-
Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
May 13, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Tangles of Pathologies
April 12, 2013 | 35 comments
-
An Enduring Partnership
March 25, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Spies, Traitors, Agents of Influence, and Useful Idiots
January 31, 2013 | 35 comments
-
On Knowing When to Shut Up
December 19, 2012 | 7 comments
Buy the Book
The Schlesinger Syndrome, Updated
Alvin Felzenberg rethinks the presidential rating game.
(Page 2 of 2)
But no matter. Feltzenberg’s rankings, which made the first edition of this book both predictably controversial and surprisingly popular, are a welcome release from the group-think evaluations imposed by several generations of Schlesingerite academics. This new and revised edition should also prompt strong reactions for its early assessment of the Bush years and its preliminary observations on the early days of the Obama administration.
“Forecasting how history will ultimately regard George W. Bush’s presidency so soon after he left office is a fool’s errand,” writes Felzenberg. “As Bush noted, what future historians will write about him rests to a large degree on his successor.”
An astute observation, borne out by the historic record. Had Eisenhower not found a way to bring the Korean War to a minimally successful end, for instance, history would probably have judged Truman, who committed us to participating in that war, much more harshly. Similarly, if Obama is able to hold the Bush-led victory in Iraq and succeed in Afghanistan, he will not only strengthen his own standing but validate the Bush approach, to which his escalation of the war has committed him.
As Felzenberg points out, much the same situation pertains in other aspects of Obama administration policy. Despite the campaign promises, Guantanamo remains open for business. Education programs are little changed, as are “faith-based initiatives.” On the economy, “Obama continued Bush’s policy of purchasing stocks with tax payers funds” and “expanded upon Bush’s initiative to pump billions of taxpayer dollars into Chrysler and General Motors.” Obama continues to draw on the economic advice of golden boys from institutions like Goldman also favored by the Bush economists. In other areas — immigration, executive prerogatives, “signing statements” — there seems little difference.
In short, at least for the first term, Obama, much to the dismay and anguish of his neo-romantic young supporters and most of academe, seems intent on bringing the programs and policies initiated during the Bush administration to successful conclusions. One school of thought has it that he doesn’t know what else to do. But whatever the motivations, an evaluation of Bush as president depends to a somewhat surprising extent on the successes or failures of the Obama presidency.
IN HIS PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS of Bush as president, Felzenberg enumerates those idiosyncrasies that so infuriated his enemies. At Andover, where he was known as “the Lip,” Bush “began a lifetime practice of addressing peers by nicknames, often derisive…He also acquired what appeared to be an omnipresent smirk.” As president, Felzenberg continues, mercilessly, “Bush occasionally reverted to the quirky behavior he had displayed as an adolescent.”
There was the wink at Queen Elizabeth and the “unwelcome back rub” administered to Angela Merkel. And in accepting his party’s nomination for the second time, “Bush drew attention to the strut some detected in his gait. ‘In Texas, they call this walking,’ he said.” (And good for him, some murmured, perhaps remembering Richard Nixon in Latin America, confronting rock-throwing demonstrators, climbing up on the hood of his car, grinning, flashing the victory sign, and telling an aide: “This’ll drive them up the wall!”)
But Bush was also a man who grew, writes Felzenberg, who developed considerable strength of character — an “attitudinal conservative” who despite a privileged upbringing instinctively and emotionally sided with “ordinary Americans”; an executive who “valued brevity and consensus”; a model husband and father who stopped drinking and sincerely embraced religion. “Religion…brought out Bush’s sense of empathy. Stories about his demonstrations of kindness and generosity toward wounded soldiers, surviving relatives of victims of terrorist attacks, and others abound.”
Felzenberg gives Bush a 3 out of a possible 5 for “Character” on his ratings chart, tying FDR and, of course, beating Clinton. He also earns a 3 for “Preserving and Expanding Liberty,” tying, among others, Jefferson, both Adamses, and his father. Under “Defense, National Security, and Foreign Policy,” he beats out Carter and ties with Nixon, Jackson, and others. His worst rating is a 1 for “Competence,” owing in large part to the Katrina fiasco.
In all, in his early assessment of the Bush presidency, Felzenberg leaves us with this: “However history may fault Bush for his decision-making process and his handling of the war in Iraq for much of his time in office, it may also credit him for the courage he showed in pressing for Petraeus’s surge in the face of almost unanimous opposition. Future president Barack Obama predicted in 2006 that the surge would fail and denied in 2007 that it was working.”
But it did work. And now, three years later, President Obama is pressing for his own surge in Afghanistan. And he has chosen General Petraeus to lead it.
“Finally,” writes Felzenberg, “while historians will for decades debate the soundness of Bush’s actions…they will note that Bush’s defenders were correct in at least one respect: after September 11, 2001, for the rest of Bush’s presidency, no further attack upon Americans took place within the United States. That too will remain an important part of Bush’s legacy.”
It most certainly will, especially now that it’s difficult if not impossible for academics to play the ratings game by simply echoing approved ideological judgments. Of course, as long as there are liberals and academics, the Schlesinger syndrome will be with us. But it will never again be as potent as it once seemed on that dreary December morning, when Alvin Felzenberg decided to take it on.
About the Author
John R. Coyne, Jr. a former White House speech-writer, is co-author with Linda Bridges of Strictly Right: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Conservative Movement (Wiley).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (15) | Leave a comment
More Articles by John R. Coyne, Jr.
More Articles From Buy the Book
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/20/the-schlesinger-syndrome-updat
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- The Great Train Robbery
- Inside the Gates of Eden
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Petronius| 10.20.10 @ 9:50AM
So much for papering the house on opening night.
There was a cartoon on the editorial page of the now defunct St. Louis Globe Democrat called The Small Society. 3 toddlers in a playpen trying to comprehend their world from the ground up through discourse, one points this question to the other two, "Do adults really think?" The one in the center responds, "No silly, they just repeat what they hear." To our great misfortune, so mote it be.
The Schlesingers juxtaposed presidential decisions against their predispositions and beliefs though the conduct of their subjects was likewise.
In the end the same trumps reason, so the tykes were right.
I have only 1 standard by which I judge all in government. Does a person act in office according to the Constitutional Oath given upon entry?
Alan Brooks| 10.20.10 @ 9:14PM
"Does that qualify Bush for 'immortal' status somewhere down the road? Of course not. The jury’s been fixed."
Bush wasn't nearly the worst; however if he was so good then why is the GOP always gushing about Reagan and not Dubya?
KSmith| 10.27.10 @ 1:37PM
Well said. That should put Lincoln and FDR lower in everybody's lists. Both did irreversible damage to the Constitution.
Dai Alanye | 10.20.10 @ 11:14AM
These ratings are always subjective, so while Felzenberg's are far better than the execrable Schlesingers' they still reflect the biases of the author. (As do mine, of course.)
Teddy Roosevelt, because of his dynamism, is always over-rated, while Harding is excessively condemned. The low placing of Nixon is ridiculous, and grading Dubya poorly for Katrina both elevates a secondary problem (after terrorism) to higher status than it deserves, and tacitly gives passes to the true villains of the fiasco---the mayor of New Orleans, the governor of Louisiana, and the Army Corps of Engineers whose ill-designed barrier led directly to the flooding of the city.
Further, when assessing Dubya's competence one must, I hold, take into consideration the superior quality of some of his appointments, especially Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft. Tom Ridge, Colin Powell and Norman Mineta, on the other hand, left much to be desired, but the first trio set a very high standard.
I might add that any rating scheme is questionable that fails to give FDR a zero in economic policy.
Alan Brooks| 10.20.10 @ 10:50PM
"Tom Ridge, Colin Powell and Norman Mineta, on the other hand, left much to be desired, but the first trio set a very high standard."
Talk about damning with faint praise. The second set left much to be desired [they were mediocrities] but the first set was fine.
Redstateboy| 10.20.10 @ 12:01PM
what gives these Liber-ul Eggheads any right or credibility to rate our Presidents? I can find fault in the 8 years of Dubbya but on the whole, I think he was a great President. Personally, I earned more under Dubbya than at any other time of my life. He dealt fairly with other countries.. try to get that feeble UN to Act. Gave the ball to England, France & Germany to deal with Iran, handled that touchy situation with China and our P-3 Orion well.. I just wish he would've moved to secure our Border more and fought to reform SS more than he did.
Hank Rearden| 10.20.10 @ 12:27PM
Leading liberals have tended, in American history, to be "socially prominent." Thus, being "socially correct" has been as important as being "politically correct." During the 100 years after the Civil War it was not "socially correct" to worry overmuch about the state of being of, as they were then called, the negroes. A figure like Ulysees Grant, who was implacable in his defense of civil rights, was seen as "a monkey" (in the words of the day) and as not really socially acceptable. Thus, although he wrote one of the literary triumphs of the 19th century, purchased the first national park (Yellowstone) and restored the value of the currency by putting American back on the gold standard, he is regarded a fool by bien pensant opinion. He used the Army to destroy the KKK in its first incarnation (the KKK that we know was basically a recrudescence begun in the 19-teens). The reason that posse comitatus was passed in 1878, after Grant was safely out of office was so that no president could use the Army that way again. The other president to concern himself overmuch with the plight of the negro during the 100 years of Jim Crow was Warren Harding, who introduced anti-lynching legislation that was filibustered by the Democrat Party.
RCV| 10.20.10 @ 12:45PM
No President has been more underrated and mistreated by history than Grant. He has been maligned because of the crooked deal of his successor that allowed Southern segregationists to take back control of the South and suppress the liberties of Black Americans for another 100 years.
fundamentalist| 10.20.10 @ 1:10PM
Feltzenberg’s rankings are a step in the right direction, but overly complicated. The only thing a president should be rated on is how well he protected the Constitution. In that regard, all deserve an 'F' except for Washington, Grover Cleveland and maybe a couple others.
Puprle Lips| 10.20.10 @ 3:01PM
What about Chester Arthur and Harrison?
cuban pete| 10.20.10 @ 3:42PM
I believe the sole criterion for judging presidential greatness should be winning the Noble Peace Prize.
cuban pete| 10.20.10 @ 3:45PM
I mean the Nobel Peace Prize.
Just kidding.
Joe D.| 10.20.10 @ 4:31PM
To list FDR as a success is dead wrong as well. He was terrible for both Liberty and the economy. And as far as national security, I think up until the attach on Pearl Harbor he was bad as well including protectionism, no military build up, etc. He and his generals made a number of mistakes governing the war as well.
Chuck| 10.20.10 @ 7:37PM
JFK scores points for taking on the Central Bank in 1963. Through an executive order, the Treasury began to print debt free US Treasury notes in lieu of debt ridden Federal Reserve notes. The amount printed based on the value of silver in U.S. vaults. 1963 was the starting point for massive government spending and Kennedy had the foresight to curb debt accumulation. Unfortunately his death ended the experiment and all US Treasury notes were taken out of circulation.
tdiinva| 10.21.10 @ 2:09PM
Everybody seems to have a soft spot for JFK. There is no way that he is in the top half of Presidents. He was inept in foreign policy, His character was worse then Clinton's. his economic policies were successful to an extent but other then his tax cuts he did nothing else. Then there is Vietnam culminating in coup and diem assassination that destabilized the country.
The Civil Rights act and the Apollo program were more LBJ's in initiatives then Kennedy's