Does This Need an Explanation?
Well, then, it's for history to decide whether the Iraq War was a failure. Or, is it? Could it be that . . . looking to history to pull ur bacon out of the fire is a . . . sign of . . . failure?
Successful leaders control the political definition of their actions, the terms in which their places in history are understood. The failures are those who, upon leaving office, look to some distant time in the future when people might begin to appreciate the wisdom of what they did.
--Stephen Skowronek, The Politics Presidents Make (1993), pp. 17-18. Yeah, I think that that is about right.
posted by Number Three @ 9:33 PM
3 Comments:
I like the quote as a bash on Bush, but I'm not sure that I fully understand it. How, for example, does it allow us to distinguish between Bush and Truman--i.e., the example the wingers always use to suggest greatness in Bush's post-presidential future? Or LBJ for that matter? Both left office on low notes comparable to where W seems headed, but history does in fact vindicate both to a great degree (if less so for LBJ in Vietnam than for civil rights). Neither seemed "in control" of events or perceptions as their terms wound down.
Well, it's always possible that future events will pan out. So containment might work, or the rightness of one's civil rights position might become obvious, "in the future." But to have to rely on future events means that your chances of being defined as a failure, even by subsequent generations, is pretty high. Maybe Frances has something more to say on this, as she's the one reading the book.
Skowronek has little to say about Truman. Truman's subsequent rehabilitation by history is very unusual, and Skowronek's goal is to characterize presidencies in general. For all his successes, LBJ remains a tragic figure.
Skowonek's argument is that successful presidents are distinguished from failures not by virtue of their policy successes and failures, but by their ability to retain control over the terms under which their presidencies are understood. Many presidents who are regarded today as great successes failed to get their programs through Congress or engineered policy disasters (Examples: Jefferson's embargo devastated shipping, ruined government finances and set the economy in turmoil only to be abandoned for completely failing in its aims of pressuring Britain. Jackson's war on the bank fueled a speculative boom that caused a spectacular financial collapse with the Panic of 1837).
Truman is an interesting case: he reasserted control of public understanding of his presidency with the publication of his Memoirs. Democratic control of the Senate greatly helped to vindicate his decision to fire MacArthur as Richard Russell deftly dismembered MacArthur's testimony.
Truman remains greatly praised, even though his second term was largely a failure. The policy of containment led Truman to continue to support French rule after Ho Chi Minh declared independence and sent money and soldiers to help the French client government. He failed to pass any of his Fair Deal agenda. Corruption was rife in his administration--particularly in the IRS--even though he was personally innocent. He went awry in endorsing a futile counterattack into North Korea rather than merely stopping the North Korean invasion.
Why is Truman successful and why is LBJ still a tragedy? LBJ and his successors never reasserted control over his legacy and his place in history. Truman and his successors did. Skowronek's point is that the "greatness" of presidents is a profoundly political matter, and it can only be understood in the context of politics.
Post a Comment
<< Home