Barkley/Xmastime in 2012!!

I was watching the American Experience joint about George H.W. Bush the other night, and Evan Thomas (my RFK guy!) said something I thought was very interesting:

“One of the ironies of Bush is here is a fundamentally decent man who presided over a moment when politics got meaner and rougher.”

Twas the coming-out party of the compounding of the wedge issue, finding weakness in the opponent etc. Like most people I would assume, I probably always thought that Bush 41 was always an inherently decent guy; the influx of this kind of politics during his rise to power is something I might chalk up to bad timing, would’ve happened with anyone etc. But, as Thomas points out, "Bush let it happen.”

The irony of this got me thinking, and it appears as if each of our last three presidents served during times in juxtaposition with their skill sets/personalities: Bush, a decent man coming about as politics turned vitriolic; Clinton presiding over a period that didn’t really need greatness; and of course Dubya serving at a time that did.

Joe Klein on Clinton in The Natural:

“His immense talents invited higher standards and expectations than were needed at so placid a place in history; he had the misfortune to serve at a time when greatness wasn't required."

I’ve tried in my mind to match up each of these three eras into which each president would be more well-placed. Yes, that might be the worst-constructed sentence in history. Oh well. Obviously W is easy; we can place him in Clinton’s years. Bush arrived at the White House assuming he would just coast on the existing peace and prosperity, simply doling out jobs and contracts to his good ol’ boy buddies and rolling along. 9/11 of course fucked that all up for him, and at a moment when the country needed true greatness, we were stuck with him. In the relative tranquility of the 90’s his inability to lead and intellectual non-curiosity could’ve been hidden easily.

My first thoughts would be to put Clinton into Bush 41’s years – his natural divisiveness and lightning-rod personality would be a seeming fit for the burgeoning era of vitriol. And looking at Bush’s worldliness/WWII and CIA experience et al I see him fitting in more during his son’s tenure. A seasoned, calm, worldly veteran to guide us through stormy times.

But am I only choosing thusly so that my premise doesn’t fall flat by placing Bush back in his actual years? Cause in actuality, I can also see Clinton as answering the challenge of 9/11 and succeeding wildly. Anybody with half a brain can imagine Clinton savoring such an opportunity on a global stage. A la Joe Klein again from The Natural:

“One imagines that Clinton regrets that he was never really put to the test, and one wonders how he would have fared in a national emergency. No doubt, he would have relished the chance to do something crucial, like mare "war" on terrorism and rouse the nation after the September 11, 2001 attacks. He certainly had the skills to lead.”

I’ve been worried lately that someone as skilled as Obama would be wasted by serving the next four years as president (just like D’Antoni right now for the Knicks!), as it would simply be four frustrating years of untying knots and undoing the damage of the last eight years, accomplishing really nothing in the end. Lucky to set the clock back to 0. But he does have a cool sense of diplomacy about him, AND a worldliness we're in desperate need of right now, so if nothing else he should be able to restore our reputation among the rest of the world. That’s probably my highest hope right now for Obama - mending fences and us no longer being a laughingstock. These are the chores of whoever follows Dubya - hopefully Obama's time and service will not be misplaced as our last few presidents' have been.