It is never easy to figure out how a still-serving President will be judged by history. Some President’s who were unpopular during their time in office are treated better by history than they were by their contemporaries. Harry Truman comes to mind. ….

Indeed. Of all presidents Bush is the least self-absorbed.

But in the end Leslie is right, it’s far too early to rate President Bush. I don’t think you can really get a handle on how a president rates for at least 20 years. Until then, all you typically get is political partisanship masquerading as analysis. It’s just too hard to set the political passions aside.

I think the key to this discussion is that, as you pointed out, GWB has managed to alienate the right as well.

Contemporary political dialog is dominated by radicals on both ends of the spectrum. This is a fairly recent development. My first political memory is watching President Truman on TV (7″ screen with a big bubble magnifier that turned it into a 10″er). TV did not become a major political factor until the 1960 election. There were only three networks and they maintained a great deal of dignity and moderation.

In the last few years we have seen the explosion of cable TV and the internet. Much of the content is at best intemperate. It was there in the past, but you had to subscribe to “The Daily Worker” or “American Mercury” – occasionally available on newsstands in the larger cities.

We have lost professional editorial oversight of news. This has some advantages but we have also lost a valuable BS filter. Some of us have the advantage of age – we’ve been conned more than once – to provide perspective. Too many readers, and writers, still believe in the tooth fairy. I just wish I had some swamp land to sell – easy pickings.

It will be quite a while before the ideologues are gone and forgotten. Only then will a sober assessment be possible.

Regards,
Roy

It’s another busy day, so here are a few links to keep you busy (especially you over there!): At Pajamas Media, Phyllis Chesler looks at recent books detailing the troubles experienced by American women who marry Arab Muslim men, an…

Mona Charen’s book Useful Idiots is a fascinating look at the revisionism by fellow travelers who pivoted like a matador to get on the right side of history, after that side had unmistakably shown itself.

And naturally, since they now found themselves elbow to elbow with the likes of Ronald Reagan, they had to smile through clenched teeth and congratulate him on his inspired, and inspiring leadership.

Today’s useful idiots will be impervious to such opportunism. Witness Nancy Pelosi, who found it needful to praise Iran for bringing peace to Iraq. It wasn’t coalition troops, it wasn’t the Iraqi government, and it sure as hell wasn’t anything to do with Dubya. Had Bush been prosecuting WWII, Pelosi would have praised the Japanese for their maturity and wisdom in ending the illegal and immoral war.

It is, of course, far far too early to rank Bush historically. I’d be very surprised if, in 2020 he’s ranked at the bottom. I don’t know if he’ll be ranked “average” or “above average,” but I have a hunch he wouldn’t be ranked “failure,” which is I think the rank usually given to poor Harding and Hoover.

By the way the Columbia Professor you mention, Eric Foner, is not a historian. He is a left-wing ideologue who knows American History and bends it to his own purposes. I’ve never met him personally, so no opinion on what he’s like to talk to.