StarDestroyer.Net BBS

[Put this in History because I'm more interested in it as a measure of the importance of historical writing than as an insight into Bush]

So was reading this article by journalist Walt Harrington. It's a chronicle of Harrington's on-and-off again dealings with Bush Jr, from an initial meeting in the mid-80s - when Bush was starting to get serious about life - upto his time in the White House and afterwards.

The constant theme in the piece is Bush's engagement with history and historical legacies; his voracious consumption of historical works generally but in particular political biographies. Harrington records that Bush read 14 biographies of Lincoln during his time in office, as well as biographies and treatments of the likes of Sam Houston and George Washington. Bush's reading reinforced the central philosophy he had taken out of his historical education at university - that of the struggle between tyranny and freedom - and created a new conviction: that public reaction, public criticism, should not shake his convictions or his chosen path and that history would, ultimately vindicate him. It's an interesting insight into the way people - albeit in this case a person in a unique position - interact with historical writing. Bush is fascinated by the way visionaries are pilloried at the time and then lauded by history, and applies it to himself; but you wonder if, having come to that conclusion, he picked his reading to reinforce it. You wonder how he would view Nixon, the work around him, and the continued battles around his legacy and rehabilitation (incidentally - has anyone read Anthony Summers biography of him? Think I might pick it up soon). There's plenty of other examples; but tl;dr, it explains a lot about Bush's presidency that he bought to totally into the life story and constructed historical narrative of one (great) man.

So I suppose on the one hand the piece questions the popular impression of Bush at a stupid Texas oilman; on the other it enforces it, by demonstrating a tremendous lack of self-reflection or critical thinking. But it also shows how important history - and dominant historical narratives - are in shaping the thoughts of the world's most important people. Definitely worth reading.

thejester wrote:So I suppose on the one hand the piece questions the popular impression of Bush at a stupid Texas oilman; on the other it enforces it, by demonstrating a tremendous lack of self-reflection or critical thinking. But it also shows how important history - and dominant historical narratives - are in shaping the thoughts of the world's most important people. Definitely worth reading.

Agreed. There's a quote near the end of the article, where the author asks him "Isn’t it possible to pray for Osama bin Laden and also want to bring him to justice?" to which he responds "I’m not sophisticated enough in prayer, evidently, to be able to pray for Osama bin Laden and at the same time go hunt him," which I think reflects on what I take from it as indicative of his generally superficial grasp of history and a tendency to interpret it so that it simply reinforces preconceptions. I recall Bush once comparing the occupation of Iraq to that of Japan; it's simply absurd.

For as many cases there are of great figures in history triumphing over consensus or defying intense unpopularity, there are as many, if not more, historical figures who remain objects of mockery and derision for their refusal or inability to adapt to circumstances. There are also, of course, those who have wrought tremendous evil by attempting to enforce their particular view or ideals upon an unwilling nation or world. I believe that is how President Bush will be remembered, a weak, stubborn man who cannot compromise on his ideals, no matter the cost.

TC Pilot wrote:

thejester wrote:So I suppose on the one hand the piece questions the popular impression of Bush at a stupid Texas oilman; on the other it enforces it, by demonstrating a tremendous lack of self-reflection or critical thinking. But it also shows how important history - and dominant historical narratives - are in shaping the thoughts of the world's most important people. Definitely worth reading.

Agreed. There's a quote near the end of the article, where the author asks him "Isn’t it possible to pray for Osama bin Laden and also want to bring him to justice?" to which he responds "I’m not sophisticated enough in prayer, evidently, to be able to pray for Osama bin Laden and at the same time go hunt him," which I think reflects on what I take from it as indicative of his generally superficial grasp of history and a tendency to interpret it so that it simply reinforces preconceptions. I recall Bush once comparing the occupation of Iraq to that of Japan; it's simply absurd.

I'm not going to dispute your assessment of the man, but I don't think the quote speaks to it.

There have been quite capable people, with no small degree of historical perspective, who had no interest in praying for people they viewed as despicable enemies.

I brought it up more for that "I'm not a sophisticated enough man" part rather than the bin Laden part. Convenient rhetoric, I confess. But he was no more capable of a nuanced approach toward his opponents in the world (the classic "You're either with us or against us") than he is a circumspect student of history.

On that note, I was thinking over Bush's tendency to speak about "freedom," something that the article highlights as a defining characteristic of his historical view (freedom vs. tyranny). Can anyone recall a point in which he ever defined freedom in some coherent fashion? I suspect he really hasn't (and can't), but rather that its essentially some nebulous concept left adrift in the confines of his own mind. It's interesting to consider his devotion to "freedom," yet being notorious for electoral fraud (perhaps not the best word for it, but I think adequate for my purpose), repeated military action, infringements of civil rights, torture of prisoners, and neo-liberal corporatism. It may be even more interesting to compare Bush with Wilson, perhaps the closest 20th Century president to be as politically stubborn and hypocritical in putting his ideals into practice as Bush was. Or perhaps it's a case of "the ends justify the means."

It just goes to show that quantity of study means nothing if your perspective is wrong. You can read a work on anything and interpret it as you wish to unless you're really understanding it impartially. This is why teachers usually *test* material they ask a student to study.

If George W. Bush saw himself as the next Lincoln then you'd think a lesson he should have gleaned from his studies is that the times have changed. America's situation has never been as desperate as it was in 1860. So justification for lying to the public, suspending civil rights, and spending the economy into the ground for broken wars with vague goals is very thin. Anyone who performs heinous or dishonest crimes and justifies them by claiming history will one day vilify them needs their head checked.

He's read 14 biographies of Lincoln; I don't doubt he instantly leapt to 'the ends justifies the means' given Lincoln's various flirtations with illegality.

After posting this I picked up Bob Woodward's State of Denial, which I picked up cheap a few months ago but had only flicked through previously. What struck me in the early paragraphs is the characterisation of Bush recycling the 'greatest generation' narrative and how much it influenced him in the months following 9/11. His father and his father's generation had been called to do battle with tyranny; so 9/11 meant Bush was now called to the banner, albeit a bit latter in life. I don't think that's (just?) Daddy issues at work: the greatest generation narrative is so dominant in the US that it seems inevitable that someone with the reading interests of Bush would naturally make the jump. What makes that particularly interesting is the way that that narrative is totally absent in Australia; despite broadly similar circumstances Australia's Second World War is a much muddier affair in public memory. It'd be interesting, by way of shallow comparison, to see what the likes of Howard and Blair were reading during this period.

The other thing that came through in the early pages of State of Denial was the shadow of Vietnam. The US military was and is obsessed with not repeating the mistakes of Vietnam, but it seems to me that in only picking certain narratives of that defeat they've fumbled again. Col Gian Gentile has a good deconstruction of the way certain narratives of Vietnam were used to justify policy in Iraq, and have become so widely accepted they've simultaneously obscured both what actually happened in Vietnam and what actually happened in Iraq. They're both pretty powerful examples of the influence historians have on public life and public policy.

I'm not surprised at all to see that the reality of post-Vietnam was the Pentagon was so sensitive to that war they pussied out of actually dissecting it and finding out where they went wrong. They just gleaned some general lessons and then claimed that if only they'd changed the guy in charge then by golly Vietnam would have been a US victory. The simple explanation for Vietnam will always be the military applied itself to a situation it was not suited to resolve. They probably don't want to hear that though. Since the perception of the modern American Military is that it's nation's arm of foreign policy throughout the world. Which is really a pretty terrifying picture for everyone who isn't American.

If Bush reads as much as they say he does then it's not such a stretch that he graduated from Yale anymore. Theoretical knowledge is still different from practical knowledge though, and it's apparent now that he didn't learn the right lessons from his vast study. I would not be surprised to see a perversion of the "Greatest Generation" ideal in his mind either. He viewed himself as the next Lincoln, and this generation's Americans as the next great G.I.s ready to punch a Nazi in the face.

I might also be curious to see the authors of the books that he read. Plenty of historical authors out there, especially older ones, aren't really as interested in detailing history as much as they want to push their cloaked agenda.

CaptHawkeye wrote:If Bush reads as much as they say he does then it's not such a stretch that he graduated from Yale anymore. Theoretical knowledge is still different from practical knowledge though, and it's apparent now that he didn't learn the right lessons from his vast study. I would not be surprised to see a perversion of the "Greatest Generation" ideal in his mind either. He viewed himself as the next Lincoln, and this generation's Americans as the next great G.I.s ready to punch a Nazi in the face.

Interesting. It ties into some of those wonky 'generational crisis' things that pop up from time to time; we had someone mention them... here The things are bunk, but I can see them being popular for someone who has a theoretically large but basically shallow grasp of history, and not much of an eye for details.

As a joke:

Maybe that's why he helped engineer a new depression- he's trying to harden us for the job of Nazi-punching.