The "Great Man (or Woman) Theory"

In Rick Atkinson's recent Pulitzer Prize winning book, "An Army At Dawn" there is a specific reference about Dwight Eisenhower that particularly seems to apply across the spectrum of American History:

"One of the fascinations of the war was to see how the Americans develop their great men so quickly"

There is no doubt that much of the "greatness" of individuals is a combination of depth of crisis and success in meeting it, with a liberal portion of fawning propoganda added to the mix. But a review of American History does reveal that in our history great crisis have produced great individuals, and we have been fortunate in their being chosen by and large, though not always.

Out of the Revolutionary War came the huge number of historical giants, some far too steeped in myth, some so awash in it that we lose the person to the myth and the examination goes to others. George Washington is built up to the point where most people find him positively dull, especially when compared to the deeply flawed, but brilliant Jefferson, and the poisoned-pen John Adams. Washington seems a marble bust waiting to happen, too perfect for us to even contemplate.

Forget the fact that Washington was quite imperfect, a slave owner who detested slavery far more than Jefferson ever did; an average tactician of a general who was nonetheless a very sound strategist; and an extremely ambitious man who repeatedly hid his ambition in the cloak of being above being ambitious. Few were ever more accomplished and more complicated, and had more of their humanity drained out of them by immortalization.

The Civil War gave us Lincoln, the depressive; Grant the alcoholic; and even on the losing side, Robert E. Lee, who lost, but lost with grace. Americans love a good loser, especially if he is a vessel into which the foolishness of their cause can be excused.

And it goes on and on and on.

Which brings us to today.

I know I'm a liberal and a democrat, but I still think I have the capability to distinguish great times from non-great times. Further, in our history there have been great "Conservatives" as well as "Liberals", Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Eisenhower all great men in a conservative's garment.

And what do we have today?

I may have seen a "great historical" moment in September 11, 2001, but it takes petty and small people to turn huge moments in history into what we have today. I certainly am willing to call Bush's Administration many things, as are Conservatives, but it takes a first-rate disillusionment, nay a serious psychological disorder, to call George W. Bush "great". Naive, sure; a martinet, you bet; an empty suit, uh-huh. That would be tolerable if he was supported by decent individuals, but alas, we have Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Condi Rice. The "four horsemen of the fuckupolypse".

All we are getting is the propaganda.

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C