Quotes of the Day
Robert Dallek
Creating His Own Troubles in Iraq
Historians evaluating George W. Bush's first term will focus on foreign policy and, most of all, 9/11. I think they will criticize him for his early reaction, for not returning at once to Washington, D.C. Although the White House says it was worried about threats to Air Force One, it's worth noting that Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill didn't hesitate to enter war zones during World War II. And Lyndon Johnson, who didn't know at first whether a conspiracy might be behind the killing of John F. Kennedy, didn't hesitate to return to the capital. That said, Bush subsequently responded fairly well to 9/11, speaking effectively for the nation and then going into Afghanistan in a measured and sensible way that gave the country some sense of an appropriate response to 9/11.
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
With Iraq, it's difficult to imagine that historians will give him anything but poor marks. Bush took the country to war on false intelligence. His defenders will say a President has to go with the information he has and the advice he receives. But that's a cop-out. The greatest Presidents have been those who demonstrated astute judgment in times of crisis — often despite the advice they were getting. Bush was told that 140,000 troops would be sufficient for the occupation of Iraq. This turned out to be wrong. As Truman said, the buck stops here. Success in past U.S. conflicts has not been strictly the result of military leadership but rather the judgment of the President in choosing generals and setting broad strategy.
Richard Norton Smith
Trumanesque, in His Audacity
Having watched his first term, we know this about George W. Bush: he is an important President. We don't know the long-term consequences of his policies, particularly his pre-emptive war in Iraq, but we know that he matters. Truman, in Korea, similarly embraced a military doctrine that was radically unlike what Americans were accustomed to. If you accepted the need to contain communism, then Truman's "police action" in Korea was a critical part of the economic, social and diplomatic war between the West and the Soviet Union. Truman paid a heavy political price: his poll ratings in 1951 were lower than Richard Nixon's at resignation. Yet 50 years later, Truman is widely admired as a President who had the vision to define the realities of the postwar world.
We can't know yet whether Bush's doctrine, born in the rubble of the World Trade Center, is a 21st century version of Truman's containment, a strategic vision that will shape and define not only our politics but also our very way of life for decades to come. We don't know if Iraq is another Korea, or to what other nations Bush's doctrine might yet apply. Likewise, we can only surmise the cost, if any, in terms of alliances weakened by his policies. But we do know that Bush's approach is no less audacious than the one Truman undertook at considerable risk a half-century ago.
Michael Beschloss
Bold, Certainly. Wise? We'll See
Watching a President in real time, historians can identify clues as to whether later generations might see him as an important leader. Does he change the terms of the foreign- and domestic-policy debates? Is he willing to take bold and innovative steps that might be politically risky? With Bush, the answer to both questions is yes. But only with the clarity that history provides will later Americans know for certain whether the President's major decisions — and the way he made them — were wise or not.
Someone other than Bush might have responded to the 9/11 attacks more incrementally. Bush almost immediately declared a worldwide war on terrorism, fully aware that it would probably take decades to fight, that Americans might grow frustrated and impatient with it, and that it might provoke brutal retaliatory attacks for which Americans might blame the President. Bush waged the Iraq war knowing that if optimistic assurances about finding weapons of mass destruction should prove wrong he might lose re-election. You see the same willingness to break the envelope on domestic issues, in tax policy, Social Security reform, conservative social issues.
In the end, however, great Presidents are those later viewed as both bold and wise. If Americans in 2034 believe that with his boldness, Bush successfully used a moment of U.S. global pre-eminence to make the world more peaceful and democratic, he will probably do well before the bar of history. If not, he'll have a tougher time.
Doris Kearns Goodwin
The President and The Rest of Us
Presidencies are defined in part by the challenges that confront them. Dramatic events, like wars or 9/11, create openings for Presidents to be remembered. We will remember President Bush for having been in office during great events, but we will finally judge him on his response to those events. His signature event, the war in Iraq, will ultimately be judged on whether it brings greater freedom, democracy and security to the world and to our nation. World War II did all of that; Vietnam did not.
Presidents who succeed in wartime have been able to sustain their countrymen's spirits during the long years of struggle. F.D.R. understood that he could no longer be a partisan leader, that he had to reach out to all Americans. He appointed Republicans to top positions in his Cabinet; he put out an olive branch to business; he created countless ways for ordinary Americans to be involved in the war, through buying war bonds, joining the civilian-defense corps, bringing scrap rubber and aluminum to village greens, accepting increased taxes to ensure that soldiers had all the supplies and equipment they needed. And, of course, the draft meant that nearly everyone knew someone overseas. This war has been waged in a very different manner. It remains to be seen if Bush will be able to sustain our spirits if the war continues to defy the expected hope for victory.
David M. Kennedy
Sagely Reading America's Mood
George W. Bush and his adviser Karl Rove have proved remarkably shrewd in their reading of modern U.S. history. Many others misjudged the direction of the country and its essential nature. The liberal left in particular has paid a price for that mistake. The fact is, long-term political majorities can be assembled by locating and amplifying cultural trends. The classic example was F.D.R., who crafted a 30-year-plus stable majority in the Democratic Party by recognizing that the large immigrant communities that had arrived the generation before the Great Depression were ready to become politically mobilized. In embracing those constituencies, the Democratic Party built itself a durable long-term majority.
These days, similarly, one of the most significant cultural shifts in America is the growing Hispanic presence. Many assumed this constituency would be solidly Democratic. However, thanks in part to Bush's emphasis on traditional and particularly religious values, the Latino vote is coming into the Republican fold in surprising quantities. Bush had a decent record with the Latino community in Texas, but that had been dismissed as an anomaly — until this past election, in which he won an impressive 40% of the Latino vote. Evangelical Christians are another potent new political force. Many liberals dismissed evangelicals as the "Booboisie" and underestimated their size and power. Bush deserves credit, not for pandering to them but for honoring the authenticity of their beliefs — and recognizing their electoral weight.
Joseph Ellis
A Missed Moment On Gay Rights
The history of Liberalism is a gradual evolution in which first women's rights and then the rights of blacks and now of gays have made claims on the values of the nation's founders. The role of the Republicans has been to resist each of those reforms. Fifty years from now, I suspect that Bush's position on gay rights — in particular his opposition to gay marriage — will look as misguided as opposition to civil rights in the 1960s looks today.
That said, Bush does accurately reflect the core beliefs of the majority of the public. Most Americans are socially conservative, and many oppose abortion and gun control in addition to gay marriage, and Bush's positions reflect that. Indeed, one characteristic of a real democracy is that the leader can't get too far ahead of public opinion. F.D.R. and Bill Clinton understood that. The U.S. is now culturally divided, and Bush has identified himself with the segment of the populace that is resistant to change. I think it's sincere on his part, but in the end, Presidents who have resisted the expansion of rights have not looked good in the history books.
- Interviews conducted by Massimo Calabresi; Robert Dallek;