I remember Robert Dole in the news as a crabby fellow, stubbornly partisan in the way that John Boehner now is. I considered him and his supporters as ancestral to the present era of hostility to compromise. How much of that impression was media-generated? I didn’t know the man personally, and I suppose that ultimately makes my opinions suspect. All I know is what I read in the newspapers and watched on television. .I’ve watched Dole on the news recently. He is portrayed as a tough, gruff guy, to be sure. But he is now lionized as official representative of the so-called “Greatest Generation.” His legislative methods are portrayed as a model of bi-partisan cooperation. His presidential run is portrayed as a noble and highly principled effort. (Personally, I think his candidacy was a throw-away – it was his last chance to run, and nobody else wanted it badly enough.) .I wonder if we look back and see things better than they were. We are often told, long after their terms end, that this or that person was wonderful within the framework of his times. We see this even with Bush in the short span since he left office, and in each president’s case all the way to Eisenhower. Whenever some prominent politician dies, we see this ritual performed. I remember at least bits and pieces of all these administrations and careers, and in many cases they had about as many controversies as in those in present days..Is this valid historical revisionism , based on facts come to light or newly interpreted; or a way to gloss over failings to place those people as inspirational demi-gods in the party pantheon? What view are we to take of these people: actions of their personal lives, actions for the districts or states they represented, or through actions that affected the entire nation? I think we get them all mixed up and come to invalid conclusions. I know we hesitate to speak ill of the dead, but I think we are often too kind in hindsight. And thus history is corrupted. It’s as if we see their official paintings and years later take that image as true representation..How are young people to judge what is fact, factoid, or fiction? Short of reading many, many biographies, how can we normal citizens to sift through the scree of information to find the truth of these peoples’ lives — not just be content to admire the monuments of their craggy remains?
I remember Robert Dole in the news as a crabby fellow, stubbornly partisan in the way that John Boehner now is. I considered him and his supporters as ancestral to the present era of hostility to compromise. How much of that impression was media-generated? I didn’t know the man personally, and I suppose that ultimately makes my opinions suspect. All I know is what I read in the newspapers and watched on television. .I’ve watched Dole on the news recently. He is portrayed as a tough, gruff guy, to be sure. But he is now lionized as official representative of the so-called “Greatest Generation.” His legislative methods are portrayed as a model of bi-partisan cooperation. His presidential run is portrayed as a noble and highly principled effort. (Personally, I think his candidacy was a throw-away – it was his last chance to run, and nobody else wanted it badly enough.) .I wonder if we look back and see things better than they were. We are often told, long after their terms end, that this or that person was wonderful within the framework of his times. We see this even with Bush in the short span since he left office, and in each president’s case all the way to Eisenhower. Whenever some prominent politician dies, we see this ritual performed. I remember at least bits and pieces of all these administrations and careers, and in many cases they had about as many controversies as in those in present days..Is this valid historical revisionism , based on facts come to light or newly interpreted; or a way to gloss over failings to place those people as inspirational demi-gods in the party pantheon? What view are we to take of these people: actions of their personal lives, actions for the districts or states they represented, or through actions that affected the entire nation? I think we get them all mixed up and come to invalid conclusions. I know we hesitate to speak ill of the dead, but I think we are often too kind in hindsight. And thus history is corrupted. It’s as if we see their official paintings and years later take that image as true representation..How are young people to judge what is fact, factoid, or fiction? Short of reading many, many biographies, how can we normal citizens to sift through the scree of information to find the truth of these peoples’ lives — not just be content to admire the monuments of their craggy remains?