Thursday, January 22, 2009

Is There a Second Act for George W. Bush?

"There ought to be a rule where no one writes history about your short term until a generation of those who never voted for you or against you show up, you know what I'm saying?"

No one was able to repair their image more than Nixon. I'd bet my degree on it.

6 comments:

dcat said...

Eh. To (probably mis-) quote something Lon Hamby always used to remind us, people can write historically about events that happened yesterday and ahistorically about events that happened a thousand years ago.

Also: I'm not certain the historiography reflects Nixon's rehabilitation quite as much as you think it does. Even Hoff predicates her book on basically excluding Watergate.

This idea that history will judge so we should not is as ahistorical and presentist as any thing the "worst president ever" brigade is arguing.

dcat

g_rob said...

My point about Nixon has to do with the research I did on him while an undergrad. I researched how 5 major print news sources had covered him from the time of his resignation to his death.

No president was more reviled at the time they left office than Nixon. Yet by the time he died, he had come full-circle to be not only welcomed back "into the arena" but regarded as an elder statesman whose opinion was valued and relevant on, especially, foreign affairs.

And, for the record, I do not think that we should not judge because, ultimately, history will. But I do believe that there is a lot to be researched and written before we know Ws place in history.

dcat said...

Eh. That's npow the conservative line: let's not judge! We cannot possibly know. Yeah. We can. And we do. More details will come out, to eb sure, and the silly narrative of Bush being irredeemable will fade as well. But we did not have to wait a generation to judge Carter, and oddly, no conservatives were interested in that wait period. Now suddenly they want the passage of time to replace contemporaneous judgment. How very convenient.

dcat

g_rob said...

My comment is vague - let me clarify: I don't have a problem with people judging in the present. Afterall, people's opinions of a president do affect that president's ability to perform his job - whether we like it or not. However, I do also believe that there is a lot to be discovered yet that may or may not change our opinion.

If I recall, many critics of Reagan, including some historians, were quick to judge him as nothing more than a figurehead - aloof and not involved in any of the real decision-making. As the years went by and his papers became more and more available, many changed their opinion.

dcat said...

Greg -
I'm actually not convinced that Reagan was an especially good president.

Opposing renewing the Voting Rights Act: Bad.

Bittburg (and the implicit -- or simply ignorant -- embrace of Nazism): Bad.

Iran-Contra: Bad.

Opposing the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act: Bad.

Opening his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi (and embracing states rights): Bad.

So, worse than figurehead. Actually bad.

Part of those decisions? Not part of those decisions? We may never know. Those decisions? They range from merely wrong to categorically evil.

dcat

g_rob said...

If I recall, many critics of Reagan, including some historians, were quick to judge him as nothing more than a figurehead - aloof and not involved in any of the real decision-making. As the years went by and his papers became more and more available, many changed their opinion.

I think my argument here is not whether or not Reagan was bad - that is another topic for another day- but that people's (historian's) view of his role in his administration changed as his papers became public.