By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Unlike previous presidential libraries that largely focus on showcasing documents and photos, or offering curated, often sanitized narratives of presidencies, both Trump’s and Biden’s post-presidency projects are expected to deviate significantly from this established mold. While the Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton libraries offer glimpses into past administrations, they tend to downplay controversial events like Hurricane Katrina or the financial crisis, and the Clinton library, in particular, has been noted for its partisan framing. This suggests a departure from traditional presidential archives towards a new, potentially more dynamic, or differently focused model for these upcoming initiatives.
Read the original article here
The conversation surrounding presidential libraries, particularly in light of the Obama Presidential Center, suggests a significant departure from what might be considered the “normal” model of these institutions. This shift raises questions about the future of these monuments to former presidencies and whether the Obama Center truly represents a new, potentially final, iteration of the traditional presidential library.
A key element in this evolving landscape is the legal framework. The Presidential Records Act of 1978, enacted after Watergate, fundamentally changed how presidential records are handled, designating them as federal property rather than personal possessions. This was a significant departure from previous norms, and the Obama Foundation’s choice to establish a private center, rather than one operated directly by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), marks another distinct break from the post-Watergate tradition.
The practical archival differences are substantial. Traditional NARA-operated libraries offer researchers established processes for requesting declassified documents. In contrast, a private foundation, like the Obama Foundation, controls access in a different manner. Concerns have been raised by historians and journalists that this private model could complicate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for materials that would typically be subject to federal oversight.
There’s a sentiment that presidential libraries have always been more than just repositories for documents; they are often viewed as monuments to the era a president served in, reflecting the spirit of the times. While the primary function has been public access to presidential records, the scale and ambition of these projects have grown considerably over time, moving beyond the more modest archives of presidents like FDR and JFK.
The financial aspect also appears to be a point of contention and a driver of change. The notion of former presidents fundraising for what can be perceived as personal monuments, particularly in their second terms, is seen by some as unusual. A contrasting perspective suggests that Congress could allocate funds through NARA for presidential libraries, thus removing the need for individual fundraising efforts. The sheer scale of fundraising for projects like the Obama Center, reportedly in the hundreds of millions of dollars, also fuels discussions about “slush funds” and the potential for excess.
Moreover, the very definition of what constitutes a “library” in the modern era is being questioned. With the prevalence of digital information and the internet, the traditional physical library model might be becoming obsolete. This raises the question of whether future presidents will even require or benefit from the traditional physical structures.
The contrast with a potential future “library” for Donald Trump is starkly drawn in these discussions. The lack of a perceived reading habit or engagement with literature is frequently cited, leading to skepticism about what such an institution would even contain. Speculation ranges from a museum of “The Art of the Deal” to a venture that prioritizes branding and financial gain, mirroring past business endeavors like Trump University or Trump Casinos, rather than genuine archival preservation. The idea of a Trump “library” morphing into a tax-exempt hotel or casino is a recurring theme.
The concept of a “Trump Library” also brings to mind more controversial and speculative ideas, such as housing “evidence rooms” or memorializing specific controversial events or figures. The comparison to the opening of a library dedicated to the Epstein files in New York City underscores this cynical view of how such institutions might be repurposed or characterized in a Trumpian context.
The Obama Presidential Center itself is not universally viewed as “normal” in its current form, with some critics describing it as a “tasteless, brutalist monstrosity” and an “abomination.” This suggests that the departure from traditional models might be a matter of perception and aesthetic as much as a legal or functional one.
Ultimately, the idea that Obama’s Presidential Center might be the last “normal” one stems from a confluence of factors: a changing legal landscape, evolving technological capabilities, the increasing financial scale of these projects, and the starkly different public perceptions and potential future iterations of what a presidential library could be. The traditional role of these institutions as primarily archival and educational centers, operated under federal oversight, may be giving way to more privatized, potentially commercially driven, and perhaps even symbolic, rather than strictly functional, endeavors.