History & Perceptions
What led to the misimpression was my contention that virtually all second-term presidents run into serious trouble. To the viewer this understandably made Bush's current difficulties seem less a reflection on his own inadequacies than some more general symptom of institutional weakness. If the presidency is prone to second-term blues then Bush's low poll numbers are hardly a measure of his adminstration's record. Hence, concluded the viewer, I had been shilling for Bush.
Is there a way to tell the story of second-term presidencies without appearing to excuse Bush's many mistakes? Sure. You can come right out and say that he's mainly having difficulties because the chickens are coming home to roost. All the bad mistakes he made in the first term are now facing him in his second.
But there's a risk in being so straight forward. Supporters of Bush will conclude you are shilling for the Bush hating crowd.
I see no way to solve this problem. Somebody is always going to be peeved at the way one employs history to shed light on current events. But it's important to remember when we go on TV and write op eds that we will always face charges of bias. It's inescapable.
comments powered by Disqus
Nonpartisan - 3/16/2007
from this assumption that, because historians have studied academic material for years and are now "experts," that makes them "impartial." The idea is pure poppycock, in my opinion -- why shouldn't having MORE information result in one's having a MORE clearly defined opinion?
So long as a historian presents information with his or her personal opinions clearly delineated from the rest of the material, that academic is in the clear as far as I'm concerned.
- Why You Should Feel Free to Ignore Polls for a Few Weeks
- Neanderthals in Germany Went Extinct Right After Population Peak
- A Worker Broke a Window at Yale and Shed Light on History
- Which Barack Obama speech is the one for the history books?
- A Brief History Of Spousal Speeches At Political Conventions