|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Looking Back on Ike
| Article
# : |
18836 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
12 / 1991 |
3,692 Words |
| Author
: |
John P. Rossi
John P. Rossi is professor of history at La Salle University
in Philadelphia. |
In his wonderful essay on Gandhi, George Orwell observed that "regarded simply as a politician, and compared with the other leading political figures of our time, how clean a smell he has managed to leave behind." The same observation could be made of Dwight Eisenhowower and his presidency. How good he looks, now, in contrast to when he left the White House in 1961.
In 1962 Arthur Schelsinger, Jr., polled some seventy-five leading historians to rank and rate the American presidents. Ike came in twenty-second, tied with Chester A. Arthur! What a commentary on the judgment of the historical profession. But now in less than thirty years Ike has risen to ninth place, just behind his predecessor, Harry Truman, according to a survey of forty scholars by the Chicago Tribune. What caused this startling reevaluation? Why have scholars and critics of the presidency shown a new appreciation for Ike's positive qualities? The explanation, I believe, tells us much about the way ideas move in our society and much about the fickleness of the concept of "reputation." It also should lead us to be careful of evaluation by academic scholars, who, despite their reputation for insight, are often just as influenced by fads as the public.
Eisenhower's Successors
Part of Eisenhower's present appeal flows from the contrast with his successors. Seven men have held the presidency after Ike and, while it is too soon to make any firm evaluation of Reagan and Bush, I believe it is safe to say that none of Ike's successors will oust him from his ranking as a successful president. John Kennedy's reign was too short for much to be accomplished, and the initial enthusiasm for him in the aftermath of his tragic assassination has not held up to close scrutiny, despite the mythologizing of Schesinger, Ted Sorensen, and others of the "Camelot" clique.
Lyndon Johnson's presidency remains mired in the swamps of the Big Muddy of Vietnam. While Johnson still seems bigger than life, what we know about him repels rather than attracts, as evidenced by Robert Caro's recent biography. Even Johnson's ambitious social and civil rights legislation, his War on Poverty, lost whatever glamour it once had in the late 1970s and the Regan-oriented 1980s. I see no evidence of a positive reevaluation of Johnson taking place in the foreseeable future.
Richard Nixon has tried with limited success to revive his reputation by writing extensively on his role in American foreign policy.
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
