Infinite MonkeysIn the latest issue of The Atlantic -- not yet online, I'm sorry to say -- Ross Douthat makes the case that George W. Bush might be seen by history as a better president than his current twentysomething-percent poll position would indicate.
Why? Well, not because George W. Bush is actually a good president. History is forgiving, it seems, of all but the most villanous figures. Harry Truman and Woodrow Wilson left office with low popularity and/or diminished reputations, but found esteem over time. Even LBJ gets sympathetic treatment these days.
And that got me thinking: Who is right? The future historians who can see the big picture? Or us, the people who actually have to live with the consequences of a president's bad decisions?
I don't have a clear answer to that. I do think history tends to overlook the lives of regular folks when making its assessments. But it could be that we're all paying the price for George W. Bush's uncanny vision for the Middle East -- something that might look good in, say, 50 years but feels damn painful now. And I'm not sure who would be on the right side of that argument.
Cross posted at Cup O' Joel
Posted by Joel at May 11, 2008 02:42 PMI miss editing. My spelling and grammar looked so much better then...
Posted by: Joel at May 11, 2008 03:25 PMWe need to remember that history is written by historians. Most of these people have academic posts and hence have a liberal/leftist tilt.
That explains a more rosy view of 20th century Democrats like Truman and Wilson.
As a contra-example, consider James K. Polk. We have to grant that he was a particularly obnoxious character on a personal level.
Yet, if it weren't for him, California, Arizona, and New Mexico would have suffered the same miserable history since 1848 as Mexico.
Yet, it is almost impossible to find a serious historian who will praise his accomplishments. They hate him for starting (and winning) the Mexican War.
I thank him.
Posted by: Whitehall at May 12, 2008 05:22 PM