Generally, historians make more than one-dimensional appraisals of past presidents. I might not be so generous.
While it is too early to tell whether this president will become more than the sum of his parts, he is in my mind and instinctual appraisal a less-than average privileged individual who has been thrust into a position that calls for more than he was prepared to deliver. It remains to be seen whether he will overcome his prejudicial background, limited political scope and faux-Everyman persona. Authors and father-and-sons, Philip B. Kunhardt, Jr., Philip II and Peter wrote an interesting thematic study of American presidents titled, The American President (1999, ISBN 157322832X). They divided American presidents into five major themes: The Candidate, Politics and the Presidency, A Matter of Destiny, Executive Vision, and An Office and its Powers. The book is a companion volume to the PBS series and full of excellent footnotes and photos. In the Destiny theme, the subgroup 'Family Ties' includes John Q. Adams of course, Benjamin Harrison, FDR and JFK while 'Happenstance' includes Tyler, Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, and Truman. The only category besides Family Ties and/or Happenstance I would put GDubya Bush in at this time would be Office and Its Powers' subgroup "Expanding Power", as were Jackson, Cleveland, TR and Nixon. By the way (BTW) Clinton was put in the Office and Its Powers subcategory 'The Balance of Power', as were Madison, Polk and Taft. G.H.W. Bush was listed under Executive Vision, The World State, for his Personal Contacts. So don't ever throw out those old addresses and resumes, folks. Ari Fleischer, if not everyone else in the Bush White House, continues to self-define the Dubya administration as the UnClinton. This is needlessly confining, political and self-defeating. Karen Ed wrote: The Carlyle Group raises all kinds of questions about who holds power and what the purposes of that power are. "Class" may be a relevant concept here, but to me it seems a little too tied to earlier eras, when who hled power was more easily recognizable than it is today. What seems to have emerged in modern society is something that is far less obvious and much more able to exercise power through extensive, invisible networks. It raises the question of who George Bush really is. Is he the President of the United States in the same sense as Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and, yes, even Nixon, were? Or is he the front man for interests that we cannot see and are not permitted to understand? Or is he both of those things? Can he be both of those things? Brian wrote: I encourage you to visit this site: http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html. It provides you with a much better lay out than I was able to cut and paste below; including photos of the key players. _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
