Arthur Schlesinger Vs. The Imperial President

"The good historian does not stop with the history. As the situation requires and compels, he goes on to making it." -- John Kenneth Galbraith on the legacy of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who has died at age 89, remained an active and important commentator on American politics until his last days. In New York City, where he resided, he was a steady presence -- not merely on the op-ed page of The New York Times but at events like the debut of Robert Greenwald's documentary "Outfoxed," where I recall talking with him at great length about our mutual sense of the sorry state of American media in the 21st century.

There will be much discussion about Schlesinger's legacy; wise and well-meaning commentators will diverge with regard to the important contributions of this multifaceted man. He played a central role in defining post-war liberalism, helping Eleanor Roosevelt, Hubert Humphrey and others to forge Americans for Democratic Action -- and then explaining the ideology, with his 1949 book, The Vital Center. He authored essential texts on American democracy and the presidency, especially his first-hand recollection of serving in the administration of John Kennedy, A Thousand Days. He advised presidents, including Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and he challenged presidents -- Schlesinger's high-profile departure from the Johnson administration was followed by his emergence as one of the most articulate and aggressive critics of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. He nurtured and encouraged several generations of young historians and writers, including this one, who even as we sometimes disagreed on fine points regarding Henry Wallace or multiculturalism had the great pleasure of spending many an afternoon talking politics with the historian in his old offices at the Graduate School of the City of New York.

I will always value Schlesinger most for his popularization of the concept that America in the 2Oth century developed an "imperial presidency." Schlesinger, a confidante of candidates and presidents from Adlai Stevenson to Bobby Kennedy to Bill Clinton, was not so averse to the exercise of presidential powers as some of us. But he was a brilliant student of the accumulations and abuses of those powers. And he boldly spoke up when he believed presidents had stepped across Constitutional and moral lines. While Schlesinger popularized the phrase, "the imperial presidency," as a description for the excesses of Richard Nixon, he applied it with even greater urgency to the presidency of George W. Bush.

In the early 197Os, Schlesinger wrote of his fear that American political system was threatened by "a conception of presidential power so spacious and peremptory as to imply a radical transformation of the traditional polity."

Thirty years later, Schlesinger saw those fears realized in ways that even he had not dared imagine. When John Dean, who would suggest that the misdeeds of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were "worse than Watergate," asked Schlesinger if the Bush presidency met the classic definition of executive excess, the historian replied, "I'd certainly say this is an imperial presidency."

The historian worried deeply, and wrote frequently, about his concerns regarding the excessive secrecy and the disregard for the rule of law that have characterized the Bush presidency. But Schlesinger worried most about Bush's misread of his role as commander-in-chief. A scholar of the separation of powers, and a true believer in the benefits of checks and balances, Schlesinger wanted the Congress to challenge Bush with regards to the rush to invade Iraq and the execution of the occupation that followed upon it.

Schlesinger was blunt about what he thought of Bush's war in Iraq. It was, he wrote "based on fantasy, deception and self-deception." He was equally blunt about what he thought of Bush's hunger for a confrontation with Iran, which he suggested was "also fantasy, deception and self-deception."

Above all, Schlesinger believed that Bush desperately needed advice and counsel from critics of his policies -- be they members of Congress or Pulitzer Prize-winning historians who had freelanced as White House aides.

One of the finest of Schlesinger's articles in recent years imagined "A Quiet Telephone Conversation With George W. Bush." In it, he recalled the president asking for ideas about how to handle the Iraq imbroglio.

"I would seize an appropriate moment to declare victory -- and cut and run," Schlesinger imagined telling Bush, in an article written in 2OO5 for the Financial Times newspaper.

To Bush's suggestion that such a move would "wreck our credibility," the historian replied with just a bit of whimsy, "Cut-and-run has a bad reputation." Then, explaining that he had heard the same fears expressed before the U.S. exit from Vietnam, Schlesinger continued, "The reaction of most foreigners was to see America, after a long aberration, coming to its senses. Cut-and-run got us out of an unwinnable war in which our vital interests were not involved. Cut-and-run liberated U.S. armed forces for containment and deterrence elsewhere on the planet. Our withdrawal from Vietnam actually increased our credibility -- as de Gaulle's retreat from Algeria increased France's credibility. And the aftermath refuted the domino theory that got us into the Vietnam War -- just as the aftermath refutes the weapons-of-mass-destruction theory that got us into the Iraq War. Mr. President, please contemplate our withdrawal from Vietnam as a historic precedent."

In the imaginary conversation, Schlesinger acknowledged that, "The future of Iraq is uncertain. Cut-and-run might lead to free-for-all anarchy or to Islamic domination; but it might equally precipitate Sunni-Shiite-Kurd collaboration in containing the insurgency and governing the country. Maybe the shock of U.S. withdrawal will stimulate the rise of Iraqi responsibility."

Rather than focus on what will happen in Iraq if the U.S. leaves, however, the historian suggested that Bush should more seriously consider the consequences of staying the course. "[Surely] so long as the American military occupation lasts, it serves as a recruiting incentive for terrorists all over the Middle East... That is the fatal contradiction in the policy of staying the course."

After some addition sparring with Bush, who Schlesinger imagined referring to him as "Artie," the historian finished by counseling, "Mr. President, our true national interests lie in ending this senseless war."

There will be many epitaphs for Arthur Schlesinger Jr. But I suspect that the man who sought not merely to explain the arc of history but to bend it in the direction of sanity would appreciate being remembered as an American whose wisdom and patriotism prevented him from deferring to a presidents gone wrong. And that the great historian of the American presidency tried to his last to counsel a particularly imperial president to abandon a particularly wrong course.

Actually, if there is to be a specific epitaph, perhaps it is best taken from an article Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote late last summer, titled, "Bush's Thousand Days." He closed by warning that, "There is no more dangerous thing for a democracy than a foreign policy based on presidential preventive war."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (29)

1. Obviously Mr Schlesinger is right about Iraq...

   but found this quote from Mr Nichols' interesting..."role in defining post-war liberalism, helping Eleanor Roosevelt, Hubert Humphrey and others to forge Americans for Democratic Action"

   Hubert Humphrey?!?!?

   Given the Vietnam analogies he later throws around, did Mr Nichols FORGET that Humphrey was an ardent "Hillary-style" supporter of the Vietnam War, almost right upto Election Day 1968, and was WIDELY hated by the New Left for his support of Johnson's policies.

   His later "redemption" as a "Happy Warrior of liberalism" was mostly at the behest of his friends and those who wanted to isolate Democrats from their own responsibility for Vietnam.

   Posted by Mask at 03/01/2007 @ 3:39pm

2. ADA Updates March 01, 2007 ADA Founder Arthur Schlesinger -

   60 years ago last month, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., helped fellow liberal giants such as Eleanor Roosevelt, John Kenneth Galbraith, Walter Reuther, and Hubert Humphrey in founding Americans for Democratic Action.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 03/01/2007 @ 3:57pm

3. Walter Reuther...hmmm?

   "He later claimed that he disapproved of the repressive Stalinist regime, but his reports from Russia and his lectures after returning home were enthusiastically supportive.

   At the end of the trip he wrote, "the atmosphere of freedom and security, shop meetings with their proletarian industrial democracy; all these things make an inspiring contrast to what we know as Ford wage slaves in Detroit. What we have experienced here has reeducated us along new and more practical lines.""

   I love those old Stalinists from the 30s...who LATER claim they were "always against Stalinism".

   Posted by Mask at 03/01/2007 @ 4:17pm

4. I love those old Stalinists from the 30s...who LATER claim they were "always against Stalinism".

   Posted by MASK 03/01/2007 @ 4:17pm | ignore this person

   despite their all too human faults, they had something you will never know, idealism.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 03/01/2007 @ 4:29pm

5. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/01/2007 @ 4:29pm

   Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that "idealism" was an excuse for soft-pedalling, even supporting murderous, nearly genocidal ("Holodomor") regimes because they spoke of "equality" and "workers united" and other crap.

   And I'll try to keep it in mind the next time somebody goes after Charles Lindbergh as a "crypto-fascist" and "probably Nazi stooge" and say "Oh, but he was an idealist...you cynical bastard!"

   Posted by Mask at 03/01/2007 @ 4:41pm

6. And I'll try to keep it in mind the next time somebody goes after Charles Lindbergh as a "crypto-fascist" and "probably Nazi stooge" and say "Oh, but he was an idealist...you cynical bastard!"

   Posted by MASK 03/01/2007 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person

   turning things on their head does not disguise your cynicism. Stalin committed his crimes in a closed society, and they were not widely known in the west, I'm told. you have little to offer, as these posts and others often show. but hey, that's just me.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 03/01/2007 @ 4:45pm

7. Msk, perhaps I have ben unduly harsh. my apologies. back to ignore for you is probably a better idea.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 03/01/2007 @ 4:50pm

8. Might as well ignore MASK. God knows at least half of his posts are nothing but aimless drivel sputtered here in order to be the first to get his name under each new post. He's like the kid who gets to the ball field early, warms-up and takes batting practice, only to sit the bench because in the end, he sucks.

   Posted by chimichenga at 03/01/2007 @ 5:01pm

9. LOL CHIMI

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 03/01/2007 @ 5:48pm

10. MASK the important point you should take in is that it is ridiculous and unfair to judge people from past eras using present-day knowledge. This principle seems to elude you.

    I could well make the argument that Maxwell was a damn fool of a physicist by interpreting his work within the immense body of 21st century technical knowledge. But other physicists would rightly laugh at me dismissively.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 03/01/2007 @ 5:53pm

11. Certainly our country needs the viewpoints of idealists, like Mr. Schlesinger, but in general I'll take realism over idealism....Nevertheless, Arthur Schelsinger served our nation well..... R.I.P.

    Posted by davebarlett at 03/01/2007 @ 7:23pm

12. ..." only to sit the bench because in the end, he sucks.

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/01/2007 @ 5:01pm

    Yes, But when called into the game the bench warmer usually saves the day from certain defeat as the "better" players fail or collapse...you should consider this if you think all Mask is doing is warming pine...

    Posted by john maasch at 03/01/2007 @ 9:57pm

13. Yes, But when called into the game the bench warmer usually saves the day from certain defeat as the "better" players fail or collapse...you should consider this if you think all Mask is doing is warming pine...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/01/2007 @ 9:57pm

    have any stats to support that? or is this more of the hamsterland fantasy?

    Posted by Will C. at 03/02/2007 @ 01:44am

14. Posted by WILL C. 03/02/2007 @ 01:44am | ignore this person

    Purely anecdotal.

    Maasch is referring to the one time the coach had no other option but to put him in the game. Thereafter, he took one in the 'nads off a bad hop and inadvertently prevented an inside-the-park grand slam that would've won the game for the other team.

    In Maasch's world, that accident of history makes him forever a winner and the players on the other side 'losers,' unworthy of a 6 figure income, doomed to pay taxes that he, as a 'winner,' is by divine providence fully within his rights to disdain.

    Sort of like a 'farcical aquatic ceremony' of certain fame, don't you think?

    Posted by skeletonman at 03/02/2007 @ 06:26am

15. "One only needs to read this paragraph on Schlessinger to know how misinformed he was on history"

    this about one of the eminent historians of our time. liberty you are an ignorant sot, who sees everything and everybody through your distorted partisan prism.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/02/2007 @ 08:23am

16. Posted by SKELETONMAN 03/02/2007 @ 06:26am

    I see we have Gephart disciple in the "lottery of life" luck he boldly preached, rightn after he disappeared into now where land..

    If you think people succeed on any level due to accidents of history, then you are right where you belong...and if you get lucky, Will, the resident genius on micro as well as macro economics, has another hammer in his belt for you, too, so you can frame and make saw dust and espouse and dispense more wisdom on how the world works...funny, tho, how with so much knowlege old Will is hammering and sawing his way to the future..by accident of history..funny how luck and accidents happen and hard work,planning,and a little fore thought never seem to matter...tell us, Para, did you plan to be where you are today or is it an accident? I am sure Will is exactly where he is as that is the level he rose to and now has peaked..

    Posted by john maasch at 03/02/2007 @ 08:46am

17. Stalin committed his crimes in a closed society, and they were not widely known in the west, I'm told.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/01/2007 @ 4:45pm

    You were told wrong. Walter Duranty KNEW of the Holodomor as did a LOT of people in the West, and it was ignored or even excused by Western leftists of the 1930s who thought Communism was the answer to both failed capitalism and rising fascism.

    JR, the fact that you want to put me on Ignore, because I offered HISTORICAL FACT...says more about you than me.

    Posted by Mask at 03/02/2007 @ 09:40am

18. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/01/2007 @ 5:01pm |

    You forgot to include I'm a "gringo" and say something about "Yanqui imperialism", blondie.

    Posted by Mask at 03/02/2007 @ 09:41am

19. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 03/01/2007 @ 5:53pm

    As noted to JOHANNES...it's not "present-day knowledge", ILP.

    People KNEW what Stalin was doing....look it up for yourself if you like. (Try "history" and not "leftist revisionist apologia" though)

    Posted by Mask at 03/02/2007 @ 09:42am

20. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/02/2007 @ 08:46am

    Well, you tell me.

    I am an emergency medicine physician; I never planned to be a doc, let alone an ER doc, but yet here I am.

    So I am a loser in your eyes because I found my way to this by 'divine providence?' Or am I a fool because by virtue of the income I enjoy, I pay more in federal tax (alone) than the average household income in my state?

    Is it an accident of birth that I was born into a white, middle class family that valued education? Fuck yeah. Did I do something with that. Fuck yeah. Did I have help along the way? Fuck yeah.

    And so did you, slick.

    Posted by skeletonman at 03/02/2007 @ 09:43am

21. Posted by SKELETONMAN 03/02/2007 @ 09:43am

    a lot of the libertarian mindset reminds me of a simpsons episode. homer was having a flashback to high school, right before graduating, and at one point when asked obout his plans after awful horrible high school, asserted that he would dring lots of beer every night, sleep til noon and never have to do anything he did not want to ever again...

    hard core libertarianism reminds me of such adolescent fantasy, a form of rightwing anarchism, the ultimate political awareness of pissed of teenagers grown up...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/02/2007 @ 10:42am

22. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/02/2007 @ 10:42am

    And they slept through the John Knowles/'No Man Is An Island' lecture.

    Libertarianism is 10 pounds of bullshit in a 5 pound bag. It provides convient cover for the selfish, but as a political philosophy, it is a failed idea.

    Posted by skeletonman at 03/02/2007 @ 10:58am

23. "convient" = convenient

    Posted by skeletonman at 03/02/2007 @ 10:59am

24. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/02/2007 @ 10:42am

    Actually few "hard-core" libertarians think they'll EVER get their "fantasy".

    Most of us just trying to fight those on the Right who want to control our bedrooms or wombs (or our female friends' wombs)....

    and fighting those on the Left who want to control our wallets.

    So we catch hell from dishonestly "in the closet" theocrats and fascists on one side....and dishonestly "in the closet" socialists on the other.

    Posted by Mask at 03/02/2007 @ 1:56pm

25. It provides convient cover for the selfish...

    Posted by SKELETONMAN 03/02/2007 @ 10:58am

    to that above point....I've heard conservatives like Hannity and Rush call people who want abortion kept legal "selfish" as well, because they don't want to "take the consequences" of "sleeping around".

    Funny how FREEDOM to some...is "selfishness" to those who want to control your freedom, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 03/02/2007 @ 1:57pm

26. Posted by MASK 03/02/2007 @ 1:57pm

    Well, if you look at it, anarchy is the intersection of the most radical of the leftist notions with those of the most reactionary rightists

    Posted by skeletonman at 03/02/2007 @ 2:54pm

27. As for Hannity and Limp-bag...

    Well, let's just say that it's pretty GD selfish for those two dick-fors to even dare to put themselves in front of a microphone, blathering the effluvium that they come out with.

    Posted by skeletonman at 03/02/2007 @ 2:57pm

28. Posted by SKELETONMAN 03/02/2007 @ 2:54pm

    True, my old Poli Sci professor explained it as a "circular spectrum". As you move further and further Right towards pure libertarianism....you can also move further and further Left towards pure communism....and in BOTH...the State "withers away".

    Of course both are discussing economics, not just personal liberty or the power of the State.

    The argument of libertarianism today is that BOTH sides in their desire for "economic justice" or "cultural morality" become more and more "statist" or authoritarian. The Right (mostly Religious) seeks to control the individual and their (typically sexual) morality. The Left seeks to control the individual and their economic liberty in the name of "fairness".

    Both claim they're doing it for "our own good" or because it's a "crises". Both decry their opponents as "immoral" ("perverts" or "greed-heads"). Both seek Governmental regulation AND legal penalties. Both are typically self-righteous. Both point to some "mythic time" (oddly, for both I've seen it be the "1950s"...the Right with his "Leave It To Beaver" families....the Left with Eisenhower and his 90% tax rate and decrying the military-industrial complex) as the "time to return to".

    "Number of abortions" screeds nearly equal the "number of without health insurance" screeds.

    "How can we be a 'moral country' when...

    A. we let smut on TV and give kids condoms in schools!"

    B. we don't have cumulative voting or 'Big Oil' making billions in profits!"

    Sound familiar?

    As a libertarian-MINDED person, I don't expect to "win" (though I'd hope Right and Left would eventually realize the sheer waste and folly of the 'Drug War')....

    I just hope that we can act as a bulwark against those who seek greater tyranny at the price of "morality".

    Posted by Mask at 03/02/2007 @ 3:51pm

29. Posted by SKELETONMAN 03/02/2007 @ 10:59am

    you need never feel shame for typos and misspells with me (nor maasch) around...

    Posted by MASK 03/02/2007 @ 1:56pm

    i'm not a socialist! damn it!

    i'm an updated old style conservative. you are a libertine classic liberal...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/02/2007 @ 5:59pm