I have posted to this effect before, but given the short duration of public memory it is vital to build an appropriate Dubya monument as quickly as possible. Something other than Venn Diagrams that the kiddies can latch onto later in life. At public expense of course, since everything he's ever done has been at the expense of The Public.
I've already suggested an inverted obelisk (like the Washington Monument, only dug 555 feet straight down through the bedrock. This has been criticized on grounds of technical feasibility and costs, plus the fact that kiddies could fall in (has no one ever heard of velvet ropes)?
In response I put forward a neoclassical approach. It's a pity we can't attach images (what's up with that Ariana?) because I've already completed a preliminary visualization which IMHO is stunning. Envision if you will a marble nude of W modeled closely after Mike Angelo's David (the one in Italy, or your local Italian eatery). Add a chain saw dangling from his right hand, a nod to Duya's love of cutting brush. Something vital is missing at groin level. He stares at his severed genitals which he holds in his left hand (the one in Italy has a stone) with his patented "shocked deer in headlights" gaze. Now of I hasten to add that Dubya doesn't cut brush in the nude and that to the best of my knowledge "the shuttle is still in the hanger." To the literally minded, this statue is an allegory to Iraq, the economy, his popularity, you name it. My working title is "A Dynasty Come to an Abrupt End, or Never Permit an Idiot to Use Power Tools."
Like I say, it's a pity I can't post images. Learn from the past or be doomed to repeat it. And support your local marble cutter.
Washington, Lincoln, Bush
Here's a desirable "learning outcome" for first grade students in the public schools of Georgia: being able to answer the question, "How are Washington, Lincoln, and Bush alike?" In their classrooms, Georgia's 6-year-olds "will compare and contrast information about Washington, Lincoln, and our current president. This information will be recorded on a Venn diagram."
I don't know how many other states require this Venn diagram to be created, or whether first-grade teachers will accept -- as information for the place where the three presidents' circles overlap -- commonalities like not having gills, possessing opposable thumbs, or putting on their pants one leg at a time.
But I do know that George Bush loves to say what he has in common with Washington and Lincoln: how little it matters what people say about him today. "I don't think you'll really get the full history of the Bush administration until long after I'm gone. I tell people I'm reading books on George Washington, and they're still analyzing his presidency," he told 60 Minutes. At Camp David, he told ABC's Charlie Gibson, "I tell people I read three books on Washington last year, and if they're still writing on the first guy, the 43rd guy isn't going to be around to see it... I spent a lotta time reading about Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln had no earthly idea that the Gettysburg Address was a great speech.... You know, history, it's just, it, I, I've always felt that there needs to be a long leash to history. That you can't judge an administration, immediately. And, particularly one that has pushed hard for some big ideas, like, like, my administration has done."
Ah, yes, those big Bushie ideas. Tax cuts in wartime, the unitary executive, signing statements, waterboarding, gay-baiting... You can almost imagine a first grade exercise that teaches them. Put a circle around the ones that don't belong:
A. American Revolution.
B. Civil War.
C. Iraq War.
A. Beware the baneful effects of the spirit of party.
B. The party lash and the fear of ridicule will overawe justice and liberty.
C. Democrats are terrorist-loving cut-and-runners.
Bush, of course, takes the long view of his place in presidential history. No one who saw this fly-boy swagger beneath the "Mission Accomplished" banner (on the USS Abraham Lincoln, no less) is qualified to characterize that act as one of the most loathsome, preening, hubristic degradations of the presidency in all of American history because... well, because none of us is dead yet! It'll take a hundred years, and a hundred books, before people have the perspective needed to acclaim his guitar-strumming indifference to Katrina as just what our glorious Republic needed from its POTUS at the time. His flying back from a Crawford for a midnight signing of the Terry Schaivo bill? Why, the only presidential historians who can call that one correctly (a victory for the rights of the undead? a miracle of long-distance diagnosis?) will be the great-great-grandchildren of kids in first grade right now.
I have no difficulty imagining the future historians who will rank W right up there along with the Father of Our Country and Honest Abe, rather than way down there with Warren Harding and Franklin Pierce. After all, the servile savants already beatifying Bush on Fox News, right wing talk radio, and in The Washington Times are as likely to pass their genes and memes down to future generations as is slime mold, and the Snopes clan that inherits the earth in Faulkner's dark vision. And as someone who lived through the Nixon terms, and then the Nixon funeral, and the Reagan terms, and then the Reagan funeral, I'm all too familiar with the press's fondness for the revisionist airbrush. De mortuis nil nisi bonum: speak only good of the dead.
The thing I'm having trouble imagining, though, is the scenario for America's future that George W. Bush thinks will ultimately make him look good. Does he really believe that future historians will look back at his Middle East record as the happy tipping point between radical-fundamentalist-jihadist-extremism and freedom-is-on-the-march? Or does he secretly hope that the tragedy looming in that region's future will be blamed not on him, but on his successors who inherit his broken crockery? Can he really imagine that his contempt for checks and balances, and for the Bill of Rights, will one day be compared favorably to Lincoln's boldness in saving the Union? Or does he believe deep down that the fact he ended up not being impeached will in the long view of history more than outweigh any pesky lefty aspersions about his abuses of power?
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
History will be interested in the fact that members of the US military have held President Bush in great respect at the same time as an "anti-war" "progressive" demographic has vilified him. History will examine the role that US aid has played in fighting AIDS in Africa and other parts of the world during this president's term. It will know the outcome of the Iraq war and will be able to assess the good or ill that came from US intervention in the Middle East, something that is purely speculatory now. History will be able to compare what this president has said with what his critics said he said (often quite different things), and will be able to assess the shrill cries of the moment for what they are.
History will be able to judge whether Madonna and Al Gore were really good scientists when it came to "global warming," and take a generally disinterested look into many of the sacred cows of the present time and see them for what they are.
Many of the really momentous changes of the late 20th and early 21st century that have gone unnoticed, that bore little relationship to politics at all, whether "left" wing or "right wing," discoveries in astronomy (black holes at the centers of gallaxies), wonderful developments in art (the great but little celebrated jazz masters like Didier Lockwood, Birelli Lagrane, Regina Carter, Joshua Redman, and others), and similar, wonderful things will stand out more sharply.
And the tiresomely predictable blah, blah, blah that characterizes the engage political fiz and soap bubbles of the moment will have gone "poof!"
That's my prediction.
Nonsense. First, the active military always hold the President in great respect (publicly), as they should, my point being it's part of the job description. The retired military and the active military off-record are a different matter and I can't recall any time when an Administration's War policy has been so sharply criticized by military insiders.
It's possible to spin failed foreign, economic and military policies as steadfast moral rectitude, but George III still looks like an ass for how he dealt with The Colonies. Mussolini is more recognizable hanging upside down on a lamp post then in any other pose and the Bourbons never forgot and never learned. Spin tends to dissolve with time. Granted, the Dubya administration seems intent on shredding their records as fast as they shred the Constitution, but the big picture will get historical notice. Remember, Dubya doesn't do nuance. He also doesn't discover black holes, write music or finance those who do. His record on African aids is too little, too late and no condoms. Oh yes, the K Street graft and
the surprising amount of homosexuality among the family values GOP should seal the historical deal.
For those who voted for Bush twice, you know who you are. Don't count on history to salve your guilty consciences. The rest of us, lets build a fitting and highly enduring Bush Monument!
Woodrow Wilson is a hero but look what he did.
Opposed Women Suffrage.
Besides WWI Wilson intervened in more countries than any other president. :
Mexico 1914
Haiti 1915
Dominican Republic 1916
Mexico 1916
Cuba 1917
Panama 1918
Nicaragua : Controlled their presidential election and forced a treaty with US troops
Russia 1917: Sent money to the Whites, 1918 naval blockade, Sent troops to Mursmansk, Archangel and Vladivostok with penetration to Lake Baikal.
Lincoln desegregated the White House but Wilson segregated it. He reversed policies of a appointing blacks to federal jobs. He segregated Federal agencies. He segregated the integrated US Navy. Congress refused his request to curtail the rights of blacks.
When president of Princeton, he refused to admit blacks.
He set up surveillance of black newspapers to undermine them.
Regarding terms like Irish-American, he said, "Any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is already to plunge into the vitals of this republic."
He wanted the Espionage Act of 1917 to give him broad censorship powers. In 1920 he vetoed the abolishment of the Espionage and Sedition Acts. Opposition to the war was dangerous. Wilson"s Creel Committee asked Americans to report those who cried for peace or criticized the war. Anti-communism became the excuse after the war for suppression of civil rights.
Wilson"s policies denied Ho Chi Minh help, ousted Bela Kun from Hungary , for and for refused recognition of Russia. Wilson"s sentiments of self determination and democracy were empty rhetoric or at best were selective when applied to his polices.
D.W. Griffith quoted Wilson 's two volume history of the United States in the movie, Birth of a Nation.
Robert Goldstein spent 10 years in prison for his film, Spirit of 76, criticized the British in the Revolutionary War.
Postmaster General censored mail that was socialist, anti-British, pro-Irish or opposition to the war effort.
Eugene Debs went to prison of his speech questioning the motives for the war. Harding pardoned Debs when Wilson would not.
Bush is tame compared to Wilson.
Marty:
In a country which entertains itself with a dialogue on the question of "what the meaning of is, is"; is this at all realistic, or for that matter surprising??
And just after the head of M.I.T. graced Charlie Rose with her presence.
Manuel
Bush's greatness lies in taking Presidential abuse of power to hyperbolic heights, thereby pointing out that the Founding Fathers set the bar for impeachment far too high. As a result, the Presidency has become far, far too powerful.
One thing FDR will be remembered for is the Constitutional Amendment he inspired limiting the President to two terms. Let us hope Congress now has the wisdom to propose a Constitutional Amendment lowering the bar for conviction in the Senate to a simple majority, or providing some other mechanism for recall. That would truly be a good thing to remember GWB for.
I'm sorry and beg to differ with your comment about the bar being too high for impeachment. The problem with impeaching GW is that the Republicans closed ranks around him, thereby insulating him and Cheney from ever knowing true justice. Compound this with the now infamous disappearing e-mails, classified documentation of just about any and all communications and the unexplainable loyalty that comes from his crony staff and cabinet members is it a wonder the legal system is frozen unable to investigate or prosecute. No, it's not a high bar that inhibits prosecution because the world knows his crimes exceed the bar by leaps and bounds. It's because GW Bush is akin to the teflon mafia...we just need to find that weak link to break the code of silence around him.
Plus the fact that the Democrats cannot make the tough decision to bring impeachment hearing toward GW. Dennis Kucinich just did that but his fellow Democrats are too scared to vote for impeachment.
While we're at it, lets not forget that he is also going to remembered with Winston Churchill, according to Ms. Condi!
Ah, that George--he only appears to be stupid and incompetent out of modesty, for he knows the historians will divine his true worth!
I wonder how he managed to bring about the collapse of Pakistan in order to cement his legacy as a great president. That boy is DEEP, I tell you!
The King is purely fixated on a one world government for the corporate elite and by the corporate elite.With the rest of the crew riding along as best they can in the fantail.Oh ye unenlightened-Ye who cannot swoon in the rapture.Get a grip.Pick your delusion and jump on board.
I think we should use new coinage to describe his catastrophic presidency. Might we not call him the Anti President?
Even though I am certain what History's judgment of Bush will be years hence, leave that aside. For now at least the situation is clear: this criminal moron Bush is the worst president we have ever had, or could possibly have had.
Sing it, brother!
"Washington, Lincoln, and Bush" ... sounds like a Johnny Carson routine. It's all I can do to refrain from opening the envelope and reading:
"Name a Founding Father, a Civil Rights Brother, and a Stupid Mother."
Comedy writing for a living awaits you!
Lincoln appointed political rivals to important Cabinet jobs...Seward, Chase, Bates, Stanton. The first three had competed with him for the 1860 nomination, the last a Democrat who had been Buchanan's Attorney-General. Lincoln sought the best men, regardless of their feelings toward him personally. He didn't need or want "yes men" at his side. See Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals."
Bush appointed mostly political allies and cronies to key jobs, without regard for their qualifications...Ashcroft, Rice, Gonzales, Brown(ie), Chertoff, Kerik, Card, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Bremer. The few good people he chose wouldn't play ball and were forced out...Powell, Whitman, O'Neill. He has always needed "yes men" at his side.
Historians won't ignore this. Weak men need sycophants, strong men don't. It's a matter of character. Bush is a failure because of who he is, more than what he's done.
robertlockwoodmills, excellent, excellent post with great historic content. Thanks!
I know if I were President (now that's a scary thought) I would want people on hand to explain to me, slowly, clearly, and thoughfully - when it was that they thought that I was wrong and why.
I might not chose to agree with them in the end - but at least I would have the best and brightest covering my back when I needed them.
Bush is a narcisist, megalomanic, borderline personality. He doesn't ever think he can or does make mistakes.
That is the single biggest scary thing about Georgie,... in his universe - he CAN'T be wrong.
Good point. An interesting sidelight is the Democratic presidents offering serious cabinet posts to Republicans (thinking Clinton, here). Pretense and window dressing? Business as necessary? Probably not in the same vein as Lincoln though I would imagine as head of a nascent party he had certain political reaches to make.
I would quibble whether Bush had yes men on his side or had yes men gathered for him. Results would be similar.
Bush has collected "yes" men all his life. Usally, they have been there to clean up his messes. This time the "messes" are too deep.
The Agonist today has an essay/opinion entitled "The End of America's Genius", regarding the real function of checks and balances. Not to give away the ending, but (shhh) the butler did it.
Bush.....a man of hope. A hope that future historians will see something in his presidency not apparant to us--something positive. Of course what they will see may be that he played a huge role in the "tipping point" whereby America never was able to recover entirely from his policies that put burdens not easily mitigated for many generations.
What the schools need to do is start teaching a good foundation in history and the critical skills necessary to put historical events in their proper perspective and to correctly analyze their broader social implications (teach children to think, not to repeat). Giving them basic propagandist methodology lessons is horribly twisted and cynical of whoever is setting these lessons. I really wish supposedly mature adults would stop trying to draw innocent children into the political fray. It is just simply child abuse to talk to an 8 year old about anything other than the current president's pet. Let children be children and find out that our government has been raped later (when they have sufficient perspective, wisdom, information etc. to make an informed opinion).
Concerning History, Marty, the chimp doesn't get that too, among a myriad of other things. The boy is lost; all we truly need right now is for it to "get lost"!
Bush has got to be the worst president ever. Many were incompetent or believed the powers of the government rested with Congress. Bush does his best to undermine the constitution, negate checks and balances, order non-cooperation with Congress, not comply with government record keeping laws, launch phony wars under phony circumstances. In his spare time, he has managed to ruin the reputation of the Justice Department and ruin the reputation of our country abroad by rendering, torturing, detaining indefinitely.
Why did we invade Iraq? We said Saddam used torture and that he would arrest his own people without trial for indefinite detention. Now we do the same. Congratulations George Bush! I hope historians have the courage to name you as the cipher you are. Of course, you will hire your own historians who say otherwise. You deserve some quiet time behind bars for your crimes.
Hey I don't care what History has to say about Bush. I care what this Jim Croce song say about him. I hope it is played here for time is waisting and plan words are almost useless or almost useless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB2c5ZRX9cg
This cur, this spoiled idiot has a point; after all since any one with two brain cells to rub together is, painfully aware of the crimes of this administration, it amazing that he and Cheney have not been impeached! WTF!
Time and again the Democrats have disappointed and disgusted us; we thought justice would be served, at last, when Conyers was head of the Judiciary. Hasn't he been saying and writing, as if he was chomping at the bit, impeachment would be a forgone conclusion if the Dems. gained a majority? Who would have thought Conyers would turn out to be a blow hard?
Well, last week the House did what the Senate should have; and, by doing nothing, did the right thing. If they can do us good by doing nothing; I'll take it.
The shites going to hit the fan; when the lawsuits make the tele-coms open up and we see the origins of their spying and the depth of the involvement of the 'Bush Crime Family'!
I'm so looking forward to it.
what crime did he commit?
What rock have you been living under optiquest?
Crime(s). For a shorter list see:
"Crimes that George W. Bush refuses to commit."
The United Nations has declared the invasion of Iraq as illegal. The U.N. can throw Bush, Cheney and Blair in jail any time they want. Then they can ask the terrorist, "Who else do you want in jail in order to stop the killing?" this Land is not bigger than the United Nations we side stepped. We are less then 10% of this Planets population of 6 billion. Any one who thinks other wise is a moron.
Here is a good tune about lives in the balance by Jackson Browne, for he saw 9-11 coming years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFowNFvmUxw
which resolution was that in? I know of many resolutions that Saddam Insane failed to follow. However, I am not aware of one against the US.
I also am suspicious because it was the UN that wanted Saddam contained in the 1990s up through 2002. That enforcement was carried out mainly through the US military/ with atleast 2 Aircraft carrier groups and many thousands of US soldiers on the ground in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
So wheres the crime pal? We (US taxpayers and Service men and women) bore the brunt of containment, as declared by the UN...we stopped our 12 yr containment and invaded, rid the country of saddam.
NOTE: and all along, the US has not been attacked since 9-11-01
Physics!
He's not bright enough to stand upright yet.
President Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and had opposing "peace" democrats arrested. He even had a governor arrested. President Washington was called a traitor during conflict with England and never thought he'd get a second term. Not saying it will happen this time, but many Presidents we consider great today were hated during the very times that ended up building their legacies.
They were hated for the good they were doing. bush is hated for the bad he is doing (yes, I know that is subjective, but when bush produces something as fine as the US Constitution, or an end to slavery I'll change my assessment).
President Lincoln only suspended habeas corpus. Bush negates it in a long war with no end. The breakup of the union was very different from the long war on small cells of fundamentalists who want to use our freedoms to disrupt our society. We are not even really fighting an army, except perhaps in Afghanistan. There is no need for the suspension of habeas corpus today.
This suspension, coupled with their primacy of the executive theory, with their secrecy and incompetence, with their unilateral actions, may leave behind the way of like we are trying to protect.
True. By the end of his second term, Washington was so hated an opposing party had begun and half the country disliked him. Lincoln was so hated, the country split because of his election. He was possibly the most hated President all through both his terms, until the war was won.
Posted February 17, 2008 | 02:43 PM (EST)