The Marty Standard of History Explained

Yesterday I spoke, with an eye towards wry humor, about my idea of what defines history. If you missed it, here it is: The Marty Standard History, I believe, doesn't really begin until fifty years have passed, if not one hundred. Why? We are to close to the people and events to judge them objectively. Our prejudices generally get in the way.

Today I want to explain what I mean with an example. Indeed this example may be what drew me to my conclusion.

Way back when, not quite in history as it was only about 40 years ago (ha ha), I had to do a college report on the life of John Adams, Revolutionary War leader and our second President. It was the first term paper I really went whole hog on, determined to make a good presentation. As such, I decided to see what history said concerning his life.

The oldest book I found in the library at the University of Detroit was published in 1801, the very year the Adams Presidency ended. The tome was so old I handled it very carefully, being intimidated by its age. I still can't believe it was still out on the shelves in 1982; I would have expected it to be archived by then, available only by special request. Anyway, it claimed that John Adams was just about the most useless disgrace of a President and human being we ever had. Wow. Reports of the same era were similarly antagonistic. Or, at best, dismissive.

But as I studied I noticed an odd thing. By 1900 or so books and articles were appearing which kind of grudgingly allowed that maybe old John Adams wasn't all that bad. He maybe, perhaps, sort of had done some okay things. Move forward to the 1960s and historians were much more considerate in analyzing his life and times. By 1975 he was the star character of a musical about American Independence. Extending into modern times we find David McCullough's positively glowing account of Mr. Adams, published in 2001, interestingly coming 200 years after the damning book which came on the heels of his time in office. Adams' Presidency is currently rated 15th or so among our Chief Executives. Out of 46, that's not bad. 

So, did John Adams change? Did the circumstances of Revolutionary and early United States history change? Or does the ebb and flow of time simply make it easier to look at something dispassionately? 

I believe the latter. As Adams moved from the real life figure to the historical personage, as people lost their direct emotional prejudices against him, they could see the real man more clearly.

So history doesn't really begin until well after events have taken place. At least, that's the Marty Standard of history. But I am open to suggestion and modification.

Ranking the Presidents

Siena College in New York sets out every eight years to rank the Presidents, and this year is no different. But in an attempt to throw us a curve, there's been movement at the top of the list. Teddy Roosevelt has passed Abraham Lincoln into the number two spot. Franklin Roosevelt has held the top spot since 1982.

Any such surveys must be held suspect, especially when academia and the intelligentia is involved. That FDR has remained number one for so long is surely little more than a reflection of the leftist control of our scholarship. Let's face it: he attempted to circumvent the Supreme Court, proposed myriad acts and agencies which are clearly unconstitutional, and was an underhanded leader interested primarily with his own power and prestige. He does not deserve the praise he gets, and Americans are slowly beginning to understand that.

It is interesting to see his distant cousin rated second. This has to be merely on his persona, for he did not do all that much as President. Unless, that is, you rank the national parks and supposed conservation efforts of Teddy as important. If that then we again face an instance of liberalism among professors clouding their judgment.

No survey which does not rank George Washington and Abraham Lincoln as the best and next best Presidents is worth its salt. Without Washington, quite frankly, we have no United States. He was the only one trusted enough by everyone to have any chance of holding the nation together. Lincoln held the nation together during its toughest trial. If your survey does not put them first and second, your survey is seriously flawed.

That Thomas Jefferson ranks fifth is another example of liberal bias. That Jefferson was a great and influential man in our history is beyond argument. Yet even he would agree that his Presidency was a disaster: the Embargo Act of 1807 alone nearly killed the young American nation. He did not even want the fact that he had been President etched onto his grave marker. He knew himself he was an inspirational writer yet a poor leader. Academia needs to accept that fact.

Recent Presidents are also ranked clearly according to liberal beliefs. George W. Bush is ranked 39th while Barack Obama is placed 15th. Absurd. But, to be fair, it is our belief that anything in the last two generations is not true history as yet. We are too close to the persons and events to have that general objectivity which history requires for any rational analysis. Perhaps history will vindicate him, but the admittedly very early returns on his Presidency display only a man bent on change for the sake of his own vainglory. Ramming health care through casts an image of raw power, not genuine concern for the wants and needs of the nation.

When all is said and done, these things are mere beauty pageants without true historical reference. How else could a man only in power a year be ranked 15th? We don't have enough history behind him to know what his real effect shall be. But that's liberalism for you. We're the best because we say so. Yet remember that the Washingtons and Lincolns and, we'll say it, Reagans let their actions speak for them. Tooting your own horn emits but a sour note.