WASHINGTON — There are certain questions frequently asked of
eminent minds in public that must be avoided lest that eminence
reveal himself to be a moron or at least moronic in certain areas
of intellectual endeavor. Recently the Washington Post
addressed one of these questions to Professor Eric Foner, De Witt
Clinton professor of history at Columbia University. Naif that he
is, Prof Foner exuberantly rushed forward to prove my point. The
question asked was one variation or another of “rank the present
president of the United States on the historians’ scale of ‘great’
to ‘failure.’” Prof Foner, though the author of distinguished
historical studies of Nineteenth Century America, bemanured his
scholarly credentials by ranking George W. Bush as “the worst
president in U.S. history.” Now I like a good joke, but nowhere in
his tortured exposition was there a hint of humor.
Obviously in the area of contemporary history the professor is a
moron. We may even extend his moronism to include the ranking of
presidents throughout American history. He claims that Andrew
Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan “occupy the bottom
rung,” because they “were simply not up to the job” of facing a
“national crisis.” Well, I can agree to that. Then he throws in
Calvin Coolidge and Warren G. Harding, because of “the corruption
of their years in office,” though Coolidge’s administration was not
particularly known for corruption. If Prof Foner is still placing
the blame for the Depression on Coolidge he might devote some time
to reading economics, particularly Milton Friedman’s explication of
the Depression, which makes clear that it was a monetary crisis
made so by the Fed’s tight money.
Finally, he places Richard Nixon at “the bottom rung” for his
“disdain for the Constitution and abuse of presidential power.”
Nixon’s opening to China and navigation of the tricky waters of the
Cold War apparently amount to nullities in Prof Foner’s analysis,
as does Nixon’s fairly successful management of a government that
is gigantic in comparison to those of the earlier failed
presidents.
Onto this junk heap of inferior presidents he now heaves George
W. Bush. Note, nowhere at “the bottom rung” does he place Jimmy
Carter or Bill Clinton. Carter blundered both in foreign policy and
in economic policy, leaving office with interest rates at 21.5%,
inflation at 13.6%, and unemployment at 7.1%. Americans abroad were
embarrassed to show their passports, and at least 52 were being
held hostage in our Tehran embassy. Clinton got himself impeached
by practicing the same abuse of power and ithyphallic
compulsiveness that some of us reported he had practiced as a
mediocre governor of Arkansas. Clinton’s economy was healthy (save
for its bubble), but that was mainly because he followed Republican
economic policies. His plan to “grow the economy” via the reduced
interest rates that he promised from a balanced budget (balanced
mostly through military cuts) failed. Interest rates went up.
Prof Foner adjudges Bush ‘43 guilty of all the failings of his
aforementioned inferior presidents. Then he throws in an invidious
comparison of Bush with President James K. Polk, whose
Mexican-American War still embarrasses the Columbia University
historian. Don’t get him started on our acquisition of Alaska!
How does one respond to such tendentious pish posh? It would do
no good to mention Bush’s vibrant economy with historically low
unemployment, steady growth, and a stock market at historic highs.
Nor would the professor be persuaded that Bush’s tax cuts brought
the economy from the mild recession he inherited from Clinton and
the attacks of 9/11 that he might also have inherited from Clinton.
Prof Foner utterly ignores the Bush Administration’s reform of the
military that now allows us to project force around the globe and
with little of the inter-service redundancy, thanks to retiring
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Bush has successfully pursued
a war on terror, reversing Clinton’s procrastination. Iraq has
proven to be problematic, but only because Bush is pursuing the
idealism of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman in attempting to
spread democracy. Had he been Machiavellian enough to topple Saddam
and hand the country over to its generals or some other circle of
power, I doubt Prof Foner would applaud.
The present Administration has undertaken other admirable
endeavors such as Social Security reform. Though now at a
standstill, Bush’s efforts surely will fetch the admiration of
future historians. Clinton’s neglect of Social Security is already
under the historians’ fire. May I direct Prof Foner to James
Patterson’s recent volume in the Oxford History of the United
States covering the Clinton years? Bush’s inchoate efforts at
healthcare reform are also admirable. Yet Prof Foner remains
unimpressed. He has, in his eagerness to answer a stupid question,
revealed himself to be a hopeless partisan. That is why in the area
of contemporary history he is a moron.
