David Lanoue: How will fickle history treat Bush?
[David Lanoue is professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Alabama.]
As the ides of February approach, Americans eagerly anticipate that great shopping-mall holiday, Presidents' Day, a celebration that combines the observance of more than 20 decades of U.S. history with 20 percent discounts on women's shoes.
This would seem, then, to be an appropriate time to reflect on the deeply discounted presidency of George W. Bush, a man who scaled the very heights of presidential popularity only to fall to the point that at least one national magazine has openly speculated on whether his is the worst administration ever. Indeed, Bush himself has been talking quite a bit lately about his legacy, promising that future historians will see a greatness currently unobserved by more than two-thirds of his fellow citizens. ...
From the myopic perspective of 2007, the contours of history's final judgment seem clear. If the United States is defeated in Iraq, if the president's homeland security measures fail to prevent future terrorist attacks, and if the Middle East slides into years of unnecessary violence and chaos, Bush will rank among the nation's least successful presidents. If, on the other hand, Bush's Middle Eastern mission is somehow accomplished, if Osama bin Laden is neutralized, and if real democracy takes root in Baghdad, the Bush name will rank just below those of the all-time greats.
Still, before we presume that we have any idea how our grandchildren's grandchildren will regard the early years of the 21st century, we should return to John Adams and Andrew Johnson. For much of American history, Adams' single term was best known for two things: The terribly repressive Alien and Sedition Acts and the president's sleazy attempt, as a lame duck, to pack the judicial branch with political appointees. More recently, however, biographers such as David McCullough have provided a more balanced - and far more appreciative - assessment of our second president.
In 1948, when historian Arthur Schlesinger asked his colleagues to assess presidential "greatness," Andrew Johnson was ranked respectably in the middle third of the pack. In 2002, by contrast, an academic survey conducted by Siena College placed Johnson at the very bottom. Where he was once lauded for doing battle against the "Radical Republicans" who wanted to reshape the South after the Civil War, Johnson is now widely criticized for standing in the way of racial equality at a moment when presidential leadership was desperately needed. Sensitized by the modern civil rights movement, many scholars now find the "Radical Republicans" to be significantly less radical, and the legacy of Andrew Johnson to be one of racism and obstructionism.
So what does this tell us about President Bush? For one thing, it suggests history is a moving target, and that even bad presidential reputations are sometimes resuscitated. In addition, it demonstrates that succeeding generations may hold our leaders to standards we cannot possibly anticipate. ...
Read entire article at Birmingham News
As the ides of February approach, Americans eagerly anticipate that great shopping-mall holiday, Presidents' Day, a celebration that combines the observance of more than 20 decades of U.S. history with 20 percent discounts on women's shoes.
This would seem, then, to be an appropriate time to reflect on the deeply discounted presidency of George W. Bush, a man who scaled the very heights of presidential popularity only to fall to the point that at least one national magazine has openly speculated on whether his is the worst administration ever. Indeed, Bush himself has been talking quite a bit lately about his legacy, promising that future historians will see a greatness currently unobserved by more than two-thirds of his fellow citizens. ...
From the myopic perspective of 2007, the contours of history's final judgment seem clear. If the United States is defeated in Iraq, if the president's homeland security measures fail to prevent future terrorist attacks, and if the Middle East slides into years of unnecessary violence and chaos, Bush will rank among the nation's least successful presidents. If, on the other hand, Bush's Middle Eastern mission is somehow accomplished, if Osama bin Laden is neutralized, and if real democracy takes root in Baghdad, the Bush name will rank just below those of the all-time greats.
Still, before we presume that we have any idea how our grandchildren's grandchildren will regard the early years of the 21st century, we should return to John Adams and Andrew Johnson. For much of American history, Adams' single term was best known for two things: The terribly repressive Alien and Sedition Acts and the president's sleazy attempt, as a lame duck, to pack the judicial branch with political appointees. More recently, however, biographers such as David McCullough have provided a more balanced - and far more appreciative - assessment of our second president.
In 1948, when historian Arthur Schlesinger asked his colleagues to assess presidential "greatness," Andrew Johnson was ranked respectably in the middle third of the pack. In 2002, by contrast, an academic survey conducted by Siena College placed Johnson at the very bottom. Where he was once lauded for doing battle against the "Radical Republicans" who wanted to reshape the South after the Civil War, Johnson is now widely criticized for standing in the way of racial equality at a moment when presidential leadership was desperately needed. Sensitized by the modern civil rights movement, many scholars now find the "Radical Republicans" to be significantly less radical, and the legacy of Andrew Johnson to be one of racism and obstructionism.
So what does this tell us about President Bush? For one thing, it suggests history is a moving target, and that even bad presidential reputations are sometimes resuscitated. In addition, it demonstrates that succeeding generations may hold our leaders to standards we cannot possibly anticipate. ...