The judgment of history takes time
Those who are so certain they know how history will judge George Bush—or any other president, for that matter—show their ignorance of history itself.
It’s not just that contemporary perceptions of a leader are often quite different from their evaluations when seen from the perspective of time and subsequent events, although that’s part of it. Churchill’s warnings in the 1930s about the Nazi menace were widely seen as preposterous, and he himself was thought to be a washed-up has-been. Later developments turned him into a wise man, a Cassandra who saw only too clearly truths to which others had closed their eyes.
Another change that occurs over the passage of years is the uncovering of new information about the past itself. The availability of journals and private papers previously unknown sometimes reveals what may have been hidden previously.
This is what occurred with evaluations of Eisenhower’s presidency in the decades beginning in the 70s, when his papers first became open to scholastic scrutiny. As C. Terry Madonna and Michael Young describe, Ike was seen by contemporaries as a mediocre leader, distant and uninvolved, more interested in playing golf than in attending to matters of state. But this turns out to have been a carefully cultivated pose; Ike, in effect, was playing dumb:
Ironically, as Eisenhower revisionists, such as presidential scholar Fred Greenstein, have argued, Ike purposely produced his own bad press. He deliberately left the nation with the impression that he was removed from day-to-day policy making and especially politics. Ike believed that he should play prominently the role as head of state, but conceal his role as head of government.
Greenstein has branded this the “hidden hand” presidency. Scholars now know that the “hidden hand” of Ike was far more instrumental in policy formulation and political decisions than thought by his contemporaries.
My purpose is not to say that history will regard George Bush as a great president. My point is that we really haven’t a clue what history will say. Not only has history not occurred yet, but the details of the present are not even known, as they were not known with Eisenhower—or with Reagan, for that matter.
Reagan was widely regarded as a sort of amiable dunce by those who disagreed with him. But the publication of his papers have disabused even some of his enemies of that notion. And of course the fall of the Soviet Union, occurring late in his presidency and unforeseen by most of the press, was hard to blow off as merely having coincidentally happened on his watch—although that didn’t stop many journalists from claiming so at the time.
The bottom line is that we can predict all we want, but it’s hubris to think we know what history will think of one president or other. But, if the examples of Eisenhower and Reagan (and even contemporary evaluations of Lincoln) are any guide, there’s a pattern here: don’t underestimate the intelligence of certain Republican Presidents who’ve gotten a bad press.
Journalism has been referred to as the “first draft of history”—although, as Tigerhawk writes here, it really isn’t history at all but part of the raw material that goes to make up history, although journalists would often like to think otherwise.
It was Phil Graham of the Washington Post who made that “first draft of history” remark. But it doesn’t seem as though he was one of those who thought that first draft was so very accurate, as the fuller Graham quote demonstrates:
“(A journalist has the) inescapably impossible task of providing every week a first rough draft of a history that will never be completed about a world we can never understand.”
Journalists would do well to take heed, and to exhibit a bit more humility about the work they do. And, of course, even historians don’t have the final word. As Graham said, history itself is “never completed,” always subject to new facts and perspectives, re-evaluations and revisions.
I don’t believe that George W. Bush will be remembered as a great President. This war has been a drag on the economy and the national consciousness. As of yet he hasn’t done anything that can remembered as great.
This war and the fiscal irresponsibility of the Republican Congress from 2000-06 has left the Republican Party disoriented and unsure of itself. The most pressing problems expressed by the American people is the cost of health care and globalization.
The Republicans are behind the curve when when it comes to health care. There only responce seems to be tax credits. This is the tried and true response to a problem that cannot be restrained by the private sector. In this case, the market show limitations on how to handle it.
Globalization has scared Americans in thinking their jobs will go to China, which many have and many will. The tug of the past, the post World War II years, is figuring in very much on the future of good paying jobs. The bottom line Americans want some form of stability; to much change will make America a psychotic country.
In the end, after this war, Americans will ask themselves:”What happened to the rest of the world while we were gone.” China contributed more to the global economy than any single nation, including the US, in 2006. And major colleges now offer graduate courses in “industrial archelogy” in their engineering departments.
The US is turning into a country Americans don’t want to see and the Republicans cannot see this.
Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana
In the first drafts of the last 60 years, Republican Presidents have . This is often seasoned with a little “laziness” on top.
One can see some of this in the current Presidential candidates:
Giuliani: corrupt business practices
Romney: ~~new meme~~: unprincipled change of policy positions. Also: religion makes him obviously dumb
Thompson: corrupt lobbying + lazy
McCain: the exception to my theory – possibly b/c McCain caters to MSM, and to MSM pet policies. Caveat: if McCain wins nomination, he will be slandered as corrupt b/c of 1980s Savings and Loan scandal. MSM loves him, but they don’t love him enough to help him actually defeat Hillary.
Huckabee: religion + from South = obviously dumb
above was supposed to say:
In the first drafts of the last 60 years, Republican Presidents have consistently been derided as either lazy or corrupt.
Really great man is one who sees much further than majority of his contemporaries. Corollary: no great man can be rightly understood by contemporaries and usually is unjustly misunderestimated, as Bush once said.
President Bush’s legacy will depend on who is writing it. The MSM talks all the time about “alternative energy”, yet ignores how Governor Bush laid the foundations for the Texas Wind Energy boom. Thanks to actions by the former Governor, “Evil Big Oil Texas” now produces more electricity from Wind farms than
” Progressive green California”. Yet Most of the Media tries to ignore this irony.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/25/texas_is_more_hospitable_than_mass_to_wind_farms/?page=1
Doesn’t it seem likely that those who have the most invested in the schemes and perceptions of the moment will be the least able to see the broader picture forward and back on the timeline? Likewise those who shout one thing three years ago and a different thing now, and who will proclaim something else in another year or two?
The one who is steadfast and moves the nation toward consistent, laudable goals is most likely to earn history’s praise. Of course, one has to be able to see what goals are laudable. Here an ability to see clearly and think clearly about the past can only help.
Carter’s legacy as a terrible president is buttressed by his embracing of extreme anti American views in foreign affairs.
W. should at least not fall into that trap, and his legacy will likely go upward from where it appears to be headed today. The low expectations are a real advantage here.
The caveat would be if the USA goes continually downhill from this point on. In that event, Bush derangement syndrome could go on for generations!
They are hoping that Post Bush Derangement Syndrome (PBDS) becomes Clinton Restoration Euphoria Syndrome (CRES), which has already shown its incipience:
Oops! Meant to include this link:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/10/18/dem-congresswoman-hillary-will-repair-world
Pingback:Pros and Cons » Bad headlines, explained
It goes without saying that journalism comprises the first draft to history, but, unfortunately, the only draft we have available. To envision, however, a day when future pundits will be able to look back at the Bush years forgetting:
a. an incompetent, undeclared, unpopular, wasteful war
b. an empty legislative record
c. nearly universal turn-around in U.S. prestige
d. new heights in administrative corruption
e. levels of partisanship unparalleled in history
f. etc, etc, etc.,
well, history is going to have its hands full.
jimmy, please do go back and learn about how people felt during Lincoln’s presidency. Consider that the press was bamboozling them … and what happened when the record was corrected.
As to levels of partisanship unparalleled … both the early days of the Republic and the period of the War Between The States saw partisanship that makes this look timid and polite. Of course, we should know better by now but we don’t, because once again the dogmas of the past (quiet and stormy) are inadequate to the present(*). Once history gets that all figured out, a more reliable judgement will emerge.
*Read Philip Bobbitt’s The Shield of Achilles to understand why.ry.
As so often with your posts, neo-neocon, I felt smarter and more serene after reading.
The first draft of history assesses the reign, the direct use of power. The judgment of history looks to the governance, the administration of public policy, the overall accomplishment, not personal intervention.
If one takes two pieces of paper, and on one lists positives that resulted from Mr. Bush’s administration and assigns a value to each in terms of substance, impact (results) and wisdom displayed, and then does the same for negatives, I suspect that no matter what your political views may be, the overall evaluation will be simply awful. The judgement of history is cold and calulating although sometimes very unfair. No matter what he did in his life as a worthwhile human being, Mr. Hoover will be forever remembered for the disaster of the depression. No matter how badly he stumbled at times in that longest of administrations, Mr. Rooselvelt will be remembered as an almost mythic hero. It strikes me that the inadequate leadership of the Bush administration, no matter what its root cause, has had a list of negatives that like Mr. Carter (perhaps a far worse and ineffectual President than Mr. Bush) will for a very long time, color any evaluation of the administration. Wheher thsi is fair, or good history, does not matter much. It is simply how it is.
I was in the 8th grade in 1956 and to tease my Republican teacher, who I really liked, I snuck a picture of Truman onto the bulletin board. He went ballistic and screamed at me and then lectured the 8th grade for about half an hour on the absolute evils of Harry S Truman. Remember – just prior to his inauguration Ike refused to go into the White House to treat with the outgoing president as tradition dictated. Truman eventually conceded the point of protocol and later he and Bess drove back to Independence alone and unloved. Both Truman and Ike have gained in my estimation since. I always experienced Nixon as a hypocrite and a liar from the checkers speech on. I even noticed that I suffered from NDS before Watergate but my opinion of the man has improved since. My initial satisfaction, nay glee, at his humiliation, has been replaced by the recognition that he seriously damaged the institution of the presidency as did the minor Clinton to a lesser degree in his turn. The romantic view of JFK I started with has changed to I hope a more realistic one seeing both his faults and achievements and place in history. As to Bush – that’s easy – he will go down as the last fool to seriously oppose the triumph of Islam. Being clairvoyant, I can even foretell the final irony – a female descendant will give birth to the 12th Immam in a back alley in El Paso.
Those of us old enough remember Ike’s reputation for odd and hard-to-follow statements. I have read (though forget where) that he said that he could do that easily and did it to confuse people.
Remember also that Gen. Douglas MacArthur is also remembered for his speeches. He chose Ike as his Executive Officer (read: official personal assistant), and one of the duties of an Exec is to write the boss’ speeches.
History is never “cold and calculating” — everyone writes with an agenda…I thought Heisenberg put paid to the idea of Absolute Objectivity…
There are historians who think Lincoln ruined everything, and there are those who revere him.
Same with Thos Jefferson, for that matter.
As for Roosevelt and his “Happy Days aer Here Again,” he was the beginning of our welfare state according to some. By now, a majority of people think his Keynesian applications to the Depression just allowed the government to grow larger and larger, until we now have 40% of the employees in this country drawing their salary from some level of government: federal, state, or local.
We don’t know how history will view the following theses:
a. an incompetent, undeclared, unpopular, wasteful war
Congress voted for the war. The UN didn’t because those in charge were making millions off Iraq.
All wars are considered “wasteful.” The waste of WWI is incalculable. And half a century on, we still have troops in Korea. As for unpopularity, it depends on where you live. Those adjectives are, shall we say, “fraught” with the writer’s meaning but their adherence to reality may be wanting.
Lincoln had a terrible time with his generals for most of the war, and then one of them ran against him. Even then the Dems has a “peace wing”…some things never change.
b. an empty legislative record
I wish. That stupid “No Child Left Behind Act” is an abomination. Not to mention that Bush doesn’t head the legislative branch. He’s the Chief “Executive”…with some good choices for judges that the Dems have blocked.
c. nearly universal turn-around in U.S. prestige
Right. And we were universally loved before, huh? It’s not his job to make the world love what they envy.
d. new heights in administrative corruption
Clinton already soared Mt. Olympus. At least none of his staff committed suicide, and there haven’t been any Filegate, or all those despicable pardons Clinton signed on his way out the door. No Travelgate, either. Nothing even comes close to what was done to the White House Travel Office employees. And all for nothing…those poor sods are still paying their legal bills just bec. someone wanted their jobs as political favors.
Nor is the current president likely to have to answer in court for his perjury. Nor will he have to pay damages to women who brought suits against him.
e. levels of partisanship unparalleled in history
Surely you jest? This country was polarized before Bush ever ran for office. And the pettiness of the Dems is amazing. If you want to see “unparalleled partisanship” read up on Lincoln’s run up to his second term. Given the level of vitriol, even he didn’t think he would win.
f. etc, etc, etc.,
Whatever those are…let’s wait and see what Bush doesn on leaving office. Let’s see if he’s anything like Carter or Clinton…
well, history is going to have its hands full.
Depends on who is writing the history and what the level of myopia is.
History is never be “cold and calculation,” (would not be history if it was), and yes, if writing with an “agenda” means having a perspective, of course all historians have an agenda by virtue of who they are and where they were trained. I suggest none of this is good or bad, it just is and mostly “good” hisotry is good because of perspective and content as well as the who of the rendition. Compare for example Bruce Catton and Shelby Foote on the Civil War; very different authors with different perspectives but bot fabulous history.
I would be interested in reading historians with reputations who have suggested Lincoln ruined everything, and respectfully submit that the Roosevelt perspective limits the complexity of the individual and the times. To make overly simple, the “details” of history, is to miss all the points of undertsanding history. Now Tacitus had a perspective, but could the guy get across the point about how Rome functioned!
I agree entirely with your point, neo, but it was Bush 41 who was president during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, although the events were the vision of Reagan, Thatcher, and the Bishop of Rome, IMHO.
“And of course the fall of the Soviet Union, occurring late in [Reagan’s] presidency”… I think you mean “starting” late in his presidency. I agree he was largely responsible for pushing them to the brink.
Reagan’s bluff about SDI was instrumental in USSR financial bankraptcy, and giving Stingers to Afganistan resistance to failure of Soviet invasion there. The last desperate attempt of Gorbachev to save situation in Rejcjavic talks also was blocked by Reagan. This was the breaking point of Gorbatchev presidency and fate of Communism.
That SDI “bluff” may yet save our sweet little bottoms. The Israelis are already using one of our missile-trackers combined with a Phalanx gun to protect some of their towns against rocket attacks.
Thanks for the correction about the exact timing of the fall of the USSR.
I’m a dem who supported Bush and still do because of his determination to defend the country. He is a classic example of a hard to evaluate a president because the long term outcome of his policies is still uncertain. Right now we seem to be effectively engaging the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan – in six moths it might be far better or far worse. Domestically, if no child left behind and the prescription drug initiative prosper he may be remembered as continuing the work of FDR and LBJ. We wont really know how his decisions in Iraq and the GWOT come out for about 10 12 years minimum. The wisdom of FDR putting an anti communist VP in in 44 paid big dividends as Truman manged to oppose communist expansionism without starting WW3. Ike did well for 8 years and then JFK and Khrushchev got into a dicey moment in the 60s. Deep divisions in our western world views have been exposed and they will move on to some resolution that is not at all clear now.
It goes without saying that journalism comprises the first draft to history, but, unfortunately, the only draft we have available.
It may be the only draft you have, but that doesn’t apply to us.
As to levels of partisanship unparalleled … both the early days of the Republic and the period of the War Between The States saw partisanship that makes this look timid and polite.
Probably because we were allowed to kill each other back then, instead of simply argue back and forth.
Let’s see if he’s anything like Carter or Clinton…
So long as there are people like Donald sabotaging the leadership of the President, the possibility will eventually become a probability.
They will always try and make you fail and then blame your failure on you, rather than on the actions that they undertook to make you fail.
Donald doesn’t need to know what the root cause of Bush’s problems are, since he has no interest in repairing those problems. He can always add more problems to the country, after all, and that requires nothing concerning understanding the root cause.
The past can’t be changed, thus that is why events ongoing in the present aren’t history. Things are still undecided because the players are still deciding them, one way or the other. As time passes, recent historical events become grist for present time problems. Such as Vietnam becoming the backdrop and propaganda channel from which Iraq will be influenced by. The legacy of Vietnam cannot be changed since it is history, but it can be used. The more ancient an event becomes, the less useful and distorted it is. People that lived those times would die, removing any bias or interest in those events. It is a slow process, and it never does end.
So long as a person is alive during a time when events are occuring, that person has a choice of sides to choose. He can choose positions and policies and words to say that can influence other individuals or even part of the event itself. Because of this option, there is no point in trying to find out what the “definitive” version of history is, since it is far more effective to simply make Iraq turn out the way you would want it to turn out in historical annals.
It may be favorable to recast Vietnam in a different light because you can no longer change those events, but Iraq is still ongoing. So it seems very logical that those who say that Iraq will turn out one way or another, are personally invested one way or another in that outcome. Either that, or they are part of the Inshallah club.
Journalists would do well to take heed, and to exhibit a bit more humility about the work they do.
That would be about as easy as getting terrorists to stop killing folks.
Possible, but rather demanding.
although journalists would often like to think otherwise.
I am not even sure that all “journalists” are self-aware, even if they are capable of thought.
There are three things that must occur before we can have much of an idea of what “history” – or people in the future – will think of us now.
First is something big happened, Bush Jr. at least should pass that test . Despite arguments about how history will see them, people like Clinton and Bush Sr. never had anything big enough for people to care. Bush Sr. will most likely get a side note over having the first fully “modern” war (or whatever our level of tactics/technology is called once it is no longer “modern”) and Clinton will get a foot note over getting impeached over having an affair with an intern and lying about it.
The next important thing is that it is far enough along that people do note care about the politics of the time. As of now much of what you think about the president depends on your politics, but at some time the war in Iraq is just going to be words in a book. Do we care that the US thought that the confederacy would be destroyed in less than a year with minimal casualties and now is 3 years into it with absolutely massive casualties? Nope, not one bit – in fact while that was a VERY major thing and made the war extremely unpopular it barely even gets a paragraph now.
And, lastly and maybe most importantly, how it all turns out. Had the union not won, or the south succeeded again in a few years then Lincoln would be vilified now. As is he was a visionary that stuck to his guns and pushed to do the right thing. If we *do* happen to talk about the people who opposed the war it isn’t very nice.
Iraq will do the same. If we succeed (and it very much appears as if that is now occurring) then he should be remembered well. If it does lead to the collapse of the dictatorships in the region then 100 years from now Bush will be one of the greatest world leaders to have ever lived. In this respect similar to Churchill (though I seriously doubt he will get the same personal respect simply due to Churchill’s personality lending to very memorable quotes) – if the Nazi’s had not done as Churchill predicted, if his tenacity and “vision” had been wrong he would have went down as an idiot of the ages. As is someone who accurately projected how the world works and actively sought to change it for the better and then *succeeds* in spite of the detractors and, well, you get Churchills and Lincolns.
Ymarsakar wrote, “I am not even sure that all “journalists” are self-aware, even if they are capable of thought.”
I think you’re on to something there, if maybe not precisely on target. I lurk on journalist blogs. For the most part, they’re the least bloggy people imaginable. There’s something missing.
a. an incompetent, undeclared, unpopular, wasteful war
b. an empty legislative record
c. nearly universal turn-around in U.S. prestige
d. new heights in administrative corruption
e. levels of partisanship unparalleled in history
f. etc, etc, etc.,
well, history is going to have its hands full.
I wonder if history will explain why we didn’t take to the streets in the first place. Was is MTV, hip-hop, marijuana, our over-stuffed arm chairs….what? What made us sit through all this? Was it because I could get up off the couch, bitch about the news all the way to the coffee maker and all the way back to the couch again? I just can’t explain my lethargy. Maybe history will for the next generation.
Heisenberg talked about the effect of observation on physics experiments, where the researcher designs the experiment and therefore has a great impact on how it turns out. Journalists don’t have that degree of control, if any, over the events they cover. To take an example from quantum physics and apply it to journalism, or objectivity in the macro world, is a BIG leap.
To take another example, quantum physics is said to have shattered the concept of causality, but we still hold people responsible for their actions. What works in a physics lab doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about how human society works.
Finally, the idea that ‘everyone has an agenda’ is often used to imply that it’s pointless to attempt objectivity. However, if objectivity itself becomes the agenda (as it should be in journalism, and writing history) then it produces a much better product. Not necessarily completely objective, but pretty much all attempts to carry out an agenda fail somewhere. That doesn’t mean trying is worthless.