IN THE upcoming presidential election, one of the main questions asked, especially by Democrats, is whether a John McCain presidency would simply be the third term of George Bush’s; as they argue, there could hardly be a worse occurrence for the wellbeing of the country. This idea gives an idea of the legacy of George W. Bush in the eyes of many in the country. We should not, however, be so quick to judge the legacy of a president. We can certainly gauge his popularity (low, according to most polls — even a Fox News poll has it at 26 percent), but his ultimate legacy will be determined by the future, by people who have an opportunity to look back at the results of the War on Terror, Iraq and the measures his administration is taking on the economy. In order to emphasize the importance of chronological distance in determining the final legacy of a public figure, it is useful to compare George W. Bush to one of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln.
At first glance, this seems like a laughable comparison. After all, Lincoln has a monument on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and his image on the five dollar bill and the penny. It seems highly unlikely that Bush will ever earn similar forms of recognition (unless his administration does an incredible job warding off financial turmoil in the next few months). But the two presidents have more similarities than meet the immediate eye.
Both presidents have proven highly divisive. We all know about the liberal hatred for George Bush; indeed it is hardly possible to travel around Charlottesville and not see bumper stickers eagerly anticipating Bush’s last day in office, or the slogan “Bush lied, people died.” What many forget, is that Lincoln was perhaps the most divisive presidential candidate in American history, as his election prompted the secession of seven states from the Union. Lincoln was widely loathed in many states south of the Mason-Dixon Line.
Both also inspired derision over their appearance and simplicity of manner. If one looks at caricatures of Bush, he often appears simian in form, with the intellect of a high school dropout. Lincoln inspired similar comments, even from those in the North. One of his generals referred to him behind his back as “the original gorilla.” He acquired the moniker “the Railsplitter” from those who emphasized his humble beginnings and lack of a formal education. Both Bush and Lincoln inflamed the wrath of those opposed to them in a very visceral way, manifested by pokes at appearances and intellect.
The most interesting comparison between the two, however, is that each faced the defining crisis of their epoch and led with a firm hand through it. Nearly immediately after Lincoln’s inauguration, he faced the Civil War, the defining event of the 19th century, if not American history. He led with tenacity, holding to a firm belief that “the Union is perpetual” in the face of the greatest bloodletting in American history. He refused to even consider the dissolution of the Union, nor to allow states to secede. In doing so he navigated the country through its greatest crisis.
George Bush also faced a crisis early in his presidency, one that would come to define it. In this case it was the attacks of September 11, 2001, which have in turn of course led to the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. These have become, if not in principle, then in practice, extremely unpopular, and have become inextricably tied with the legacy of George W. Bush. In much the same way, Lincoln’s legacy was tied with the Civil War. Both faced opposition from a civilian home front that wanted an end to the bloodshed. Both faced opposition from a Democratic party concerned first and foremost with peace. Both have taken criticism for infringement on civil rights, Bush for increasing government surveillance on citizens, Lincoln for lifting the right of habeas corpus during the early parts of the war. Both faced a reelection campaign in which the war predominated. And both showed tenacity and pursued the conflict in which they were embroiled despite all the criticism they faced.
Despite these similarities, there will be differences in the ultimate legacies of Lincoln and Bush. Obviously the Civil War was a more catastrophic event than the September 11 attacks and the War on Terror will be. And Lincoln’s legacy is aided by his martyrdom (though we would be wise to remember that there were those who rejoiced in his death). The point to be made is this: Even the legacies of those presidents we consider our greatest can appear less than brilliant in the short term, and that before we judge and condemn George Bush, we need to allow time to see where the chips ultimately fall on the War on Terror and the other crises of his administration.
Robby Colby’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at r.colby@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 6 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | January 13, 2025After all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
