Sean Wilentz, professor/historian/author, was on Q&A (C-SPAN/Brian Lamb's interview program, a follow-up to Booknotes, a show I was sorry to see go) last night. I read and enjoyed his refutation (he is a contributor to The New Republic) of Garry Wills' (who I find pretentious anyhow) "The Negro President" argument (Jefferson came to power because of the 3/5 Clause ... Federalists were disproportionately vis-à-vis the Democrats, anti-slavery heroes). I also have his tome on the rise of American democracy, which I obtained cheaply, and might just read one of these days (forty pages down, six hundred or so to go ....).* Wilentz brought together historians to oppose the Clinton Impeachment and is also the "historian in residence" at Bob Dylan's website (he first met him at Wilentz's father book store). All and all, an interesting guy.
Wilentz, other than his impeachment efforts and a Grammy nomination for his liner notes, has obtained some notoriety in recent days because of his Rolling Stones' piece: "The Worst President in History?: One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush." The "stupid Bush" dunce cover (stupid does not equal worst) was not his idea, nor did he know at the start that his analysis would be so negative (as with the bishop character in John Mortimer's recent book, he was no fan of the man, all the same**). The general sentiment was that bad presidents generally were face with great tasks and failed to attack them miserably with Bush's greatest flaw (the article discusses others) a failure to be flexible and open-minded -- too much of a one track mind. Darn if that was supposed to be a plus.
In his interview, Wilentz pointed to two key points where Bush misstepped. (He also was sure to cover himself and say that Bush still has time to reform his image -- the article is a bit less optimistic.) First, after the messy election (in my eyes, he started off horrible and didn't look back), and then the whole Iraq fiasco. Wilentz gave him credit for his post-9/11 efforts (no comment to his utter failure, as compared to my mayor, on the actual day).
I give him no quarter. One does not deserve too much praise, though I guess you have to take into consideration the man, for Afghanistan. There was a "no shit" flavor to that move, and many will point out that overall even that was done badly in various ways, especially after the easy part of overturning a backward pariah government. As to his speech to Congress, his ability to read other people's words doesn't impress me. I know how full of shit he truly is. Again, only a total incompetent could not appeal to the nation in that position. A nation desperate for leadership, even if it wasn't there. Sorry -- given his record, he has to do something extra to earn my respect.
[Still, I do have some perspective. A respected blogger used some stupid quip he made about catching fish being the biggest moment in his presidency as a special example of his overall make-up --- see, it was not really a big deal, it was his own lake/so stocked with fish anyway, etc. But, it was probably intended to be a joke. He brings this sort of thing on himself, but sometimes the criticism is over the top to a degree that is annoying and even counterproductive.]
The web posting of the article has a link: "We warned you! Look back at our 1999, pre-primary assessment of George W. Bush," and it does suggest that those so SHOCKED at what became of his presidency at least partly have themselves to blame [this, call me unfair if you like, pisses me off -- I'm unsure what exactly people expected given his record]. A (1999) discussion of his "military" record is telling given the later controversy that was used to focus things on the media. [And, the media's incompetence and the other side's deviousness were blamed, while Kerry's failure to adequately counterattack was downplayed -- "they" are to blame for everything, you know.]:
How Bush got into the Guard when its nationwide waiting list had 100,000 names is a story that illustrates his privileged position in life. Although the likelihood of his being accepted through standard channels was remote, Bush applied to the Guard during his last semester at Yale and was immediately admitted to the 147th Fighter Group of the Texas Air National Guard at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, near the congressional district then represented by his father. He enlisted in May and was commissioned in September. Later, Bush's commanding officer, Brig. Gen. Walter Staudt, insisted that congressman Bush did nothing to get his son into the Guard, but this is contradicted by a source close to Ben Barnes, the speaker of the House in Texas in 1968, who was elected lieutenant governor that same year. According to the source, George Bush telephoned Barnes and asked him to make a phone call to facilitate George W.'s acceptance into the Texas Air National Guard. Barnes made the call.
And, why wasn't this quote (made during his run for governor) -- yeah, I know, Rolling Stone is rather obscure and all -- tossed all over the place:
"Putting an F-102 jet in afterburner in a single-seat, single-engine aircraft was a thrill, but it also wasn't trying to avoid duty," Bush said. "Had that engine failed, I could have been killed. So I was at risk." In the days after the debate, veterans groups angrily criticized Bush for comparing the risk he faced flying jets on practice runs over Texas to the risk American soldiers faced in live combat in Vietnam.Or this ...
In June 1995, Bush made one of his most controversial moves as governor. The Patient Protection Act, which was approved by the Texas legislature, would have instituted major HMO reforms by requiring companies to be more open about their benefits, allowing customers dropped from a plan to appeal and instituting reviews by the Texas Department of Insurance. Bush vetoed it. He argued that the act "imposes too much government regulation and unfairly impacts some health-care providers." The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association released a statement applauding Bush's veto. In the coming years, Bush would receive some $1 million in campaign contributions from insurance companies for his re-election bid.
Failure to be up to the task isn't just the problem leaders have to face, it is one for the people themselves. As Wilentz noted, the people were in effect lulled into the impeachment. [And, since we always fight the last war, now even top progressives like Molly Ivins think impeachment should not even be discussed among ourselves, since it is so divisive and all ... hey, he didn't personally torture those prisoners or drop the bombs in Iraq, did he?] We look to our leaders to point us in the right direction, to guide us along the way. But, in a republican democracy, we too have a lot of responsibility.
Might "worst" be applied to those who let him and his ilk get so far into worsedom as well?
---
* A piece: "The most important congressional vote about slavery during Jefferson's presidency, apart from the vote on shutting down the transatlantic slave trade, came in 1804, on the so-called Hillhouse amendments. Proposed by the Federalist James Hillhouse, a senator from Connecticut, the amendments would have banned slavery in Louisiana Territory, but they failed to win passage. Once again, though, the crucial vote involved the Senate, not the House; pace Wills, the three-fifths clause was irrelevant. And the record on the vote is highly revealing. Although Hillhouse was a Federalist, the bulk of his support came from Northern Jeffersonians. The northern Federalists, meanwhile, split right down the middle, with the pro-slavery position getting the backing of, among others, Wills's hero Pickering! (Wills has Pickering voting for the amendment banning slavery, which is another howler.)"
Fairness dictates me saying I did not read Wills' (don't buy that s's construct) book, though I did try to plod through his pretentious book on The Gettysburg Address. But, I have no reason to doubt Wilentz's account, a historian respected across ideological lines. Also, it matches my (obviously more limited) understanding of the era. It also calls to mind Lincoln's famous Cooper Union Address in which he points out that the Framers who were in the Congress almost always (there were two or three exceptions) voted for the various restrictions of slavery in the territories that came to pass. Some of them were from slave states. Also, Jefferson won NY and Pennsylvania in 1800 and rather comfortable in some more firmly slavery friendly states. Firmly enough that the 3/5 compromise would not have mattered.
** Mortimer is best known for his droll Rumpole on the Bailey series, later a hit on PBS (the man who played the role died, but Mortimer is still around). Quite Honestly fits his usual tone (this time nicely done from two points of view) the misadventures of a young somewhat naive woman when she tries to "do good" by helping a recently released burglar. Amusing with his usual somewhat cynical views on law and such, but I'm not clear why he tossed in a tragic bit about a minor character's baby. It didn't fit.