Bloodless Coup

Realist Scholar Denounces Idealist President

This is posted over on Oxblog. I don't think it makes the point David thinks it makes (well, I do, but that point is so obvious as to be of no interest whatsoever). Why I think it's interesting is that in an aside David A. makes an interesting point, even if it seems tinged with partisan indignation. Harry Truman was no Harry Truman. I think that's exactly right. Why exactly is Truman's reputation so high? There were some things he did that were great - obviously in domestic policy (though let's overlook those awful Supreme Court appoinments), but also in foreign policy (Berlin, NATO) - but he made many errors in foreign policy and his White House was not one that I think we should seek to emulate. Is it just that if the last wildly successful biography of a president was fawning even for hagiography (which isn't to say it wasn;t a good book and a great read) that he's bound to be admired? Is it that we have a need to idolize all of our presidents even though many of them have a host of faults that should chill us to the bone? What gives?