Bloodless Coup

The Latest Weekly Standard Idiocy: Bush '04 = Truman '48

I usually wouldn't bother rebuking stuff published in the Standard. But this is rewriting history that happened last week! I guess their new motto is that it's never too early to get the revisionism going. There are a host of things wrong with this analogy, but let's just look at a few of the most glaring mistakes. To say that Kerry was "bound to win" like Dewey was is a laughable statement. Look at the polls - I don't remember seeing any giant margins for Kerry. Show them to me (oh, wait, you can't - so gigantic factual inaccuracy that fatally undermines your premise #1 ... let's proceed). Or look at the popularity of the incumbent - the idea that Bush was as unpopular as Truman is equally laughable. I mean Truman saw not one but two wings of his party break off and run candidates against him for the presidency (and that was after many major players had tried to dump Truman himself as the official Democratic candidate in favor of General Eisenhower). Truman couldn't even get one of the candidates he wanted to run with him as Vice President to say yes to the proposition (Justice Douglas didn't see the point of joining a likely to lose ticket). If we bother with the remainder of the article ...

Further rewriting campaign history, the author (David Gelernter) notes that both Bush and Truman served in the National Guard. Perhaps, but Truman served in France in World War I while Bush served in Alabama - and I think most voters would note that's a key distinction. The author also notes that, like Truman, Bush never planned to be president (huh? - then what exactly was it that Bush was doing from 1998-2000? methinks more than a little planning occurred).

He then proceeds to note a variety of ways in which they were similar - but ways that I don't think reflect well on either man. For example - "Bush, like Truman, took office with no clear worldview or plan of action--but with non-negotiable moral principles." One, I'm not sure I buy that, and two, even if one does, is that a good thing? They both "redefined America's world mission" - ok, they both responded to events (after making early mistakes). I'm not clear on how this reflects well on them either. Etc, etc, etc. While his campaign analysis is, in four words, plainly wrong and stupid, there's more to this. But not much that makes me hopeful about our future. I mean if Bush really is Truman what do we have to look forward too? A reliance on too many hacks and old friends. Corruption scandals. The worst Supreme Court appointments in decades (Truman's were a notably undistinguished group - as to one reason why, see earlier comment about hacks and old friends). Oh, and wait, we get to misread powerful states, make glaring political and intelligence mistakes, and get bogged down in a war that will kill tens of thousands of Americans. I really wish he'd compared him to another ex-president. This is a depressing thought with which to start a Friday.