It’s tempting to imagine some august tribunal known as “History,” which renders permanent decisions about the presidents of our republic. Outgoing President George W. Bush has invoked that image: “History will be the judge. History will look back and determine.”
The judgments of history, though, can be as fickle as our weather. I’m a mere history buff, not a historian, but I’ve certainly noticed that presidential reputations change.
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln hold secure spots in the pantheon. But some reputations have declined, like Thomas Jefferson’s. This is not so much on account of his actions in office — few argue that the Louisiana Purchase was a mistake — but more because he once talked a good line against slavery, but never did anything effective toward eliminating it.
However, many reputations rise over time. Bush has pointed to Harry Truman, a man who left office in 1953 with abysmal approval ratings during an unpopular war in Korea. Nowadays, Truman is reckoned among the near-greats for the Marshall Plan and NATO, among other things.
Bush has also been compared to Woodrow Wilson, who often gets high marks from historians, though I don’t know why. He opposed women’s suffrage and resegregated the District of Columbia. His attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, could not tell the difference between the Bill of Rights and a roll of toilet paper. Maybe it’s because Wilson was an academic — he was once a professor and the only president with a Ph.D. — and academics want to promote one of their own.
Dwight Eisenhower was long considered an amiable do-nothing, but as history develops, doing nothing — like refusing to get tangled in Vietnam — was often the right course. His historical star grows brighter, though I’d argue that one of his signature accomplishments, the interstate highway system, ruined our rail network and made us much too dependent on foreign oil.
The reputation of another “do- nothing” president, Calvin Coolidge, has grown in recent years, a process that started when Ronald Reagan replaced Truman’s portrait in the Cabinet Room with Coolidge’s.
Ulysses S. Grant, portrayed as one of the worst presidents when I was in school, has also enjoyed an improved stature of late, mostly because he diligently tried, despite considerable opposition, to ensure that newly freed slaves got their full rights in the South.
Andrew Jackson has enjoyed something of a resurgence lately, although he’s always been considered one of America’s better presidents. It could be on account of his populism, as when he said that “the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes.” Or perhaps it’s his well-known bellicosity.
Another bellicose sort, Theodore Roosevelt, also remains near the top, and has been cited as a role model by both Bush and John McCain. They both, however, seemed to forget his support for conservation as well as his belief in the estate tax.
Bush’s reputation today is dismal. One might hope that some years down the road, he is remembered for bringing stability and human rights to the Middle East while laying the groundwork for a quick recovery from an economic collapse, and that his intrusions on the Bill of Rights were no worse than Lincoln’s in a time of national crisis.
But that seems about as likely as my winning the lottery. At the moment, Bush is in the running for Worst President Ever. It’s pretty hard to argue that we’re better off now than eight years ago, and even harder to guess how long it will take to recover from his presidency.
Ed Quillen (ed@cozine.com) is a history buff, publisher of Colorado Central Magazine in Salida and frequent contributor to The Post.
