George W. Is No Martyr
Ordinarily we are able to limit the comparisons to Harry S. Truman to the campaign season. That's when, by annoying tradition, the presidential aspirant who is down in the polls always finds that he bears a remarkable resemblance to the plainspoken Missouri Democrat who, famously, came from behind to win the election of 1948.
But now we find that Truman has a second amazing historical quality: Not only is he the patron saint of floundering presidential campaigns, but he is the star of hope for presidents leaving office at the nadir of their public approval ratings.
As you may recall, Truman was extremely unpopular when he finally left Washington in 1953, thanks largely to the Korean War. Today, however, he is thought to have been a solidly good president, a "Near Great" even, in the terminology of those surveys of historians they do every now and then.
And if Truman made that grand comeback, then so can George W. Bush. That's why the Truman comparisons continue, although campaign season is long over, with the ever-dwindling supporters of Mr. Bush discovering significant similarities between their man and President 33. After all, both of them were in the White House at the beginning of big conflicts -- the Cold War, the war on terrorism -- that were not quickly resolved.
Let me be blunt. Let me be blunt like Harry Truman was blunt: Comparisons like this are nonsense. Not only do they depend on the hollowest, most superficial sort of resemblance, but they are easy to refute.
Faced with the Communist invasion of South Korea, for one thing, Truman did not make his stand against some uninvolved country, as Mr. Bush did with Iraq after 9/11. What's more, Truman fought Joe McCarthy and the other demagogues of his day; McCarthy's spiritual descendants, meanwhile, made up part of Mr. Bush's base. But let us take the one thing Truman was known for before he became Franklin Roosevelt's vice president: rooting out waste and fraud in defense contracting as World War II got under way.
Under the Bush administration, on the other hand, contracting waste was apparently so robust, so spectacular, that we might well think of it as an official element of administration policy: waste in New Orleans, waste in Iraq, waste in Homeland Security. And I say "apparently" because we will probably never know the extent of the problem. That quaint Trumanesque notion of accountability will almost certainly not be applied to the now departed Bush & Co.
The point of all the Truman comparisons, though, is not actually to compare anyone to Truman. It is to problematize the obvious verdict on the disastrous Bush administration and clear the way for a more flattering counter narrative.
Presidential legacies are valuable things, too valuable to be left up to historians. That's why one of the final acts of the outgoing administration was its "legacy project," an effort to manage perceptions of the Bush years by future historians.
Manipulating this audience is a different matter than, say, steering the news media. But it can be done. We know the species of historian that is always asked to come up with presidential ratings. We know what they value in presidents. We can be fairly certain of the gem-like banalities they will drop on TV when called on to compare yesterday's presidential inaugural to previous presidential inaugurals.
They will talk about character, and about leadership, and about tough decision-making. And George W. Bush has several thin volumes of propaganda to offer them -- until about noon yesterday you could download them from whitehouse.gov -- duly establishing his record on precisely these issues.
But gaming history is more difficult than, say, putting a few newspaper columnists on the government payroll. A president aiming for "Great" or "Near Great" status must do more. He must give lots of interviews, make records accessible, and heap the flattery on academia -- each of which Mr. Bush has signally failed to do.
What the former president is counting on instead, I think, is for the conservative movement to step forward as keepers of his flame. One Bush legacy booklet, for example, identifies "Fostering a Culture of Life" as one of his administration's greatest achievements, a phrase that readers outside the movement will scarcely even understand. The chapter about "Judges" seems to regard Mr. Bush's nominations to the Supreme Court as unambiguous triumphs. It then lapses into the usual complaints about the victimization of Mr. Bush's lesser judicial nominees by Congress.
There is a certain cynical brilliance to this strategy, as there was to so many of the Bush initiatives over the years. Woven into the conventional prose of these legacy documents are subtle little invitations to culture war forevermore. Just as they were during Mr. Bush's White House years, plain facts will be dismissed and disapproving experts forever brushed off as so much liberal treachery. Today is the first day of George W. Bush's life as a martyr.
Thomas Frank's column, The Tilting Yard, appears every Wednesday at OpinionJournal.com
Also in Opinion Journal:
Peggy Noonan: Meet President Obama
Review & Outlook.: A 'Responsibility' Era
Loading comments…
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
Thomas I'm one of your greatest fans.
I just saw you on Bill Moyers Journal.
I adored Obama, but I regretfully have come to the conclusion that he is going to betray those who voted for and donated to his campaign. Not because his dupliticious but because of Rahm Emanuel.
It is because of Rahm Emanuel that the Clinton clique has infected his administration. and liars and war criminals like Adm Blair and Brennan have found spots in his administration. (Adm Blair lied, when he said that he didn't know that the Indonesian government was engaging in ethnic cleansing in East Timor, there are communiques available via FOIA to prove he lied, yet the Senate never called him out).
Brennan approved torture, and Obama has left the door open for torture.
But the biggest betrayal of all is Geithner, for like Paulson he too came from Goldman Sachs.
Same song second verse and we are , yet again, take for a ride.
I still can't forgive Bill Clinton for betraying his base, and he did, time and again, using one dishonest ruse after another.
The hope has eroded, and now the same old hopelessness has set in. Same song second verse, same as the first.
harry truman didnt fob off korea to ike.
Conservatives are so much better at historical revisionism and media spin than policy. In fact, Bush's whole legacy was to let events take their course and then try to control the message. He did nothing during Katrina except afterward tried to change the record. He lied us into Iraq and then blamed the very intelligence that top White House officials spent months manipulating. He bungled the occupation of Iraq, but now points to the surge as the only event of significance there. The economy collapsed and he blamed his predecessors. Bush will now sit back and let the conservative historical revisionists shape and mold his legacy to his liking. They will paint a picture of Bush as he would like to be seen. Unfortunately, some of this nonsense will be believed because it is really almost hard to fathom the totality of the failure that was the Bush reign.
The claim that Bush will be "vindicated" is ridiculous. Was Johnson vindicated for Viet Nam? NOT!
GW Bush is the anti-Truman. HST said the buck stopped here, while GW Bush couldn't find enough subordinates and privates to blame.
Duh!
Why are we still surprised by all the outrageous spending? Wasn't it on purpose? They said that they wanted to shrink the government (what a joke). They apparently discovered that the most direct way they could reduce government was to spend, spend, spend. And spending every penny was so easy: 2 "wars," tax breaks for old buddies, handouts to the bankers (no strings attached), etc, etc, etc.
This should be Bush's enduring legacy, and this is what we should all remember as "conservative" ideology.
Obama is spouting the same thing. Spend Spend Spend...
History proves that doesn't work...
It will get worse because of Obama not despite him.
spending on things that return value such as roads and infastructure, health care, education is good. Spending on junk like war, weapons is a waste of our money. American business benefits from domestic spending.
Same with comparisions of Obama with Kennedy, FDR or Lincoln.
You're Right! And don't forget that "W" wasn't surrounded by Communists and their sympathizers the way Truman was, either!
Beyond lousy 'approval ratings' and both presidents authorizing the use of WMD on civilian populations (Truman, Hiroshima and Nagasaki; W, DU weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan), the GW Bush/Truman comparisons end.
Don't even start with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as even in these comparisons certify another comparison in that Truman was justified while Bush was not.
I have a feeling that gw will spin the WMD in Iraq...CIA gave false info which is of course fiction. Of course, gw said his legacy is democracy to how millions of Iraqi's?? As long as his fiction stays in his "library", I don't care what fiction he spins. I just don't want to see his lies in history books, or facts.
Truman at least had the benefit of not being batshit insane.
"As you may recall, Truman was extremely unpopular when he finally left Washington in 1953, thanks largely to the Korean War."
More specifically, his decision to can General MacArthur, after the latter's highly vocal incentives to escalate the existing conflict into the perpetual equivalent of a third world war strayed procariously close to insuboordination. Unfortunately, a wave of ignorant masses still relished the famous General as a perpetual diety, being completely ignorant of his characteristics as an impulsive prima donna with delusions of grandeur about single-handedly "saving the world from communism". Thus, this more than anything else assured Truman's lapse in popularity ratings, and additionally presents why Truman correctly predicted that subsequent knowledge of the facts would eventually redeem his record.
Ironically, Bush's impulsive and idiotic philosophy pertaining to the use of force bears an uncanny resemblance to that of MacArthur's, minus the latter's tactical expertise of course.
Ultimately, one should differentiate between how "history remembers Bush" and how future historians choose to interpret his record. Providing some semblance of academic integrity remains in the future, Bush's legacy will officially remain an ovesized black mark of the 21st century.
However, I've witnessed enough retrograde developments in the academic community which indicate that new generations of increasingly so-called "historians" are getting progressively dumber every year, as indicated by incomplete or selective research and a reliance upon arguments based largely on emotion. If this trend persists, who knows how future academics will perceive these events?
Nobody has mentioned that the world's Muslims (extremists) didn't care about harming the U.S. until Bush and his predecessor's (another Bush) policies angered the Muslims and gave them a cause to exist. Yes, there's always been an small element of Muslim extremists, but our continued presence in Muslim lands finally reached a boiling point in the last 10-12 years. Americans seem incapable of imagining just how they would react to foriegn bases, oil companies, and troops being in OUR country. Would we fight them? Hell yes, so why is it so different? America needs to realize and accept that our presence throughout the world is NOT appreciated and get the Hell out and quit trying to police the world and occupy it. England and Rome learned long ago that they cannot sustain an empire around the entire world. I don't know if it's too late, because we've angered so many now, but it's worth a try to come home and mind our own business and protect and provide for our own people. Penalizing other countries whose leaders don't see things our way is only hurting the average citizen of those countries and creating hatred.Hopefully, Obama will change that.
If I concede Bush is no Truman, will you agree President Obama is no Lincoln?
At least Obama and Lincoln share one characteristic: THEY both have and had a brain respectively.
Here's a nasty comment, but what does it mean? Has someone said Obama is another Lincoln or just said Lincoln is O's role model in some things? I lived through both Truman and Bush and Bush is no Truman. Childish and ineffective were not ways to describe Harry. He actually did things rather than start unnecessary wars. He was a statesman while on Bush's best day he is a politician of the worst sort. Truman served in combat in WWI while W hid in an overstrength Guard slot. Harry was an intelligent man who looked out for the people, well, you may finish that one.
President Obama swore in on Lincoln's family Bible. He took a train ride along a route travelled by Lincoln as well. So he or his staff seems to be inviting the comparisons. And Bush or his staff/defenders are doing the same with Truman.
I'll agree to that. In general I find analogies to past presidents annoying on either side and typically only grossly simplifies both past and present statesmen. I wish people would give up the whole Lincoln thing as much as bush supporters invoke Truman.
The Jury is out on Obama, we'll know in a few years how good or bad he is. The jury is definitely in on George W. Bush. Bush is no Truman. Truman was a man of humble beginnings and never lost touch with that. Truman also was thrust into the situation and never really sought it out until his second term. Truman made a host of mistakes, but never pawned them off on other people. I think he was the classic description of a "straight shooter", and everyone since has attempted to emulate him at some time or another.
George Bush has done one thing as president that he should be applauded for: The substantive amount of aid to Africa to combat AIDS. This act is completely anachronistic to the rest of his actions. It has and will save millions of lives from a dreadful disease. Now, weigh that against everything else and he still comes up woefully short in the balance. He was a terrible president with the exception of the accomplishment described above. I think he has become the benchmark for what every subsequent president will use as how not to behave.
I think it is useless to compare presidents to other presidents. The times, circumtances, information, etc. etc. are so variable as to make them almost meaningless. It's like saying who was the better golfer? Bobby Jones, Jack Nicklaus, Ben Hogan or Tiger? It's fun to debate but in the long run is a useless exercise.
I support President Obama wholeheartedly, however, I am finding that the comparisons to Lincoln are completely meritless, so far. President Obama simply does not have the experience or the reputation to be considered in the same vane as President Lincoln. I believe people are making a bit TOO much of the comparison, simply because President Obama is black, and Lincoln is credited with ending slavery of blacks.
But, if you remove that little tidbit from the equation, then there is no real comparison between the two. While President Obama's election is historical and monumental in the shift of American psyche, let's give him at least one full term to see if he can and will actually enact effective policies before comparing him to ANY other president.
if i concede bush is no truman.----- there is no concession to be made--- reality IS real.
Bush is no truman.
bush will set the bar for future failures. as in,he's worse than bush. omg another bush. this guy makes bush look good.
touche!
Truman and Bush are comparable, and that's not a compliment for Bush, but an insult to Truman. The Korean War can be compared to the Iraq War. The Korean War was similar to Vietnam, except for the fact that the U.S. didn't completely lose. The Cold War can be compared to the War on Terror. The Cold War was similar to the War on Terror, it was an attempt by the elite to create a perpetual war in order to justify imperialism abroad and control the population at home. Truman does have one negative distinction that Bush never had, he was the only President, in fact, the only world leader, to ever use nuclear weapons.
"Its [the US Constitution] just a g...d..mned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush
That "quote" comes from where?
http://www.rense.com/general69/paper.htm
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
