The History Factor

Brian Beutler recommends what's got to have been David Halberstam's last magazine article, an attack in Vanity Fair on the Bushie view that his actions will be vindicated by history. I agree with what Halberstam has to say, but I was actually a bit disappointed by the article. At this point, just about any hack pundit (me, for example) can do the sort of "I've read books about Harry Truman, and you, sir, are no Harry Truman" thing Halberstam has on offer here.

The world could really use a solid treatment of the role the concept of history plays in the Bushian worldview that goes beyond this kind of thing. If you read, for example, David Samuels' big Condi Rice profile in The Atlantic from earlier this year that at every point where the conceptual confusions at the heart of her agenda threaten to tear the whole edifice down, Rice makes an appeal to "history," but I almost feel like it should be written "History," as if she believes her worldview doesn't need to make sense because the World-Spirit is her copilot.

At any rate, I think there's some chance that Bush actually will be "vindicated" by history in some sense; I don't see any real evidence that presidents' historical reputations track their actual performance in office.

Comments

You think there's some chance Bush will be vindicated? Really? So you think we will finally discover Saddam's hidden cache of nuclear weapons? Or that wasting billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq will ultimately destroy the Al Qaeda leadership hiding in Pakistan? Or that the anarchy/sectarian civil war in Iraq will inspire the other countries in the middle east to become models of liberal democracy?

Sorry, Matt, but you're wrong. There is zero chance Bush will be vindicated. If anything, he will look even worse as historians dig up more and more information about his illegal spying and torture policies and the role of Darth Cheney in his administration.

Posted by Ron | July 12, 2007 9:55 AM

"At any rate, I think there's some chance that Bush actually will be "vindicated" by history in some sense; I don't see any real evidence that presidents' historical reputations track their actual performance in office."

I'm puzzled by this statement. How do you know this? After all, everything you know about the vast majority of presidents' performance in office you've learned about, directly or indirectly, from historians, right? It sounds like the common complaint historians get about all the stuff that gets left out of "the history books"--stuff, it usually turns out, that the complainant learned about from a history book.

Posted by David | July 12, 2007 10:19 AM

Gotta agree with Ron there, to be honest. Aside from Reichsmarshall Coulter, does anyone think history has "vindicated" Joe McCarthy? That the media has sainted basically every Republican after Nixon is true, but post-Nixon Republicans just haven't managed to be as bad as Bush has. Even when they were trying hard.

- Chris

Posted by Chris Cunningham | July 12, 2007 10:21 AM

I think what Matt means is not 'vindicated', but 'rehabilitated' by people with an agenda that would be strength by said rehabilitation.

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but there's been some pretty crappy presidents who've gotten some really nice treatment by pop-history (which is the kind that actually affects cultural memory). Look how people view Reagan's performance, which was generally pretty terrible. Or how both Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon have been getting the soft-gloved treatment.

One problem is Matt's use of the word "history." Bush may be rehabilitated in 15-30 years, but thats not really history. 100+ years from now its doubtful anyone will look back and view Bush's presidency as anything but a disaster.

Something to keep in mind, also, is that the narrative that will be told to upcoming generations is probably going to split. There will be two competing and incompatible narratives being taught, made more impactful by the rise of independent schools whose curriculum is not set by a single governing board, but by the parents and administrators. It isn't a bad thing that Americans don't have a single, unified understanding of history, but I do expect the view of the years between 1980-2008 to be very, very fractured.

Posted by matthew c | July 12, 2007 10:33 AM

One problem is Matt's use of the word "history." Bush may be rehabilitated in 15-30 years, but thats not really history. 100+ years from now its doubtful anyone will look back and view Bush's presidency as anything but a disaster.

There are glowing encomiums written on behalf of Andrew Jackson, who led the nation to perpetrate a genocide.

There is still great debate on the righteousness of the rise of white rule in the antebellum south, and Ulysses Grant, the president who tried to oppose southern terrorism and apartheid, is usually forgotten by history.

That's to name just two. "History" is always already political, and always contested and contestable. The "verdict of history" is something htat people create, people with particular authority and particular political engagements, and the verdict of history has lauded a wide array of incredibly terrible people who did terrible things.

Posted by DivGuy | July 12, 2007 10:52 AM

And by "antebellum", of course, I mean the exact opposite of that. Postbellum, or whatever.

Posted by DivGuy | July 12, 2007 10:53 AM

If BushCo is vindicated, then all the supporters of entering this murderous, disastrous quagmire will be vindicated. If I were Matt, I'd hold out that hope. It would be the only way I'd be able to sleep at night.

Posted by Been There | July 12, 2007 10:58 AM

"One problem is Matt's use of the word "history." Bush may be rehabilitated in 15-30 years, but thats not really history. 100+ years from now its doubtful anyone will look back and view Bush's presidency as anything but a disaster."

That seems wrong to me. Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson were bad people who are celebrated in pop history, esp. TR.

Bush is unlikely to be vindicated since he's a failure on his own terms. He's a loser, whioch is far more unforgivable than illegal spying and torture. Though you could say the same about Wilson.

Posted by David Weman | July 12, 2007 10:59 AM

"I think there's some chance that Bush actually will be "vindicated" by history in some sense"

In the same way that there's a chance that all the air molecules in my office will, in their random motions, collect all in one corner in the ceiling and I then asphixiate to death? That kind of chance?

Truman's reputation was crappy when he left because of Korea and also the wrenching post-war recession of '46-47: it wasn't until 1951 'til GDP reached the levels of 1945.

But his reputation grew after his leaving office because of his foreign policy posture and the international institutions that were instigated by his administration.

Bush, on the other hand, has had, at least since 2003, a fairly decent economy: but his attitude to international institutions has been corrosive. Personally, I think the only way is down, especially when insiders in the administration rush to get their books out telling how messed up things were (but that it wasn't their personal fault).

Posted by Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | July 12, 2007 11:04 AM

I think there's some chance that Bush actually will be "vindicated" by history in some sense

I doubt even Barney believes that.

But on the other hand, if you go out 25 or 50 years, I think there is a darn good chance that the Middle East will be a very screwed-up region, the source of a lot of trouble. It is possible (though maybe not probable) that the U.S.'s engagement there will be something less than it is today, and there will be a few people saying, Well, at least Bush tried to do something about it. (That would be forgetting that Bush, though he didn't invent the problems on his own, made them a whole lot worse.) The audacity of the spinners to spin everything as good for Bush is rather breathtaking, so it's hard to conceive what in the future will make them admit that Bush was a fuck-up.

If "vindication" means that reasonable people (not just the hacks) will someday look back at Bush and conclude that he did a lot of good, I just don't see it.

More likely, I think, is that his reputation as the worst president in history will solidify. With any luck, the damage he's done to America's standing will be accompanied by the death of the modern-day conservative movement.

Posted by JJF | July 12, 2007 11:06 AM

I didn't mean long-term history would punish Bush because it always punishes bad people. Clearly it does not.

What I mean is more what David said: Bush will be condemned by history because he is a loser, especially as the number of people with personal incentive to portray Bush as a winner dwindles over time (i.e., as the Kagans and Kristols die off).

And David, whatever you may want to say about Wilson, the only war he entered he was on the winning side of.

Posted by matthew c | July 12, 2007 11:07 AM

Also meant to say: someone should tell Rice that Bush (per Woodward) doesn't care about "history" because by then we'll be dead.

Posted by JJF | July 12, 2007 11:13 AM

Winston Churchill was actually a fairly great person, but why was he viewed for almost 50 years as the unquestioned single hero of World War II and the Anointed Defender of the West? Because as soon as he was turned out of office he grabbed truckloads of highly classified documents from the government archives, wrote his 6-volume "History of WWII" (and many supporting works), then returned the documents to the archives where they were totally unavailable to anyone else for a least 20 and often 50 years.

The Radical Right is already building entire institutes devoted to cranking out "scholarship" of the "history" of the W Bush Administration. The volume that these organizations produce, and their control of the popular media, will ensure that W gets at least a hearing to his liking 20, 30, and 50 years down the road. At least.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | July 12, 2007 11:19 AM

Hunter Thompson pointed out that Truman's reputation took a dramatic turn for the better just after his death in December '72; he suggested that, in the context of Nixon's landslide re-election, anyone else looked good by comparison.

I think even if you grant Truman struggled with tough times and did as well as he could have with them, the recent tendency to deify him has been excessive, and is probably owing to aggreessive campaigns by historians of the Dean Acheson/Scoop Jackson Democratic bent. Plus, Truman is always useful in political terms, as the patron saint of both candidates trailing in polls ("We'll have the biggest comeback since Truman!") and, now, those suffering poor ratings in their final years.

It's a mystery to me why Wilson is so highly regarded. He's, in fact, probably the closest historic analogy to Bush: elected in a fluke, re-elected by a bare margin, politically polarizing, disdainful of civil liberties, over-reacher on foreign affairs, and destroyer of his party's political fortunes (the '18 election was not dissimilar to last year's, and all signs are next year's will resemble '20). The only thing Wilson has going for him is the obvious: the U.S.'s decisive role in winning World War I (though even there you could analogize to Bush: won the war, but mismanaged the aftermath), and that godawful Zanuck movie biography.

I think the chances of a Bush reputation-comeback are slim (though it'll be strongly pushed by the usual suspects). He'll leave office with some of the worst ratings ever, a fiasco in Iraq, and his party likely decimated. And he has, really, no single offsetting accomplishment of which to speak (where Truman had the Marshall plan, recognizing Israel, some role in integrating the armed forces). Unless there's some miraculous turnaround in the Middle East, I think his bad rep is down in ink.

Posted by demtom | July 12, 2007 11:22 AM

I think its also important to remember that the things Truman did that were so unpopular, but that turned out to be vindicated by history were integrating the Army, recognizing Israel and, most importantly, NOT attacking the Soviet Union. He was unpopular because he showed restraint. That sounds a bit different than Bush's record.

Posted by Doug-E-Fresh | July 12, 2007 11:44 AM

"At any rate, I think there's some chance that Bush actually will be "vindicated" by history in some sense; I don't see any real evidence that presidents' historical reputations track their actual performance in office."

The cliche is that history is written by the "winners".

I'd like to think that the people, who elected Bush and thought a callow, ignorant fool would make a dandy President will mostly "lose" for the next 50 years.

But, of course, if "history" could make the racist terrorists of post-Reconstruction Southern "Redemption" look good, then, I suppose, Bush can be made to look good.

If "history" does rehabilitate Bush, it will be, because the future is bleek.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | July 12, 2007 11:49 AM

Bush's historical reputation would likely have been substantially better had he lost the '04 election to John Kerry.

Simply put, right-leaning historians wouldn't have seen him thoroughly discredited by his second term.

Iraq would either have gotten worse under Kerry, forcing a withdrawal, or gotten better (less likely). Either way, Bush would win. If Iraq got better and the ultimate regime ended up better than Saddam, Bush would be extolled by his supporters as having courageously toppled Saddam and made possible Iraq's "liberation."

If, more likely, Iraq got worse and we had to withdraw without a satisfactory conclusion, Kerry would get the blame.

Also, without a second term, Bush wouldn't have had to deal with Katrina, his failed Social Security "reform" initiative, the disastrous '06 midterms and the very likely disastrous '08 election. He'd be able to claim tax "relief" (busted the budget, to be sure, but probably did have a slight stimulative effect in '01/02), Medicare expansion (a huge boondoggle, but it's popular enough) and overthrowing the Taliban (again, if it got worse, blame Kerry).

None of this would have meant Bush would actually have been a better president. But his rating from even a minority of historians and Republican voters would have raised it substantially from where it will be. Bush would probably ultimately have ranked as a mid-ranking president, with Republicans rating him above average and progressives and Democrats rating him below.

Instead, he'll likely languish in the bottom 10 (I'm skeptical he'll be seen as the absolute worst; Pierce, Buchanan and A. Johnson are pretty hard to beat), similar to John Tyler and Warren Harding.

Posted by Andrew | July 12, 2007 11:53 AM

I also wonder about historians' treatment of Wilson, sometimes. I think he gets too much credit. The truth is that the Europeans didn't agree with or want many of his 14 Points. Those that did come about were more or less the result of political reality on the ground at the time--namely, the disintigration of the old continental empires. He was also (at least at first) astonishingly naive about the peoples to whom he was supposedly bringing light and peace. Yes, they cheered him in France, but he gravely underestimated the understandable thirst for vengeance that led to the Versailles Treaty. He must have known when that document was signed that his program was essentially dead. And the Senate's failure to approve US participation in the League of Nations? Historians have made far too big a deal about that, portraying it as a treacherous stab in the back of an ailing hero, and a rejection of Wilson's near-achievement of world peace. Even if the US had joined the League, it wouldn't have made that useless debating society one iota more effective than it was in the face of fascist aggression.

Posted by Claudius | July 12, 2007 11:56 AM

Hey, lay off of Harding, the original Warren G. He presided over some good times. And while his administration was pretty corrput, he said the single most honest thing to ever escape any president's lips: "I am not fit for this office and never should have been here." Just by admitting that, he made it less true for himself that it is for at lesat 90% of the other men to hold the office.

Posted by too many steves | July 12, 2007 12:00 PM

I'll also add a few comments about esteemed presidents who have been criticized here.

First - Truman. Above average president but still overrated. He was unpopular in 1952 for a reason. He arguably should have stopped at the 38th Parallel in Korea. He also had a habit of appointing cronies, corruption was a serious problem, and he failed to get any significant domestic legislation through Congress. Granted, it was controlled by Republicans for part of his presidency. But it still reflected poorly on his ability to get things through.

Second - Wilson. I for a time shared Matt's skepticism vis-a-vis Wilson. My impression of Wilson has improved slightly. He is still overrated and he had some monumental screw ups.

BUT, he did enact some significant progressive regulatory institutions. They were declawed by his Republican successors, but the intent was good and Wilson could not control the actions of his successors.

Perhaps the US shouldn't have gotten involved in WWI. But public sentiment was extremely in favor of war with Germany in 1917 (ironically enough, spurred partly by the Russian February Revolution, which meant America would now be fighting alongside another "democracy"). And American involvement probably did bring the war to conclusion at least a year before it otherwise would have.

Wilson's 14 points were idealistic, but I don't think laying them out as general principles is to be faulted. Yes, he was hypocritical in his application and he was a poor negotiator. But would you really have preferred for the American president to lay out terms that simply continued the old rules of the game? The rules Wilson laid out DID become the rules of the game and he was prescient in calling for them. I don't really see it as viable for anyone in 1919 to be publically calling for a vindicative peace. And it's not like Wilson was alone in calling for a just peace - most American politicians, including the Republicans called for much the same, as did many in Britain.

Nor do I think the Treaty of Versailles was actually that bad. No doubt it infuriated the Germans - but what could seriously have appeased them when they lost a war they had expected to win just months before? No territorial concessions? Germany actually lost a relatively small portion of its territory, especially compared to Austria, Hungary, and Turkey. And the regions it lost were largely Polish-majority (which the Germans had made no effort to peacefully integrate). The reparations were proportionally smaller than what was paid by France after the 1870 war and Germany actually never paid them, getting loans by the Americans that were waived. It's difficult to put together a treaty that would have made the Germans happy.

Where Wilson should be faulted are his arrogant negotiating tactics, his fights with Henry Cabot Lodge (who was NOT an isolationist), his hostility to civil liberties, his blatant racism, and his messiah complex.

So overrated, yes. Bad as Bush? I'm not convinced.

Other presidents who are overrated are, most certainly, Jackson. And probably Jefferson, who was personally popular, but wedded to anachronistic notions about economics and society, who quarreled with the Supreme Court, dramatically hurt the American economy with the Embargo Acts and needlessly inflamed tensions with Britain. The Louisiana Purchase wasn't even his doing and he initially tried to refuse it.

Posted by Andrew | July 12, 2007 12:07 PM

Those who believe that President Bush will be vindicated by history often do so by insisting that the President was simply doing what he believed was right for the country- that his intentions were good.

However, there has already been (up to this point) more than enough documentation of numberous examples of both conscious law-breaking and criminal incompetence that serve to negate those claims.

Just a few reasons why President George W. Bush will not (or should not) be “vindicated” by history:

1. DOCUMENTED abuses of power – signing statements, wiretapping of American citizens without warrant etc.

2. DOCUMENTED suppression of findings by (and opinions of) scientists and other experts/civil servants within our Federal agencies for political purposes.

3. DOCUMENTED promotion of (and engagement in)torture and illegal renditions and the establishment of secret prisons- all in violation of international law.

4. DOCUMENTED failure/refusal to listen to experts within the military and the State Department prior to the invasion and post-war occupation of Iraq.

5. DOCUMENTED war profiteering

6. DOCUMENTED widespread cronyism (which in the most prominent case contributed to the devastation and destruction of a major American city).

7. DOCUMENTED politicization of the Department of Justice

8. ENDLESS amount of video of the President speaking on various issues about which he (clearly) has very little understanding.

I think that the only way he (and/or his Administration) can be vindicated by history is if that history is whitewashed and key facts (as best as they can be determined) are suppressed and/or changed.

Posted by emes | July 12, 2007 12:15 PM

Bush will be vindicated, just that it'll be 100 years from now, when there finally might be peace in the Middle East, and it'll be from the "Historians" working in the Bush Jr. Library (emphasis on Jr.).

Posted by Fred F. | July 12, 2007 12:19 PM

As something of a Jeffersonian myself, I know my ideas about society and economics are anachronistic now. But I had no idea they were anachronistic 200 years ago.

Posted by too many steves | July 12, 2007 12:22 PM

I'm gonna jump in and defend Matt here. I've often been struck by the way public opinion can favor past presidents who were completely at odds with each other - FDR and Reagan, for example. Now, even Nixon's reputation is experiencing a slight bump. I think Matt is right. A president's historical reputation often has little to do with his actual actions as president.

And remember, when people talk about being vindicated "by history", they're not talking about historians - historians have lots of differing opinions, which are mostly ignored by everyone except other historians. They're talking about public opinion.

Posted by Henry | July 12, 2007 12:35 PM

The best anyone will ever be able to say about Bush is that he is an empty shell of a man, manipulated by an insane VP who happens to be hopelessly wrong about almost everything.

This will all come into focus during the next twenty years as the world tries to deal with global warming.

Posted by serial catowner | July 12, 2007 12:39 PM

Re bad presidents

The commentors on this board are neglecting to mention the worst president in American history, namely James Earl Carter, although I admit that Dubya is giving him a good run for his money. Although, unlike Grant and Harding, Carters' administration was not plagued by corruption, he was every bit as inept at Pierce and Buchanan. Now of course, some will point to the "peace treaty" he bribed Israel and Egypt to sign as an achievement. So far, that "peace treaty" is costing the American taxpayers some 5.2 billion dollars/year for this "achievement." His total ineptitude in handling of the Iran affair is at the root of many of the Middle East problems faced by his successors.

Posted by SLC | July 12, 2007 12:53 PM

Perhaps the US shouldn't have gotten involved in WWI.

War with Germany was pretty much unavoidable once the German pledge to force the US to return the southwest to Mexico came to light . . .

Posted by rea | July 12, 2007 1:07 PM

" His total ineptitude in handling of the Iran affair is at the root of many of the Middle East problems faced by his successors."

it didn't help, but it was hardly the 'root' cause.

Carter may have been a bad president, but he's not even top 5 worst.

Posted by matthew c | July 12, 2007 1:08 PM

Well, the opinion of Bush II in 2107 will be highly dependant on what the ruling or dominant political philosophy is at that time. Since, of course, we currently have no idea what that will be - and any particular projection of 2107 made today is nearly completely determined by the projectors' current political opinion.

So, we're really not adding much value in discussing some long-term historical view, as opposed to how we view the Bush II administration today. If you believe that Bush II's politics are wrong right now, you generally equally believe that they will be wrong (or even worse) in the long-term future - and vice versa.

That said, there are a few things that do influence posthoc historical opinion:

in popular opinion, people only focus on a few issues: the economy during the President's term (particularly if the President's term starts with a recession and ends with a widespread recovery), wins or losses in wars (particularly if the President began the war)and notable foreign policy events and eccentric or notable personality traits.

economy: Bush II did preside over an economic recovery, but one mostly focused on financial assets and only substantively benefitting a small percentage of the population. Moreover, Bush II's economic leadership is pretty vague and ill-focused.

war: Iraq II is a loss, and it's difficult to see how, in 2107, it's going to look better. Truman and Johnson's images are still weighed down by their poor performances in Korea and Vietnam (rightly, at least in the case of LBJ) and Korea and Vietnam look good compared to Bush II's performance in Iraq. And the upside of Iraq II was always limited: Bush I receives comparatively little praise for the much better run Iraq I (because Bush I's inane performance on the domestic economy swamps Iraq I).

personality: Positive opinions on a President's personality are usually fairly cliched riffs: Teddy Roosevelt as a Rough Rider, JFK as a playboy, Tricky Dick, Slick Willy, etc. In this aspect, Bush II probably won't come off so well either - he doesn't have the kindly grandpop image (FDR to some extent, Eisenhower, Reagan, Ford to some extent, Bush I), the playboy image (JFK, Clinton), the country boy done good (LBJ, Carter, again Clinton) or even the much less well-regarded brainiac / technocrat (Wilson, Hoover, Nixon to some extent, again Clinton). Even compared to Bush I, he's clearly a far less appealing personality. Bush II's too young for the grandpop image, isn't a charming playboy, isn't really a country boy and admits he isn't a brainiac. The most coherent image he has is as a New South business executive (which is what he was beyond just being a Bush), an image that hardly is seen as very positive generally.

Posted by burritoboy | July 12, 2007 1:46 PM

Perhaps the US shouldn't have gotten involved in WWI. But public sentiment was extremely in favor of war with Germany in 1917 (ironically enough, spurred partly by the Russian February Revolution, which meant America would now be fighting alongside another "democracy"). And American involvement probably did bring the war to conclusion at least a year before it otherwise would have.

That is precisely the problem. American intervention stopped the war prematurely, before it had played itself out. Without U.S. involvement, the war would have dragged on longer and ended in a stalemate, probably amidst one or more military mutinies. The warmongers would have been permanently discredited in Europe, as they were after World War II. Scum like Clemenceau, Haig, and Ludendorff would never again be taken seriously.

Wilson's 14 points were idealistic, but I don't think laying them out as general principles is to be faulted. Yes, he was hypocritical in his application and he was a poor negotiator. But would you really have preferred for the American president to lay out terms that simply continued the old rules of the game? The rules Wilson laid out DID become the rules of the game and he was prescient in calling for them. I don't really see it as viable for anyone in 1919 to be publically calling for a vindicative peace. And it's not like Wilson was alone in calling for a just peace - most American politicians, including the Republicans called for much the same, as did many in Britain.

You're missing the point. Wilson shouldn't have been calling for any principles at all. An isolationist response, however mocked and despised then and now, was the only correct one.

Nor do I think the Treaty of Versailles was actually that bad. No doubt it infuriated the Germans - but what could seriously have appeased them when they lost a war they had expected to win just months before? No territorial concessions? Germany actually lost a relatively small portion of its territory, especially compared to Austria, Hungary, and Turkey. And the regions it lost were largely Polish-majority (which the Germans had made no effort to peacefully integrate). The reparations were proportionally smaller than what was paid by France after the 1870 war and Germany actually never paid them, getting loans by the Americans that were waived. It's difficult to put together a treaty that would have made the Germans happy.

This is the standard talking points from the pro-Treaty, pro-Wilson crowd. I find it wholly unconvincing. Large parts of it appear to consist of a tu quoque argument - saying that Germany did worse in the past, or would have done worse if they had won. So what? That's not much of a defense. The two most problematic aspects of the treaty were the war guilt clause (which pinned the entire moral burden of the war on Germany, clearly a lie) and the reparations (whether or not they were fully paid, they were deeply humiliating to the German people). The vindictive nature of the treaty made a resurgence of German militarism inevitable (though Hitler was far more malevolent than most conceivable alternate German strongmen would have been).

Posted by Josh G. | July 12, 2007 2:18 PM

Josh G,

Notice that I'm not arguing Wilson was necessarily a "good" president. Merely that he isn't as bad as Matt and others have written.

U.S. entry into WWI was highly likely no matter who was president. A better president would have kept the U.S. strictly neutral throughout. But war in 1917 was very popular, what with unrestricted submarine warfare on the part of the Germans. Had either Theodore Roosevelt or Charles Evans Hughes been president in 1917, it's likely they too would have lead the U.S. into the war (most likely earlier).

And I'm not so convinced that your rosy scenario would have panned out had the U.S. not gotten involved. It's true that both sides were exhausted, but the mutinies that swept the fronts in 1916/1917 were largely aimed at the military leadership and tactics, not the war itself. Except in Russia, the war remained ardently supported by policymakers in France, Germany and Britain. Perhaps a stalemate would have lead to an enduring peace. But it's equally possible that a stalemate would have emboldened militarists who believed they had gotten the raw end of the deal. And it's also possible that either the Allies or the Central powers WOULD have won.

Regarding Wilson's 14 points - would you rather that a world leader NOT make those points? Would you rather that they have conceded they were going to put in place a regime that punished Germany, that cemented global control in the hands of the Allies and that DIDN'T do anything to change the dynamics that lead to war? Wilson, incidentally, wasn't alone in making them. Even Henry Cabot Lodge espoused many of the same points, as did many leading policymakers in Great Britain and socialists and republicans in Germany (less so in France).

Was the Treaty of Versailles anything close to perfect? Of course not. What I'm arguing is that I'm not sure anyone has proposed something that would have been a viable alternative.

Leave Germany's borders completely intact, maybe minus Alsace-Lorraine following a plebescite? I'm actually sympathetic to this, but following the collapse of the Imperial government, the new Polish government quickly took control of large parts of what would become Polish territory in the power vacuum that ensued. And it's not like Germany had tried to integrate the Poles successfully into its political sphere.

No reparations? Noble, but for all practical purposes then, who should repay for the rebuilding of France and Belgium if not the country that invaded them and had laid waste to much of their territory?

Perhaps I'm underselling the war guilt clause, something that was undoubtedly a huge cause of resentment. It was a PR disaster for the Allies. Incidentally, that wasn't Wilson's doing, however, but Lloyd George's. And it actually came about as a legalistic way to uphold the right to maintain reparations and ensure Lloyd George's reelection, concerned he was that the treaty as written would be seen as too lenient.

Essentially, after the greatest war the world had ever seen, it was nearly impossible to satisfy any of the participants. The French (who were outraged at the treaty as well for "letting Germany off too easily") wanted to split Germany into multiple states, or, at least annex or make a client state out of the left bank of the Rhine. The Germans wanted no annexations, no reparations, no indemnities. The Poles (and most Western liberals) wanted Polish independence. The British wanted to make sure Germany was never a naval threat again (but wanted the German economy strong enough to provide a market for British goods).

Again, none of this isn't to say that Wilson did a particularly good job - he fucked up selling the treaty to the Senate, alienated allies, pissed off Clemenceau and Lloyd George and made no effort to reach out to the Republicans, many of whom - including Lodge - were open to some sort of compromise and would like to have been included in the American delegation.

Posted by Andrew | July 12, 2007 3:27 PM

burritoboy, I wouldn't argue strenuously with you, but I wonder if even the mildly favorable marks you give Bush on the economy are apt to register. I know that technically we were verging on/slipping into recession as Bush took office, but it wasn't a recession anyone much felt -- as they clearly had the ones in '74/5, '80 (though that too was mild, it was FELT) and '91/2. I'll bet if you described the arc of Bush's term to most people (hardcore GOPers excluded) as recession-to-recovery, they'd blink in incomprehension: as far as they're concerned, things were terrific under Clinton and went flat at best under Bush.

Plus, I'm not entirely certain the next year won't bring actual economic downturn, which would pretty much cement Bush as crappy in every respect.

Posted by demtom | July 12, 2007 4:07 PM

Sometime people are more pessimistic about the judgment of history. A Polish poet, rather soon after getting liberated from a German concentration camp wrote a poem ending with 10 words packing more pessimism than an ordinary English sentence can contain. Bad translation:

We will leave behind metal scrap and hollow, mocking chuckle of the generations to follow.

About Bush, the hardest thing to do will be pointing to a single good thing that he had done. Someone claimed that some change in forestry law makes sense -- and even if you concede a rather debatable point, this is not much of a legacy.

Posted by piotr | July 12, 2007 4:09 PM

SLC: will point to the "peace treaty" [Carter] bribed Israel and Egypt to sign as an achievement. So far, that "peace treaty" is costing the American taxpayers some 5.2 billion dollars/year for this "achievement."

I'll take it!

If that's the price of peace in the Middle East, what a deal! I'd rather pay $5.2B/year for peace than $12B/month for war. Where do we sign?

Posted by JJF | July 12, 2007 4:16 PM

Of course Bush will be vindicated.

Firstly, our enemies overseas are, to put it bluntly, ideologically as wicked as the German National Socialists. Indeed, the Islamic fascists are much more dangerous because their idoelogy does not depend on the survival of one man. Their practices are barbaric and objectively evil.

The Left does not get this because they are blinded by their hatred of Bush.

Were there a Democratic President in power, the Left would agree that Al Qaeda was just as evil as the Nazis, albeit not as powerful nor possessing of as much reach.

I have never given much currency to the Left's criticism's of Bush's place in history, given the fact that their critique is governed by the fact that Democrats do not excercise the levers of Presidential power.

If and when they do when the Presidency, the liberals who populate this board will become born-again interventionists, claiming that Some Interventions (such as, for instance, Darfur) are More Equal than Others. After all, with the Democrats, hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.

Posted by section9 | July 12, 2007 4:24 PM

the Left would agree that Al Qaeda was just as evil as the Nazis, albeit not as powerful nor possessing of as much reach

Glad we can agree that al Qaeda is not as powerful as the Nazis or have as much reach. That would tend to make them somewhat less "evil," wouldn't you say? They certainly don't pose the same threat to the U.S. as Hitler's Germany did.

The larger point is that Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda. Saddam was not a nice guy but there was simply no good reason for us to invade and occupy Iraq.

You can tell the wingnuts are getting desperate when they have to resort to quoting a Frenchman (without attribution, of course). That must hurt.

Posted by JJF | July 12, 2007 4:47 PM

I won't reject the possibility of Bush's rehabilitation out of hand. It has happened too many times before.

But I think the point is being missed. Want to know why Truman is lauded? Ask the question for how and why the US won the Cold War, with no nuclear outbreak, and the answers start with Truman. Containment. Truman Doctrine. Marshall Plan. Berlin Airlift. Korean War. Its the biggest historical event of the latter half of the 20th century, and Truman is at the heart of how it ended so favorably. Narrow domestic issues like his failure to get a hearing for his health plan are chump change in comparison.

This is where Bush has hope. *If* by some miracle we have peace, democracy, and prosperity in the Middle East 50 years from now, *and* that result can convincingly be linked back to decisions and policies originated by his administration, the man will be vindicated.

But who cares. We don't have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for 50 years to see if his policies, by some fluke, yield favorable results. We have to make decisions now, and by the best evidence available the man is a malign influence on the world.

Asking for deference to History is unacceptable, and is a complete dodge to avoid accountability for a thousand different mistakes.

Posted by Raskolnikov | July 12, 2007 4:59 PM

Without U.S. involvement, the war would have dragged on longer and ended in a stalemate

Without US involvement, the Germans would have taken Paris in 1918--they almost did anyway. Once Russia was knocked out of the war, the arithmetic favored Germany.

Posted by rea | July 12, 2007 5:47 PM

"I know that technically we were verging on/slipping into recession as Bush took office, but it wasn't a recession anyone much felt -- as they clearly had the ones in '74/5, '80 (though that too was mild, it was FELT) and '91/2. I'll bet if you described the arc of Bush's term to most people (hardcore GOPers excluded) as recession-to-recovery, they'd blink in incomprehension: as far as they're concerned, things were terrific under Clinton and went flat at best under Bush."

In general, we're quite in agreement. The vast majority of Americans have not enjoyed large positive results from the Bush recovery, and the recession didn't begin until the last 6-8 months of Clinton's term, so they don't associate that recession with Clinton - properly, because Bill Clinton had little to do with that recession (it was largely due to Greenspan's raising of rates).

"Firstly, our enemies overseas are, to put it bluntly, ideologically as wicked as the German National Socialists. Indeed, the Islamic fascists are much more dangerous because their idoelogy does not depend on the survival of one man. Their practices are barbaric and objectively evil."

Can the troll explain why there were six fascist or semi-fascist regimes in Europe by 1939 (Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Romania, Hungary as well as a right-wing military dictatorship in Poland) as well as one outside Europe entirely (Japan)? Further, can the troll explain why the leaders of the conservative movement, including Bill Buckley explicitly, openly supported the remaining fascist regimes of Europe (Spain and Portugal, as well as Greece under a military dictatorship) for decades after the end of WWII? Can the troll explain why Robert Taft, the central Republican leader of the mid-twentieth century, consistently opposed WWII throughout that war (as well as long afterwards until his death in the 1950s), as well as secretly being a prime mover behind America First before the US' entry into WWII?

Posted by burritoboy | July 12, 2007 7:33 PM

[comment on:] This is where Bush has hope. *If* by some miracle we have peace, democracy, and prosperity in the Middle East 50 years from now, *and* that result can convincingly be linked back to decisions and policies originated by his administration, the man will be vindicated.

OTOH, if 50 years from now Umma will finish the conquest of Americas, Bush will be a visionary who appreciated the largest (and, alas, last) threat we ever faced.

By the way, the dictatorship in 1939 Poland was not right wing, but rather centrist (with legal opposition both left and right).

I also think that in 1939, Finland, Lithuania and Latvia were not democratic either, I have no recolection about Estonia, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, but I think Czechoslovakia was the only democratic country to the east of Germany.

Anyway, what did Bush achieve concerning the threat from the wicked ones?

Posted by piotr | July 12, 2007 8:18 PM

I don't agree at all with your analysis of this article. I think this is a "solid treatment of the role the concept of history plays in the Bushian worldview"; yes some of it is more than a little obvious. But in rebutting the Bushian worldview, we often have to re-state the obvious. The essay is on particularly strong ground when arguing against the "Reagan won the Cold War" script that has gained solid ground in recent years. We've lost a brilliant essayist with a sharp historical analytical ability. Thanks though for linking to it!

Posted by Ian | July 12, 2007 9:24 PM

Ronald Reagan cut funding for the UC system when he as governor of California yet the new UCLA hospital is named for him. There will be W. Bush elementary schools, and a W. Bush federal building, and the W. Bush library, plus his cronies will start throwing money our for the W. Bush Chair of Security Studies at Yale. It is amazing how much you can rehabiltate a jackass if you are persistent and spend millions of dollars. Genius on the right still trot out the Laffer Curve after all.

Posted by Wilson | July 13, 2007 5:30 AM

"I don't see any real evidence that presidents' historical reputations track their actual performance in office."

Sort of a nihilistic statement, no? Like saying that an author's reputation has nothing to do with the quality of his books or a scientist's reputation has nothing to do with the quality of his research.

Posted by Jose Padilla | July 13, 2007 9:59 AM

Historians will have access to the documents which Bush has been hiding. Who hides their light under the bushel basket? When Christ said "suffer the little children to come unto Me" he wasn't advocating torture. History will have access to the names of the tortured and their torturers. Who doubts that Bush will be recognized as a vain cowardly gangster?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 13, 2007 9:59 AM

"By the way, the dictatorship in 1939 Poland was not right wing, but rather centrist (with legal opposition both left and right)."

It's true that the post-Pilsudski's regime wasn't super-conservative for Eastern Europe by that point. Until Pilsudski's death, I think your characterization would be quite correct (at least in the context of Central Europe of the time), but after Pilsudski died, the regime was drifting rightward. Still, it was clearly rightwing in the context of even the democracies of Western Europe of the moment (a military dictatorship supporting a platform of "national health").

Posted by burritoboy | July 13, 2007 11:37 AM