General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsReview: ‘Bush,’ a Biography as Scathing Indictment
For George W. Bush, the summer already looks unbearable. The party he gave his life to will repudiate him by nominating a bombastic serial insulter who makes the famously brash former president look like a museum docent by comparison. And a renowned presidential biographer is weighing in with a judgment that makes Mr. Bushs gentlemans Cs at Yale look like the honor roll.
If Mr. Bush eventually gets a more sympathetic hearing by history, as he hopes, it will not start with Jean Edward Smiths Bush, a comprehensive and compelling narrative punctuated by searing verdicts of all the places where the author thinks the 43rd president went off track. Mr. Smiths indictment does not track Donald J. Trumps, but the cumulative effect is to leave Mr. Bush with few defenders in this season of his discontent.
Mr. Smith, a longtime academic and finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, made a name for himself in part with masterly biographies of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ulysses S. Grant, offering historical reassessments of underrated presidents who looked better with the passage of time. With Bush he sticks to the original conventional assessment, presenting a shoot-from-the-hip Texan driven by religiosity and immune to the advice of people who knew what they were talking about.
...
Mr. Smith leaves no mystery where he stands on Mr. Bushs place in history. The first sentence of his book: Rarely in the history of the United States has the nation been so ill-served as during the presidency of George W. Bush.
more
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/books/review-bush-a-biography-as-scathing-indictment.html
bucolic_frolic
(42,651 posts)Jean Edward Smith is a major biographer, he also wrote an excellent and
relatively short when compared to other academics, biography of FDR,
called simply "FDR". Smith is a major league wordsmith who conveys meaning
through exacting word configuration that left me spellbound. He carved out a
real career for himself as a professor biographer, seems to me if I recall correctly
he hails from Toronto.
forest444
(5,902 posts)Arkana
(24,347 posts)All three are excellent reads; I'm looking forward to this one too.
forest444
(5,902 posts)I'd like to read more about how it was exactly that the GOP lured Ike over to their side.
There's been some speculation that, of all people, J. Edgar "Mary" Hoover, had a lot to do with that. Ike, the story goes, was anxious to keep his string of extramarital affairs from public knowledge, and the very real threat of having Hoover (a staunch Republican) extort him helped persuade him to opt for the (then moderate) GOP.
Ah, if walls could talk.
Ike is head and shoulders above any Republican president who followed.
But, I think praise for him is misguided for the most part.
It was he who gave use the national positioning of Richard Nixon for president, it was he who gave us the cold war reign of the Duller brothers' horrors around the world, it was he who gave us the replace of democracy with the Shah in Iran and the current disaster.
Eisenhower, to cut the military budget, put the world on a hair-trigger for nuclear war, lacking any other response to any conflict in Europe between the west and east. That huge threat was President Kennedy's top priority to fix, as I understand.
He gave a great speech at the beginning and end of his presidency, the Cross of Iron and the Military-Industrial(-Congressional) complex. But policy-wise, he was nothing to brag about in my opinion - supporting tyranny, colonialism, the road to Vietnam.
His presidency was the presidency of the McCarthy era and blacklisting and the John Birch Society.
Yes, Ike was not their friend - but he wasn't exactly effective at preventing those forces, either. He can get credit for reluctantly enforcing the Supreme Court's civil rights decision - but was hardly a leader on the issue, and called Earl Warren his biggest mistake.
forest444
(5,902 posts)Ike's image has been one the most aggressively massaged of the former presidents - and I suspect above all because of all the free rein he gave the CIA (which as you know wields incredible influence over our media).
At the time he left office, however, he was looked at unfavorably by presidential historians and his approval ratings had been sagging for some time on account of the two recessions during his second term - a direct consequence of contractionary policies pushed by his Council of Economic Advisers Chairman (and Milton Friedman buddy) Arthur Burns.
His best-known domestic policy achievement - the Interstate Highway System - was actually crafted by Congress (Al Gore's father, in particular), and Ike only warmed to it after the Joint Chiefs mentioned it would be essential in case "the Reds invaded."
The "prosperous '50s" was likewise something Ike mostly inherited from Truman, without adding much to it himself. Contrary to popular perception today, GDP growth was slow under Ike (about 2.5% - which barely covered population growth back then) and unemployment under Ike actually rose sharply: from 2.5% to 7%, before Kennedy's reversal of Burns' tight monetary policy began reversing the trend in the Summer of 1961.
That said, he was indeed - relatively speaking - the last good Republican. His farewell address, in particular, was enlightenment of the kind we never see from presidents anymore - of either party.
And your post I return the comment, well said. I agree with your comments.
The CIA, in particular, was allowed to become a bigger disaster than we realize now for the public generally.
It happened largely not because Eisenhower wanted bad things, but because after the World War he led that was so horrific, a less deadly alternative than war was incredibly attractive - but happened to have opportunistic schemers such as Allen Dulles.
I've been reading L. Fletcher Prouty's "The Secret Team", which is one of the books that describes the history of how it went very wrong, exceeding all the limits its creators had tried to place on it, the tail wagging the dog.
Eisenhower made a comments at what point that he'd given up trying to reign in the Dulles brothers - which hardly exonerates him for keeping them in power.
Most of the good things that happened with Eisenhower were continuations of the FDR and Truman policies.
forest444
(5,902 posts)On a day like today, it's more important then ever to stay informed. References like yours remind us how easily hijacked this democracy of ours can be - especially when critical matters like state intelligence are left to Nazi collaborators to shape!
matt819
(10,749 posts)Grins
(7,128 posts)The author is Bryan Burrough, a Texan, who also wrote "Barbarians at the Gate."
In Texas in the 50's there was wealthy, and there was rich, and then there were the "Big Rich", all of them conservatives like the Koch brothers. The brothers learned from Texas' 'Big Rich'. A section in the book deals with them meeting Ike urging him to run, specifically, Texas oil man, Sid Richardson.
forest444
(5,902 posts)It brings to mind the old zinger about the Eisenhower administration when it took office: that it was made up of "eight millionaires and a plumber."
And that was in 1953 dollars.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)What an indictment!
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)are seen as above the law while turning us into hypocrites around the world...
kairos12
(12,817 posts)chapdrum
(930 posts)that'll get W his comeuppance.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)of salvaging down ticket elective slots?
PLEASE DO!!!!
mcar
(42,206 posts)written by a legitimate author and dealing with actual facts. As opposed to the dozens of anti-HRC screeds written in crayon by Fox News contributors.
Skittles
(152,963 posts)that is BULL FUCKING SHYTE right there