He will face severe barriers to his progressive agenda. Our federal system of checks and balances always makes bold action difficult. Since Obama won't have a veto proof Congress, he will need the legislative support of conservative blue dog Democrats and moderate Republicans. Moreover, Obama, unlike Roosevelt, will face many more industry lobbyists with more corporate money as well as a much better organized conservative movement.

Political party building, as Robert Kuttner observes in his insightful new book, Obama's Challenge, was an important strategy for previous transformative Presidents, who overcame government gridlock and changed the country's way of thinking about itself. Kuttner quotes the eminent historian James Macgregor Burns. "In our constitutional system, with its structural bias against activist government, it takes strong parties to bridge over 'the fragmentation inherent in checks and balances in federalism,' to allow administrations to enact their programs. But strong political parties are not enough to bring about fundamental change. Fortunately, Obama, unlike Bill Clinton, is according to Kuttner, a committed party builder, and this will help him put pressure on those blue dog Democrats and maybe even moderate Republicans.

Social Movements

The most important difference between then and now is that Roosevelt had several social movements pushing him. Huey Long and Father Coughlin spearheaded a populist movement against inequalities of wealth and power that accompanied industrialization. Tenant organizers protested evictions. As Alter reports, "Townsend Clubs" spouted across the country representing between two and five million members. They were advocating for an old age insurance program. The labor movement was on the rise organizing massive strikes and protests throughout the country and garnering the support of political leaders. In 1937 after workers had taken over a number of auto plants, Democratic Governor Frank Murphy refused to order the National Guard to eject the workers even after they had defied a court injunction to vacate the factories.

President Franklin Roosevelt recognized that his ability to push New Deal legislation through Congress depended on the pressure generated by these movements. When FDR was confronted with activists who were belaboring a point, he said, "OK, you've convinced me. Now go out and put pressure on me." As these movements grew, Roosevelt used his bully pulpit to promote legislation guaranteeing unions a right to organize workers and social security. Roosevelt chose a left-of-center pragmatic approach, and with the help of the labor and other left populist movements, FDR revitalized our democracy, saved capitalism from the capitalists, and transformed the way we view the role of government.

Other transformative presidents had great social movements supporting and pushing them. Lincoln had the abolitionists, Johnson the civil-rights activists and Reagan the conservative movement.

The American people are ready for big changes. Although deeply cynical about the capacity of government to act competently, polls indicate that 64% of the public favors expanding public investment even if it means more deficit spending. But if Obama is to succeed, he will need a social movement to help propel him forward.

Kuttner suggests that Obama's shrewd grasp of the twenty-first-century form of grassroots activism -- the Internet -- will also help him avoid a legislative impasse. Obama has built his own grass-roots organization on the Internet and in many field offices. But there is big difference between this and a social movement. As George Packer observes in the New Yorker (November 17, 2008), earlier movements were independent from any President, whereas Obama's movement didn't exist before his candidacy. "Throughout the campaign, Obama spoke of change coming from the bottom up rather than from the top down, but every time I heard him tell a crowd, 'This has never been about me; it's about you,' he seemed to be saying just the opposite. The Obama movement was born in the meeting between a man and a historical moment; if he had died in the middle of the campaign, that movement would have died with him -- proof that, whatever passions it has stirred, it remains something less than a durable social force."

The Internet activists such as the DailyKos and MoveOn.org have proved to be effective fund-raising vehicles and the Internet could be used for good governance, such as insuring transparency and documenting federal government activity online. Obama could turn his large organization, and its generational energy into a political coalition. Obama will certainly use his huge e-mail list to inform his followers about crucial, but controversial issues and bills to generate grassroots pressure on members of Congress.

But neither the Internet activists nor for that matter, the groups funded by the billionaires of the left like George Soros, or today's union and environmental organizations are likely to provide the kind of energy, passion, certainty and unity of the social movements organized by the Christian right during the 80s and 90s, SNCC, CORE, and SCLC in the 60s, and the auto, mine and other workers of the 30s.

National groups, such as the NAACP and the Washington based U.S. Action, which had led a successful to defeat Bush's attempt to privatize social security, have not built a coherent vision of social justice and the kind of mobilizing culture within their local affiliates that would encourage their members to engage in contentious lobbying and direct action. Community organizing networks such as ACORN and the Industrial Areas Foundation, that have so much in common, including a concise vision and mobilizing cultures, rarely coordinate their activities and have not developed a sense of common history or purpose.

The Obama agenda is, as Packer noted, "... a list of issues that have different constituencies rather than a single, overarching struggle for freedom or justice." Without a movement behind him, Obama won't have the power to overcome the opposition to a transformative agenda. Will a social movement emerge over the next few years with the kind of clarity and coherence that empowered earlier ones?

What will Obama do when he suffers a stinging defeat for such progressive measures as the Employee Free Choice Act? By the time FDR started his second term, big business and the right wing opposed him every step of the way. Bipartisanship was waning. With the support of the union and other grassroots movements, Roosevelt began using populist attacks against the rich and powerful, which in turn gave more legitimacy the movements from below. His second acceptance speech at the 1936 Democratic convention attacked the "economic royalists" and "privileged princes" of "economic dynasties" who had "created a new despotism." In that campaign's final speech Roosevelt said, "I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master." FDR used revolutionary rhetoric to voice "anger and resentment," Jonathan Alter writes in The Defining Moment, "without destroying the system."

Alter's entertaining book provides a fascinating look into Roosevelt's leadership style and how, during his first hundred days in office, he began to shift our view of the role of government. Roosevelt had great political instincts and a commanding personality to enact bold new policies. His close personal link with the people, his brilliant speeches and the innovative use of the media helped sell his early agenda. Obama has similar talents. But only if a powerful social movements grow will he be able to save the economy and be a truly transformative president.