If Truth Be Told,How Can You Really Tell?

Sadly, as much as I despised the presidency of Dubya, in truth it is way to soon to evaluate his time in office, let alone his legacy. Like so many of my peers, my deepest criticisms of him lie in two areas. The first is policy and governance. During his eight years in office I was almost completely opposed to his major policy agendas. Further, I found myself diametrically opposed to everyone of his major presidential appointments. From his cabinet to the US Supreme Court, I was dismayed by his deeply partisan choices. Not because I am anti-partisan, on the contrary as a radically left of center Democrat, I could not be more partisan. No, I opposed his choices because they all had one thing in common. . . they stood for political philosophies and policy agendas that I revile.

The second reason I was fervently anti-Bush, was because of his personal style. Whether it was an act (which I do not believe) to rally the right-wing base of his party, or some rich kid's latent desire to actually connect with common American culture, I felt that his bumbling, aw shucks, and syntax destroying rhetorical style ended up dummying down the office of the presidency. I was certain that this Billy-Bob act was in no small part, significantly responsible for America's lost prestige on the world stage. While the Limbaugh crowd could not get enough of Dubya's bible-thumping one liners, I was sickened by the pride he took in simplifying the most complex issues to statements like, "Bring em on," or "I'm the Decider!"

But the historian in me kept nagging in a soft but persistent whisper. . . you cannot really know yet. In truth it takes many years, if not decades, in order to evaluate the contributions of any American president. Like it or not, one must separate contemporary public opinion from historic significance. For example, most Americans have been falling all over themselves in praise of the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Yet, we now know that the seeds for the economic meltdown we are experiencing were sown by his enthusiastic demand for de-regulation of our major financial institutions. Bush I got blasted by those policies in the Savings and Loan crises of the late 80s. Further, the Wall Street as we know it today, did not exist prior to the "Reagan Revolution." De-regulation greased the skids for the likes of AIG, Merrill Lynch, and Lehman Brothers to run amok in speculating away the wealth of our country, while commerical banks like Citi and Bank of America were freed-up to dive deep into mortgage speculation. In the years to come, historians may not be as kind to President Reagan, as were so many of his contemporaries who were captivated by his public persona.

Likewise, the "Camelot" of the Kennedy presidency, with its energetic charisma and the personal appeal of the man himself, may not withstand the rigors of historic analysis. Everyone knows about the botched Bay of Pigs invasion and the heroic Cuban Missile Crisis, but we forget that JFK could not move Congress on any of his progressive domestic agendas. Further, Kennedy was reluctant to speak out for Civil Rights, fearing that he would lose the Democratic South in the election of 1964. Now that we are almost fifty years beyond that November day in 1963, we are less blinded by the personal appeal of the man and more inclined to see him within the context of his policy decisions. Without a doubt, much of what JFK has been credited with in the area of Civil Rights, belongs to Lyndon Johnson and not to Kennedy's so-called "Best and Brightest" team.

And then there is Jimmy Carter. For years his presidency has been condemned and ridiculed by many of his contemporaries. Yet, almost all of his predictions about energy, health care, terrorism, Palestine and Israel, and the state of our economy have been proven out. What most of us remember is the uncomfortable style that emerged from the Carter White House, and the way we rejected his warnings about the future. What we wanted was the flag-waving optimism of Ronald Reagan instead. Even if those policies would eventually come back to haunt us. Carter's great flaw may have been his belief that the American people really wanted to hear the truth, no matter how painful it might be. Alas, it is only historians and some theologians who find satisfaction in the truth. The rest of us simply want to have our beliefs and life-decisions validated by our leaders, whether or not those beliefs and life choices have been correct.

So. . . what about George W Bush? All I can say is that I am glad he is gone, and I believe we will be spending many years paying for the damage his presidency caused. His reckless, my way or the highway style of governance, was at best a public relations nightmare and at worst a damaging blow to our country. I believe this deeply and from all that I have read and witnessed over the last decade, I am sure I am right. But then there is that darned voice again, and if I am going to be completely honest, I must confess. . . I really do not know and only time will tell. Damn!