So as I’ve mentioned in my other diaries (time and time again) , I’m a pretty big Presidential nerd. Well of the first 44 that is. I have most of the Presidential memories, coins, bill signing pens, bumper stickers, and a mountain of books. I have a problem as my wife would openly proclaim and which I see no point in hiding. I’ve always been this way, ever since I was five and I first learned about the office. My dog eared photo book from 1992 that the Smithsonian published is missing half its pages and has several pencil markers on it, from when the seven year old me traced over the paintings.
As I have also mentioned in a previous post I think that Ronald Reagan was a horrible president and that his predecessor and successor were far superior figures. Despite the fact that they both failed to win re-election (for some reason the first rule in being concerned a great president). I also mentioned the fact that I have written a Photo book on Jimmy Carter and his hometown of Plains, so clearly I am very biased on this subject.
However while I am without question a big fan of the Man from Plains, and have read countless books about him and the 1976 election (okay its probably around twenty), this post is not about his presidency. I’m writing about a strange habit I’m finding among many Presidential Historians and fans. A lazy pattern of thinking that tries to create a simplistic way of abbreviating all the presidents in small soundbite ways, without any regard for the actual substance of the figures, their administrations, and their times. It produces an annoying vacuum chamber of talking points that soon makes its way on History Channel Biographies and common place discussions.
Before I started reading in-depth about the various presidents, my own views were shaped by these common perspectives. You all know them.
“Lincoln was the best” says your tiny book on the presidents when your seven
“Washington was the mythical towering figure” says your high school gym teacher who is always teaching Civics for some reason.
“JFK was a saint” says your grandfather
“Reagan restored the office” says way too many people.
and of course my all time favorite “Carter was a terrible president. But a great former President”
Most every President seems to fall victim to this simplicity way of thinking, with only a small few benefiting. Harding a figure largely forgotten today is usually regarded as a terrible president and person. Which both are actually untrue. He was a terrible husband with a weak heart, yet he was actually a pretty effective President. His cabinet was also pretty strong with the exception of the few who caused the Teapot Dome scandal. My point is when you just accept the social notion of an historical figure you deny yourself your own voice. So many of our forgotten Presidents are actually some of our more colorful. They are also forgotten because of vastly different things, and even those are often richly engaging topics to discover.
My point is Carter was actually a very effective president who passed a very large volume of important legislation. He just wasn’t a trans formative figure while in office, he has been afterwards.The one silver lining is this, is the Presidential revival, that usually takes place long after the president’s term ends. Best example of this is Truman who is now usually ranked in the top ten while he left office hugely unpopular. Likewise LBJ is now enjoying a fresh look by Historians not clouded by Vietnam. With Carter now living larger and still active, he too is now enjoying a great in surge of support. Back in 1984 democrats barely even mentioned his name, he wasn’t asked to speak and the convention. Now several candidates from countless states and running for positions ranging from the Presidency to the state senate, make to drive to Plains for some one on one time.
Likewise Acclaimed Biographies seem to be like oxygen for presidential legacies. Minor Presidents like Fillmore or Pierce don’t seem to be rewarded will thick volumes and never by well known Historians. On the flip side recent acclaimed Biographies of John Addams and Grant has led to complete rewrites by historians of their administrations and has also led to lesser known other Historians writing slimmer volumes of the same figures.
Even old and neglected Harding is getting a makeover. When it was revived in 2015 that he did in fact father a child out of wedlock, something his siblings children and his hometown had been increasingly guarding for decades, it actually humanized him. They always figured it would destroy what respectability he had left. Yet, it made him a more interesting and readable figure. Meanwhile Poor Reagan seems to be losing more steam each year, and Clinton seems stuck in second gear.
Was Carter a terrible president? Certainly wasn’t popular enough. Was Harding a terrible person? Certainly had his hands full. Was Reagan a saint? He’s certainly the patron saint of selfishness. Was Lincoln the best President? Hell yeah! Is the Trump White House correct in their view that history will be kind to him? BAHAHAHAHA… I’m sure Republicans will try.