Wednesday, January 03, 2007
The only good Republican president...
...is a dead Republican president.
It is the rare president who can make tough, unpopular decisions and yet remain popular while in office. Eisenhower was perhaps the last, and if not him then FDR. That does not mean that the fact of a president's unpopularity makes him more likely to be correct, but it does mean that relative popularity while in office poorly predicts the verdict of history. No matter what people think of George W. Bush's presidency, his ultimate place in history will depend on the state of the Middle East and the relationship between the West and the Islamic world in roughly 2050, and what has transpired in the years between now and then. There is a very good chance that little else will matter.
23 Comments:
By 
honestpartisan, at
Wed Jan 03, 01:03:00 PM:
Assuming for the sake of argument that your 2050 timeline is correct, isn't it a bit funny how I heard precious little of this emphasis on the long historical view from the hawk community during the triumphalism of the purple-finger-Cedar-Revolution era?
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Jan 03, 01:18:00 PM:
Well, I'm not sure there is any time period that is a priori "correct," but we have in other posts been discussing the idea that it takes about 50 years for the historical view of an American presidency to settle down. There are at least two reasons. First, people have to die so that there papers, diaries, and private thoughts can be revealed. Second, and more importantly, it is very difficult for people to write balanced histories of periods that they have lived through, because it is hard to escape what historians call "presentism." The first good history of the Bush 43 years will in all probability be written by somebody is less than 10 years old today.
As for the idea that nobody was taking the "long historical view" in the spring of 2005, I just don't think that was true. Nobody, certainly not I, would argue that the present does not matter, and a lot of good things were happening in the spring of 2005. I think, though, that the subject is germane, for a moment, in light of Gerald Ford's death and the revisionist journalism attending that.
By High Power Rocketry, at
Wed Jan 03, 02:14:00 PM:
By skipsailing, at
Wed Jan 03, 02:29:00 PM:
The fifty year rule seems fair to me. I'm listening to a book about WW1 now. Enough time has passed to eliminate some of the "presentism". Ealier I read a book concerning America's early efforts at neutrality in this same war and it was clearly written too soon after the events.
First, this book was a collection of essays and inevitably some of the contributors were simply defending themselves.
next, the book presumed a level of detailed knowledge most of us simply lack. The name of the Wilson's Secretary of the Treasury was well known to the authors, I had to look the guy up. A historian who wishes to be understood will provide some background to the reader, especially some of the supporting characters who's contribution was important but small.
The book was helpful, but it really wasn't "history"
The other point that must be made about the fifty year rule is this: not everybody gets remembered. I made this point to the insufferable Rich Lowry in an email this morning. Gerald Ford will be recalled, however scantily, by our history books. Who will recall chevy Chase?
George W Bush's presidency will be discussed in great detail. I wonder how often names like Maureen al-Dowd or Paul al-Krugman will be mentioned.
Many of us know that the contemporary press was critical of Lincoln's gettysburg address. How many of us can recall the names of the critics?
By Pudentilla, at
Wed Jan 03, 02:50:00 PM:
Well if you really want a long view - consider the perspective of a Roman historian. 50 years is nothing on a few millenia.
To which point, I might suggest that what the dead Republican presidents since Eisenhower share, regardless of the status of foreign affairs and geopolitics, now or then, is an association with constitutional irregularities - Watergate, Iran Contra, and the current president's reluctance to obtain FISA warrents and imprisonment of a citizen without trial (to name but two of the many irregularities that will preoccupy oversight committees and historians for years to come). Since Ford we have adopted the position that our Constitution and our political society are to fragile to encompass these Republican crimes and thus we have adopted the wisdom of "wise old men" to "heal the wounds" that afflict the Washington elite - and ignore those that fester to the country's great danger.
In far less than a millenia we may find the relentless, Republican assault on constitutional norms far more important to the history of the age than the particulars of the Decider's disasters in the Middle East. One thinks of Caesar and Gaul. No disrespect is offered to the many fine works devoted to the Gallic campaigns by the simple observation that the most compelling questions of his day arise in relationship to the collapse of the Roman constitutional order. In this respect alone, it should be noted, is the Decider appropriately compared to Caesar. In most analyses, the better comparison is surely Xerxes.
- on an other note, in response to skipsailing's question - the Chicago Tribune was a keen critic of the Gettysburgh Address. Wills' book, Lincoln at Gettysburg is highly recommended.
By ScurvyOaks, at
Wed Jan 03, 02:54:00 PM:
Since I was every bit as much of a teenaged political geek as TH (and we're about 4 months apart in age), I too remember Ford getting flayed alive at the time for pardoning Nixon and for other things (e.g., frequent use of the veto after Congress lurched to the left in the 1974 elections). What's amusing about the "good dead Republican president" phenomenon is that it's transparently a springboard for demonstrating how terrible the live Republican president is. I would not be surprised if, 30 years from now, we are treated to the press finding lots of nice things to say about W, just for the purpose of grinding its ax about the Republican in the White House then (Ted Cruz, perhaps?).
By 
, at
Wed Jan 03, 03:00:00 PM:
The long view today would have days replace years and years replace centuries compared to the time when the Roman Empire existed. A long view indeed can be the short span of 50 years in this age of instant info.
Mr. Bush has set in motion a process that won't be stopped. We have too much invested to leave Iraq in any form other than 100% lined up behind the USA. It ought to be a half a notch below Puerto Rico in it's relationship with the USA.
By skipsailing, at
Wed Jan 03, 03:46:00 PM:
thanks pudenda, you made my point. Absent your reading of Will's book I doubt you could have named a single critic. The history books most people read (i.e. school books) won't be that detailed.
As for your rant, you proved TH's point: For you this is simply a chance to express your opinions about the present by tangentially connecting them to the past. You provided us with sort of a "free association lefty anger" example, for which I thank you.
By Pudentilla, at
Wed Jan 03, 04:41:00 PM:
Since you didn't respond to the argument, it's not clear why you privilege TH's preference for foreign policy achievement as opposed to my own preference for constitutional conduct as the standard against which Bush will be judged.
For the sake of charity I'll assume your mistake of my nom de blog reflects the relentlessly anti-historical mindset that continued allegience to the Decider demands. No Santayana here, what? Well, I suppose if I were a conservative, a retreat to sneering nihilism is all that I too would have left.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Wed Jan 03, 04:56:00 PM:
Whatever. I think this strategy of deferring evaluation for 50 years basically amounts to closing your eyes, crossing your fingers, and putting faith in the people who brought us to this pass. The president is making decisions in real-time, and in real-time they look pretty dumb. Even in conservative circles where they look brilliant at the unveiling, they tarnish quickly upon execution. It's history's job to judge us, but it's our job to do the best we can with the data we have. We live in this world and we have to make decisions based on our contemporary view.
To neoconservatives it's not enough to have a decider. They want a decider who won't be questioned for 50 years.
If you'd rather sit on the fence for 50 years, fine, but when a president is screwing up, most of us don't want to issue him a blank check. Most of us would rather deliver a reality check.
Speaking on fence-sitting, I haven't seen the hosts' take on the proposed surge. (Apologies if I've missed it.)
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Wed Jan 03, 05:01:00 PM:
PS: You don't have to go searching through history. We all remember the last president who had the ability to make unpopular decisions and remain popular. Nobody endorses banging an intern as a responsible thing to do, but even after impeachment, Clinton's approval rating was about double Bush's current values. (I imagine at the time TH argued Congress should wait 50 years and then impeach...)
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Jan 03, 05:05:00 PM:
What unpopular decision did Clinton make? Not very many of any significance. The most that can be said is that he sometimes made decisions that were unpopular with his own party (NAFTA, welfare reform), but quite popular with moderates who might otherwise have voted against him.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Jan 03, 05:08:00 PM:
I'm not big on the troop surge, but I'm not sure it's particularly harmful either. Not likely to succeed, but also not a huge incremental burden over the current commitment. Downside is it continues to foster dependency among powerful Iraqis, but we retain the option of playing the withdrawal card.
As you know, I do not share the popular urgency to withdraw, because I think this war is cheap in dollars and casualties, not expensive. So other than the political urgency, my bias is to stay until we have a really good theory for turning withdrawal to our advantage.
By skipsailing, at
Wed Jan 03, 05:49:00 PM:
My goodness:
Mr Bastard, TH isn't saying that no one should comment on the current president. he's saying that a valid historical judgement cannot now be made.
Like pudenda you just need opportunities to express your anger or insight or whatever. certainly TH's is not denying you that. He's just pointing out that your words now are not "history"
Why is that so hard to understand?
My two cents: the troop surge, coupled with a change in RoE's will tip the scales in Iraq.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jan 03, 07:17:00 PM:
It was always my impression that Clinton went out of his way to avoid making any big decisions that would alienate anyone. Part of his 'triangulation' no doubt.
Also, the 90s were a different time. Peace process in Israel was underway, the economy was riding the tech boom, everyone was getting on the Internet... except for some isolated religious nuts blowing shit up and a couple of genocides that everyone studiously ignored, life was pretty good.
By SR, at
Wed Jan 03, 07:58:00 PM:
DF82: The 90's were great. The internet boom made many people very wealthy, but it turned out to be a bubble which when burst left more people the poorer for it. The Israeli Peace Process, was a complete sham which spawned the Intifada. Behind the scenes, the jihadis were preparing to unleash hell. Oh yeah, Jimmy Carter made a deal with the Norks resulting in the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Sweet!
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Jan 03, 09:25:00 PM:
Can we get back to the subject for a moment. Ford, and his sudden fame among the Liberals:
I find it a little fishy that an interview with the illustrious Woodward finds that Ford disagreed with President Bush’s decision on how to justify the war in Iraq, and that the specific quotes were released so quickly. Not that I would think that Mr. Woodward or anybody else in the Press might make anything up, but is the tape (not transcript) of the interview posted anywhere so we can hear President Fords own words?
On the lighter side, here is a picture of President Ford with Cheney and Rumsfeld back when they had hair. (I can laugh now, I’ll be balder than Cheney when I hit his age)
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5088
By , at
Wed Jan 03, 10:50:00 PM:
Speaking of funny old pictures, I saw one of Skippy Carter the other night and he looked a lot like John Edwards today (just a little grayer, that's all).
Proof positive that history repeats itself, the second time for laughs.
-David
By Pudentilla, at
Wed Jan 03, 11:16:00 PM:
shitsailor, oops, i mean skipsailing
"he's saying that a valid historical judgement cannot now be made"
A premise which can easily be challenged - should we wait 50 years to evaluate Saddam Hussein's presidency of Iraq? Did we wait 50 years to evaluate the Nixon's contributions to US constitutional history? Washington's monumental status was recognized immediately upon his retirement, FDR's on his death.
The wait 50 years premise is a convenient dodge for those Bush backers who a) don't want to make a judgment now because, the judgment will reveal them to have been wrong; and b) want to escape moral responsibility for their errors.
It's self indulgent, immature and piss poor historical analysis - and what we've come to expect from the Deciders acolytes.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Jan 04, 11:18:00 AM:
sigh,
Pudentilla, you seem so focused on insuring that YOU have YOUR say that you've managed to completely miss the point.
Frankly, I'm not shocked or surprised.
Say what you will now, its contemporary comentary not valid historical writing. It seems to me that TH desires a level of objectivity that is not now possible. There is a sense of dispassion that must emerge. yes "historians" can and will distort their writing to support their theses, but that's why we study a variety of authors.
here's an example: one of my favorite books about the Iraq war is Bing West's "No True Glory". In many ways it is a history book because it is a chronicle of important events.
but by applying TH's standard that great book isn't a "history book". I guess I just don't see the problem with that distinction.
will people see our current era through different lenses in fifty years? certainly. right now we can only comment and record. the true sense of historic legacy doesn't belong to us.
so do prattle on, no one has said you shouldn't or couldn't. You're just NOT writing history. but you may be making it.
By , at
Thu Jan 04, 12:04:00 PM:
The 50-year premise implies that in 2057 there will be some sort of great final answer that everyone will agree to. That's doubtful too. In certain circles the legacies of Jefferson and Adams are still matters of debate.
-History Major
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Jan 04, 01:04:00 PM:
SR: All of which is a product of hindsight, and an excellent example of how one cannot make a proper judgement of history so soon after it occurs.
By Pudentilla, at
Thu Jan 04, 11:15:00 PM:
skipsailing,
according to the standard you propose, Thucydides didn't write history. are you sure you want this standard?
also, don't you think you're being a wee bit naive in your assumptions about historical objectivity (see Novick, That Noble Dream).
