Douglas Brinkley Should Know Better

This is a particularly disappointing piece from Douglas Brinkley, someone whose work I usually appreciate. But then he is more and more a Pop Historian, as opposed to the real deal these days.

Move Over, Hoover

By Douglas Brinkley
Sunday, December 3, 2006; Page B01

Shortly after Thanksgiving I had dinner in California with Ronald Reagan's best biographer, Lou Cannon. Like many historians these days, we discussed whether George W. Bush is, conceivably, the worst U.S. president ever. Cannon bristled at the idea.

I'm not taking some glass half-full approach to the Bush Presidency. I'm as frustrated as many others. But given the tremendous shifts we've seen in the past six years, it's literally impossible to know how history is going to judge the Bush Presidency. Brinkley points that out in his lede, but then goes on to ignore it completely.

Bush has two more years to leave his mark, he argued. What if there is a news flash that U.S. Special Forces have killed Osama bin Laden or that North Korea has renounced its nuclear program? What if a decade from now Iraq is a democracy and a statue of Bush is erected on Firdaus Square where that famously toppled one of Saddam Hussein once stood?

There is wisdom in Cannon's prudence.

If there's a democratic Iraq influencing the Middle East in a significant way in ten years, Nixon's opening to China and the fall of the Berlin Wall may just have to take a back seat to foreign policy achievements for US Presidents.

If you want a less biased, more enlightened view of the pre-history on Bush, I'd suggest you read here. Both pieces appearing the same day make these look like punditry paid to order. For the right price, maybe you can get Brinkley to write anything these days.

Much of Bush's legacy will rest on the future trajectory of the fight against terrorism, the nation's continued security and the evolving direction of the Middle East. Things may look grim today, but that doesn't ensure a grim future.

No one expects historians to be perfectly objective. But history should at least teach us humility. Time will cool today's political passions. As years pass, more documents will be released, more insights gleaned and the broader picture of this era will be painted. Only then will we begin to see how George W. Bush fares in the pantheon of U.S. presidents.

I don't know how history will judge him. My guess is that, like most presidents, he will bequeath a mixed record. We can debate policies and actions now, but honesty should force us to acknowledge that real judgments will have to wait.

Comments

[mkultra]

"But given the tremendous shifts we've seen in the past six years, it's literally impossible to know how history is going to judge the Bush Presidency."

Shifts? Oh, you mean the shift of Iraq from adversary of Iran to full blown ally? Or are you talking about the shift of Al Qaeda into Iraq where it hadn't been before? Or maybe you are talking about the shift of a once obscure terrorist M. Sadr from minor cleric to the new power broker in Iraq?

Shift. That's a funny word.

"If there's a democratic Iraq influencing the Middle East in a significant way in ten years, Nixon's opening to China and the fall of the Berlin Wall may just have to take a back seat to foreign policy achievements for US Presidents."

Yes, because god knows we have been friends of democratic governments in the Middle East as of late. Let's see - a democratic government was elected in the Palestinian territories, and we shunned it. We then enabled Israel to bomb the hell out of the one in Lebanon. And one was elected in Iraq, only now we are holding press conferences with the prime minister of the government, the very same prime minister who even our national security advisor is saying is allowing death squads to operate within the government.

Are you blogging drunk?

[Carol Herman]

I'm reading Paul O'Neill's book: THE PRICE OF LOYALTY

O'Neill was Treasury Secretary. Hired by the Bush team even before the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election. O'Neill's story is RIVITING.

I wasn't a "fiscal conservative." So I didna't drop off the bus when people who could do the math, did. But now, I'll guess. In 2010 the tax reduction policies, which CAN'T BE PAID FOR! Because Bush ran up DEFICITS on the ledger, will probably make it IMPOSSIBLE for them to be "made permanent."

We've lost our grip on social security. (Private Accounts will cost $1-trillion dollars, to fund.) We don't have it. Medicare? Similar future benefits will need to be reduced.

Can you "buy votes" by promising things? Sure. But this president has no idea that they will have to be paid for. So, what if he had a lot of people believing in him? He acted as if he had a license to do whatever he wanted. ENRON was ugly? Up ahead, much worse! (Oh, O'Neill got fired.) Bush is big on firing people who don't kiss his ring, and sign onto the "loyalty oath."

Most people? Still very clueless.

But today, I was surprised to read that Howie Dean has TOLD his followers, DON'T EXPECT THIS MID-TERM WIN TO MEAN WE'VE BEEN GIVEN A MANDATE. Because we have to earn the trust of the People.

Go figa. The left reached the middle. And, ya all here are on a sinking ship.

The future? WAIT. The man who can speak the TRUTH, without fear. Without thinking he has a "base to satisfy." That's the one who will be given more votes than anyone else. Most Americans aren't stupid. Even if you use the Bell Curve. Most Americans aren't stupid.

And, you've got to give weight to the fact that a lot of stupid people stay home. They're much too embarrassed to tell strangers they can't read. Or write.

[kyle]

Rolling stone, maxim, details, and gq called Bush the worst president ever last year. Looks like Brinkley and the others are playing catch up.

[Rick]

There may be some catching up in the media bubble, but Jimmy Carter has safely retired the title of Worst President Ever.

And he's pretty much nailed down the Worst Ex-President honor, as well.

Cordially...

[Phoenix]

The only way an objective biography will be written about Bush is fifty years from now when the author can separate himself from the era of mewling "What-if's" and "If-only's" spewed relentlessly from both sides who think they know best. The mere guessing of where Bush will end up on the "Best-Worst" list is another example of that mewling.

Besides, who in the hell sets the standards for 'best' or 'worst'? No president has ever faced the same events, and considering the rate of technological progress and its enabling machinations to kill more efficiently and the fact that progression never stops, no president will ever face the same 'world'- out there or in here.

I just hope whoever writes Bush's biography starts out saying an optimistic man entered the presidency to clean up the government and within eight months the worst disaster to hit the United States took place and changed the world forever.

[Kieran]

"I just hope whoever writes Bush's biography starts out saying an optimistic man entered the presidency to clean up the government and within eight months the worst disaster to hit the United States took place and changed the world forever."

...AND then that 5 years after that event, there has not been another successful attack on American soil, thousands of terrorists have been killed and captured, and the nation's economy has grown 30%, with higher productivity growth and lower unemployment than any other industrialized country in the world.

But of course those types of quantitative things aren't noted by 'historians'. They are much more interested in saying things like "he has lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuses power".

You know - stuff that cannot be proven, disproven, or measured.

Brinkley might as well have just written "I don't really like him, and never have. Nevermind where the economy is and how the war on terror is going - he beat my boy Kerry and for that he will pay."

[Carol Herman]

GOOGLE the name "Ron Suskind."

The first person OUT of the Bush White House is an EVANGELICAL man, honest to his core! Not fooled by political shinanigans: John DiIulio. Ron Suskind published an article containing about seven pages of observations this man made about Bush's White House team.

The short: He called them all "Mayberry Machiavellians."

It's not going to take 50 years to get a bead on what went wrong. Ron Suskind writes the articles; which are coming from DISENCHANTED REPUBLICANS, really worried about the mind set of idiots in the white house.

Don't take my word for it. LOOK. IT. UP.

[just a blast from his past!]

Douglas Brinkley once gave me an autographed book(Rosa Parks),and alot of laughs, and even a few very fond memories. He would not have won "husband of the year" when i knew him, but i did see him almost every day, for most of a year. He was very intense and serious about his writing, he did alot of it at the Firedog Saloon/Restaurant, while eating his wings and gumbo! He would have tons of research and notes with him, and was always more than willing to talk to anyone who showed interest in history. He enjoyed telling the stories of the past, and sharing his knowledge. He would just light up when asked any question about a past president. If he's made some comments about Bush that are somewhat wishy-washy, look at the subject, if that isn't the worst and most wishy-washy president that ever was, than i don't know. How can anyone make any statements about him that won't be understated, or have to be flip-flopped by the following week? Give the guy a break, he's an excellent historian, a fabulous teacher, and a great writer. If the rest of the world is having trouble figuring out Bush, and what to think of him from week to week, why should he be any different? Buy his books, read them, learn from them, and treasure the knowledge that went into them.