Misunderestimating and the Bush Legacy

Conservatives--pardon, Bush diehards--seem to be going all giggly over Andrew Roberts' suggestion that we may be misunderestimating George Bush and that his place in history may be somewhat grander than his derisory 23 percent poll rating today. Strictly speaking, Roberts is right: spot and forward markets offer different prices. Nobody was ready to put up as marble temple for Abraham Lincoln at the end of the Civil War. More narrowly also: if, as, and when we "win" the "War" on "Terror," then lots of the incumbent's crimes and follies may be forgotten, if not exactly forgiven. Just remember how Ronald Reagan was saved from looking like a doofus by the utterly unexpected (unexpected at least by Republicans) intervention of Mikhail Gorbachev. Okay,granted, Reagan still looked like a doofus, but a loveable doofus instead of an industrial-strength clusterfuck. Same thing could happen to Bush.

But there are all sorts of possible endings to this story. Take Warren G. Harding: still much loved and admired when he decamped in 1923--only months later did the true awfulness of his incumbency begin to become apparent. Or, Franklin Pierce. He looked bad when he left office; even worse by the end of the Civil War. Someday, those conservatives may look back on 23 percent with nostalgia.