I enjoy reading the History News Network. I'm not an historian, but I do enjoy reading historical works. The articles posted on HNN are frequently very informative. This is not one of those. It's long, it's filled with facts, and it's operating from a horrifingly flawed premise. These guys seem to think that they can intrepret history based on current opinion of the intelligentia. Are they nuts? Current opinion of FDR was that he was a monster (despite winning election after election) but now he's one of our more revered Presidents. Current opiniion of Teddy was that he was an idiot (because he was an overt populist, but he too one an election or two) despite his published works, some of which are still studied today (unlike say, Wilson's tripe). Current opinion of Reagan was that he was an idiot and a monster. Yet, twenty years later, as passions cool, and the results of decisions made during his administration become clearer, his reputation is growing.
For historians to think that they can accurately judge the success of this presidency based on current events is nuts. Let's speculate for a moment. What if the insurrection in Iraq gets quelled (as it probably will)? What if the seeds of democracy take root in the Middle East and some pretty horrible regimes such as Syria and Saudi Arabia become functional democracies taking an active constructive role in the world? Yes, it may take ten or twenty years for that to come about, but just like the fall of the Soviet Union (largely hastened by Reagan, despite the hectoring he received at the time from some of these same historians), it will be seen as a great thing and the person who largely brought it about, despite the derision of these otherwise highly intelligent people, will be George W. Bush.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Historians Against Bush
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As the pro-Bush historian said: “I suspect that this poll will tell us nothing about President Bush’s performance vis-à-vis his peer group, but may confirm what we already know about the current crop of history professors.”
That's my take on it as well, so I confess I stopped reading soon thereafter, 'cuz I really don't have time to waste on the tin-hat-brigade.
>>Yet it seems clear that a similar survey taken during the presidency of Bush’s father would not have yielded results nearly as condemnatory.<<
I think that 9/11 really did change the world for all of us here in the US. So the "blame Ameica first" crowd is even more so, and those of us who would have been very leary of America marching in to transform the Middle East 5 years ago now see the necessity of it. I think 9/11 and Bush's reaction to it have made him a polarizing figure. Doesn't mean he's a worse president than less polarizing presidents before him.
And let's face, Teddy Roosevelt was hated by many in his time, but the general consensus now is that he was one of our best.
Ummm. Hey.
I already posted this. Look down 2.
Funny that we both got offended by the same article at the same time.
Post a Comment