My sympathies are with the school-age kids whose summers just came to a screeching halt. Summer vacation is getting shorter and shorter. Yet a few kids in the South who’ve been working in the tobacco fields say, “We’re okay with it.”
Depends On If You Like ‘Em
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent trip to Taiwan elicited many reactions. It’s difficult to say whether her trip was best for the long-term security of Taiwan or American relations with China. It’s certainly debatable whether a high-ranking U.S. official should travel there when the current presidential administration has cautioned against such trips.
However, set aside the geopolitical ramifications and political messaging. Pay attention to the descriptions of her visit: “bold,” “defiant,” “courageous.” Have you ever noticed how vocabulary describing similar actions by different people shifts depending on if we like and support the people? One politician stands up to a right-wing mob, and they’re called “courageous.” Another politician stands up to a left-wing mob, and they’re called “inflammatory.” Don’t those words mean very different things?
I was thinking a few days ago about something I had planned to say in a public venue. I thought, “I definitely don’t want to come off as provocative or controversial.” I then stopped myself. “What am I saying? Of course, I’m trying to be provocative! I’m trying to provoke some careful, critical thinking about some contemporary concerns.” Simultaneously, even if what I said was met with controversy, I wasn’t intending to be controversial, an outcome many public figures seek these days to generate attention, clicks, and likes.
What’s historic (good) to some is unprecedented (bad) to others. What’s courageous (good) to some is provocative (bad) to others. These are value judgments, not objective descriptions.
I always groan at the “historic/unprecedented” example. Why is something necessarily good if it’s historic, a first of sorts, while something is necessarily negative and maybe even sinister if it’s “unprecedented?” And what’s the difference? This again reflects one’s worldview as applied to a particular development or event.
There are glaring examples of this type of thing, such as “Vice President Kamala Harris is the first multiracial person to serve as Vice President or President.” Poor Charles Curtis. I mean, I realize it was 90 years ago (history started five minutes ago for many people). And I realize people don’t like his running mate (Herbert Hoover) as well as I do, but he was historic.
Our level of historical amnesia is amazing, though not as amazing as our level of ideological bias.
Measuring Greatness
Speaking of history and ideology, I’ve recently watched three documentaries on various American presidents: Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. Readers may recall from previous newsletters that I love presidential history. I don’t necessarily love presidential rankings, though anytime a new list is released it’s interesting to glance over.
Part of why I don’t like such lists is that they tend to be created by the same types of people using the same types of criteria leading to the same results. Thus, documentaries on Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Johnson are the ones that keep being made. They’re among the best-rated presidents. I’ll call them “consequential” and “significant,” and leave value judgments aside.
Just to give readers a sense of the criteria used by the organizations who rank presidential greatness, here are a few: “public persuasion,” “crisis leadership,” “economic management,” and “international relationships.” As far as these go, they’re not terrible. Certainly, I prefer these to “ability to inspire the American people.” Who could forget that part of the Constitutional requirements for President?
Though I have many, I’ll mention three gripes with presidential rankings.
First, we must concede that even criteria like those above are subject to considerable interpretation. They seem reasonable and somewhat consistent with how most people understand the presidency. Yet consider “economic management.” Much of how one interprets this will depend upon one’s understanding of the government’s role in the free market, the relative strength and conditions of the economy, and countless factors that may or may not be within the president’s control. So the evaluation will depend upon the political philosophy of the evaluator (usually a history professor or biographer), as well as their unavoidable biases for or against particular presidents.
Isn’t it interesting how most “great presidents” believed in a much more expansive role of the presidency and federal government?
Second, a second complaint is that it isn’t clear how criteria should be appropriately weighed relative to other criteria. A presidency filled with crises—let’s say of both the economic and international kind—could give a president more opportunity to shine and show greatness. Conversely, a president who presided over a time of relative stability competently and Constitutionally could be disadvantaged.
Yet is there another way to look at the most tumultuous presidencies? Should presidents be held to a higher degree of scrutiny if they promised the world in their campaigns and inaugural addresses, yet only have middling success in navigated their many crises? It’s unclear to me how those ranking presidents compare and weigh the criteria they employ.
Finally—and this is a pet peeve for sure—why do we rank presidents so low who didn’t live long into their terms? Poor William Henry Harrison (32 days in) and James Garfield (200 days in). Why should they be relegated to such low rankings? Wouldn’t it be better to put an asterisk by their names and leave them off the rankings? John F. Kennedy inspired many people with a handful of speeches, had a thin legislative record, and didn’t complete a full term, and is often near the top of lists. Oh, and he’s on our currency, too. Remember: he was historic.
Connecting the Dots
This newsletter could sound like a lot of whining, an outlier conservative appraisal of presidential rankings. No doubt small government types like myself do see this subject quite differently.
However, I can appreciate the contributions of many presidents whose candidacies I would not have supported or ones I did not support. I think there’s great value in knowing the history of our Commanders in Chief, even the obscure or controversial ones. Indeed, I enjoyed the documentaries on Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Johnson.
But when we watch such films, we need to keep our wits about us if we want to think clearly about history. Watch for euphemisms like “complicated,” a favorite word of historians who love certain presidents but have a hard time defending certain actions or policies. Notice when Teddy Roosevelt is called “adventurous” and “energetic,” not “reckless.” Notice when Johnson is called “determined,” “relentless,” and “clever,” not “partisan”’ and “manipulative.”
Even despite all the admiration I have for President Lincoln, suspending habeas corpus and “evolving” on the slavery issue deserve unbiased scrutiny. Thankfully, the contributors in that documentary were much less dewy-eyed and managed to bring out the particulars of these complexities.
I don’t think that Christians must be as fascinated by presidential history as I am, but Christians are a historical people. They see themselves as part of God’s story, a story which includes our moment in the unfolding of a particular nation. Moreover, history is instructive. It teaches us about human achievement and human folly, confirming so much of what we read about in Proverbs. We learn to be wiser people in our own time so that we’re not deceived.
The discipline and opportunity of learning the history of our own local churches is something we ignore to our peril. I can’t imagine thinking about our ministry of revitalization at Grace without having a handle on our history. I can’t imagine appreciating God’s goodness to us without walking down memory lane. If anything, I regret not conducting more oral histories with some of our Builder Generation members who are now with the Lord.
But if presidential rankings and documentaries tell us anything, it’s that there’s more than one way to see and tell the story. Hopefully we’re all committed to doing that as honestly and helpfully as we can.
Currently Reading:
George Yancey, Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative to Colorblindness and Antiracism.
Quote of the Week:
We have a problem. Far too many members of our churches find it far too easy to live without clear evidence of their faith. . . We have so emphasized salvation by faith alone that we have based assurance of salvation on the mere profession of faith. Intentionally or not, we have led people to believe that once they have “trusted Jesus” there is no further danger to their souls.