REINHART: Obama, Christie provide contrasts in legacies

Presidents and governors who serve two terms are often focused on what their “legacy” will look like when they leave office. Typically, the last year is spent honing the legacy. They may seek to enact laws and policies that will leave a lasting impact beyond their term in office. Sometimes they will tackle issues that would be politically difficult for an incumbent who needed to seek reelection. Sometimes the leader will double down on what has worked for them and cement their image as a leader of (fill in the blank) policy or program.

We are witnessing two different leaders in their polishing the legacy stage — President Barack Obama and Gov. Chris Christie. So far, we are seeing a stark difference in the approach each has taken. In the case of President Obama, he has worked to strengthen environmental laws, discrimination laws, housing policy and other areas where he has an interest and impact. He has acted very “presidential” in the smooth transition of power to President Donald Trump, despite Obama’s candidate having lost a close election.

In the case of Christie, while he is a year behind Obama in the end of his term and so not able to focus on a transition to his successor, his recent activities do not bode well for a positive impression of his legacy. Beginning with his re-election in 2013, his primary focus was on seeking the Republican nomination for president, while his attention to his governor duties to the state of New Jersey seemed to take backstage. After dropping out of the presidential race, his focus shifted to supporting Trump with an obvious eye to landing an important position in a Trump administration. That strategy seems not to have been successful as the important Trump administration positions have gone to others.

Thus, Christie is left to focus on governing the state of New Jersey for another year. He could use this last year to use his considerable talents to deal with the big issues confronting the state, like the pension underfunding, the transportation infrastructure problem, the affordable housing problem, the structural deficit, or a host of other issues.

Unfortunately, his very recent actions in seeking a change in ethics laws to permit him a lucrative book deal, and a somewhat overzealous effort that would financially weaken the newspaper industry that has been doing its job in reporting and investigating stories, particularly involving actions of the governor and the state Legislature, indicate a legacy-building effort that seems to be aimed at self-benefit rather than state benefit.

In addition, his method of communication that worked so well early in his administration — town halls and press conferences, has given way to the occasional ceremonial business opening without answering press questions, the very occasional one-on-one out-of-state interview and the benign “Ask the Governor” radio show where he fields softball questions. He even has adopted the Trumpian tweet storm recently. It seems unlikely that this communication approach will improve his legacy.

He may have come to the opinion that it is too late to reverse his public opinion standing, which was damaged severely during his presidential ambition-filling activities. Given his overwhelming re-election victory in 2013, the people of New Jersey deserved a governor focused on benefiting the state. If his recent focus on self-benefit activities continues, the people of New Jersey will have to wait another year before there is a leader focused on dealing with the major problems facing the state. It is a major wasted opportunity to better the people and state of New Jersey and his own legacy by a governor who had such a promising beginning.

Peter S. Reinhart is a professor at Monmouth University.