history, or historians?

In a recent USA Today article, the headline simply read: "Majority say history won't be kind to Bush". That phrase alone is immediately problematic because it only takes a moment to see what they classify as the "majority". They say 54% of the people polled believe that Bush is not going to receive flying colors in historical recollections about his time as president.

Cast your eyes leftward--that 54% is only 54% of 1009 adults. They try and make the variables sound more fair by saying this 1009 pool is "nationwide" and that it has a 3% margin of error. The ironic (or, convenient) part about the margin of error is that even if the numbers were 3% less, it would still maintain a "majority" status simply because it is greater than 50%. (Statistical analysis is a careful science that can be used to promote just about anything, if one knows how to set up the test and manipulate the variables).

That aside, there is another problematic element to this article. "History" is not some disembodied critic of human affairs; the historians are the ones who are responsible for how history is critically understood. This truth is nothing new--it has been firmly set for several millennia. The ancient Egyptians were known for only recording that which was beneficial to their imperial autobiography. Very few--if any--overly negative events in Egyptian history were recorded. The historians were the ones who determined what they would write; but their refusal to document certain events does not mean that such events did not actually take place. The same is true today.

If history (or, better yet: "historians") is not going to be kind to Bush, then there is only one culprit to blame. Now, this statement does not proceed from my fingers naively--I fully understand that Bush has made some decisions in the past that were not necessarily "good" ones; but it is only by being on this side of retrospect that we can truly know the quality of a past decision. It is very possible that the points at which various decisions were made by Bush and his committee, they were most likely concluded to be "good". It is impossible to know for certain just how dramatically (or, traumatically) a given choice will unfold once it is made. There are simply too many unknowns.

Historians have the choice to include or exclude certain events in their presentation of history. They have the choice to present Bush in a negative light or in a positive one. They have the choice of focusing solely on his faults or on his accomplishments. They also have the choice to take a "both-and" approach in their presentation--i.e., they could be fair and balanced in their portrayal. They cannot, therefore, hide behind some disembodied entity called "history" and place all blame on such an entity while claiming complete innocence. If historians choose to portray Bush as a completely incompetent president whose decisions plunged this country into the abyss, then that's their choice (not really sure it's a good one); and it's a choice where they already know how it will unfold--"history won't be kind to Bush."