I’m afraid my comment was a little too meta. Thomas Carlyle was the 19th century exponent of the “great man theory of history,” putting leaders in the drivers seat. As you’ve pointed out, it is a major oversimplification.

Geek that I am, it struck me that you could characterize arguments in the vein that Peters has made as of basically the same sort of historiography, but with a twist — one might instead call it the “common man theory of history.”

I will be sure to take a peek, but my first reaction is that I disagree that presidents of the previous generation were not risk takers. Whether it was Reagan taking the “riverboat gamble” on reversing decades of the New Deal statism, Johnson pushing civil rights at the risk of losing the Democrat-controlled south, or Truman going all in to Korea, I see no evidence that presidents prior to Obama were any less willing to roll the dice. Indeed, one of the progressive criticisms of Obama has been his tendency to “play it save” by searching for the moderate policy alternative.

As you point out, the record of a presidency can’t be turned into a reputable question without splitting it into two sides of White House operations. Leadership challenges as a member of the legislative process, and leadership on global strategy have very little to do with one another. Global challenges are not of a President’s choosing, while legislative challenges decidedly are.

Character may straddle the two, but doesn’t determine outcomes.

Except for elections, we’re all our own scorekeepers when it comes to historical greatness.