Historians have been gathering to discuss how the Bush Presidency should be written into the history books, and already there have been dramatic announcements that Bush is the "worst President in history" by some of the "delegates" to this convention.
With all due respect to this gathering of academics and writers, I find myself questioning whether they should even be talking about this subject yet. History is written best by those who have some years of separation between the subject and themselves. Historians of today should be documenting what happens and leave the judgments to those who come after them.
The historians of today are just as polarized by the politics of today as anyone else in the American public, and so are susceptible to making judgments without the benefit of knowing what happened after President Bush left office on January 20th. Historians of today only have a partial picture; it's like calling a football game at halftime with the score tied. They can't do that. The story is still unfolding!
I doubt they can take a neutral stance on President Bush. I know I couldn't; the difference between them and me is that I can admit that I can't be neutral. And more, I WON'T. But I'm not the one who's going to be writing the history books either.
Treat whatever you hear coming from historians of today with a grain of salt. They're no different than you or me with regards to how much people like or dislike President Bush and his decisions as President.
These historians shouldn't insult us by pretending to have neutral opinions. "President Bush is the worst President in history" proves it.
No comments:
Post a Comment