|
| “
|
The idea that history might rehabilitate George W. Bush seems too ludicrous to be seriously entertained.
|
” |
That's the first sentence from Atlantic Monthly's Redeeming Dubya, which pricked my ears.
First, "history" does not, cannot, rehabilitate anybody. If
that's the motivation, then it's not history. It's Doris Goodwin
writing love notes, or Howard Zinn peddling ideology. History is
what happened, honestly related, and from that the reader will make
decisions. Nobody living has ever read the history of their time
time on earth. Consider.
What if Dubya had been elected as the Democratic candidate in 2000,
beating Newt Gingrich? Every thing after is the same.
Everything. Begin with the New York Times coverage of President
Bush's administration. Would we be having this
conversation? That's precisely how tomorrow's historian will be
able to consider 2000-2008 America, without the consuming need to
proselytize an agenda.
From my vantage point, Dubya's primary sin is his role in turning a
conservative Republican Party into a poor imitation of democrats.
While not the first, nor only example, I'll cite his advocacy of
Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey 1n 2004, allowing the Sphincter to
prevail by a mere 15,000 votes. I could feel the "mo" shift, right
then. It resonated. It's his Republican Party apparatus that foisted John McCain upon us. But, historians will look at other,
more important things.
If the Middle East goes to hell after a new president reverses
his policy, that will serve to burnish Bush's reputation with later
historians, say 200 years hence, or after the Islamic Theocracy has
ended, and they have the opportunity. If his policies are left in
place, and result in isolating Iran's ambition, and a shift towards
enlightened government, then Bush is on Mount Rushmore. No matter what, be assured that the $64,000 question on some future game show will be "Who was
Nancy Pelosi?"
|
|
