Times Editorial : The difference
Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2008
Today is May 8. That means, just for all you amateur presidential historians out there, that this is Harry S. Truman's birthday. His remarkable life remains significant a whopping 124 years after his birth - and if for no other reason than the current president, George W. Bush, likes to frequently compare himself to the nation's 33 rd commander in chief.
Think about that for a minute. Following in the shadows of Franklin Roosevelt, arguably the greatest president in U. S. history, Truman presented Congress with one progressive reform after another. From the Marshall Plan (which provided economic and technical aid across western Europe in the aftermath of World War II ) to desegregating the U. S. armed forces, launching the Truman Doctrine to contain communism, supporting the creation of the United Nations, NATO and Israel, and saving millions of Koreans from advancing communists in the north, Harry Truman was about as good as it gets in the White House. It didn't hurt that Truman was a decent guy who everyone could expect to do the right thing, even if it wasn't politically popular.
And then there's George W. Bush. Where do you start ? Even as American soldiers have valiantly done their duty, Bush's leadership has left the nation without a clear direction for Middle East relations in the wake of occupation. On so many domestic issues, he has been AWOL for much of his presidency.
We lost count a long time ago of how many times Bush cynically used the events of Sept. 11, 2001, as a political tool, or as political cover. Much less, it seems, since the American people elected him to his second term in office.
From the beginning, Bush's own capacity for leadership was a question mark, but there was hope that he was smart enough to appoint topnotch advisers to help him be a good "decider. "Bush proved over and over - through his choice of vice president (Dick Cheney ) to secretary of defense (Donald Rumsfeld ) to attorney general (Alberto Gonzalez ) - that he either made poor selections or, once those people had clearly failed in their roles, that he chose individual loyalty over what was best for the country.
Now, in his final year, it's almost sickening to hear him open his mouth to speak to the need for energy policy reforms or environmental changes, or to hear him advise the American public about what the nation needs to do to gain economic strength. His record on international relations leaves much repair work to be done by the next president, Democrat or Republican.
And did we mention the part about his almost doubling the federal debt ? Sometimes listing every one of Bush's gaffes seems like limitless work.
Despite all this, Bush is hopeful (insistent even ) that history will treat him well. And he sees in Truman a fellow leader who went misunderstood in his own time. He's betting the passage of time leads people to understand his leadership.
Having said that, we can confidently say that were Truman still alive today, and if he knew about everything that has taken place during Bush's seven-and-a-half years in the White House, about every third word out of the Missouri native's mouth would have to be censored.
Fewer Americans seem to be listening to Bush these days. Partly that's because the media is spending all its time on the ongoing race to replace him, but it's also because Bush is so wildly unpopular. Everyone is generally unhappy with the way this decade has gone and, generally speaking, want to forget about it.
We don't see history treating Bush as kindly as it did Truman. Today he seems to have positioned himself on the wrong side of almost every important issue of the day. Aside from spending billions to fight AIDS in Africa, it's difficult to find a highlight to the Bush presidency.
The subtle difference between the two is that Truman spent his political career fighting to protect the interests of people. Bush has spent his time in office protecting the political interests that put him in the Oval Office.
Harry Truman was always at peace with the decisions he made in the White House. We wonder if a similar fate awaits Bush.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online