His rallies were electric. He was the first Democrat to win two terms to office since Truman; and the only one since Lyndon Johnson to win a clear majority of the electorate.

Will the image of Obama shadow his overall accomplishments, in the manner of JFK?

JFK’s image was forever shaped by his assassination: He did not have to govern for eight years. Obama, by contrast, will have a complete record. Kennedy’s reputation rests, in large part, on projections about what he might have done if he had not been killed. No one will be asking “what if” questions about Obama. We will be able to assess a presidency in full once the Obama presidential archives are open.

Who will be seen as the most consequential member of his cabinet or senior staff?

First term: Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner. Second term: ?

What will be the most lasting symbolic image of the Obama presidency?

The 2009 inauguration, the last act of a campaign of “hope,” with John Lewis, Aretha Franklin, and a slew of celebrities on the stage, and record crowds on the Mall.