Truth About Truman Offers String of Parallels--and Pitfalls--for Bush

Truth. No such entry in the card file of the Dewey Decimal System, not catalogued by the Library of Congress. But few matters--only such things as love--have consumed more of our written words, obsessed so many minds, created so much wonder and pulled the trigger on so many tempers.

So far, what we know about truth is inconclusive, but we know this much: It is the active ingredient of what we recount as our history. And it is our history that concerns us here in this mini-mall, stoplight, house-and-store-and-gas station suburban Kansas City community wholly undistinguished except for its lavish contribution to history.

In Independence began the Santa Fe Trail, the California gold rush migration. Not far from here is Jesse James territory. Outlaws and cowboys and cattle. Independence also is home of Harry S. Truman, the give-’em-hell, drop-the-bomb, the-buck-stops-here, improbable 33rd President of the United States, a man whose deeds and memory inspire the presidential campaigners of today just as outlaw Jesse James inflames the imagination of children romping in a dusty lot with their wooden revolvers.

Truman was a man the nation hated, but who came to be loved. And the truth about him absorbs us still, two decades after his death and almost four decades after he served as President.

On this day, we have come to meet the keeper of the Truman history, Benedict K. Zobrist, manuscript specialist, history professor and for 23 years the director of the Truman Library.

Zobrist provides the context: “In 1953, when Truman left office, he was at a low, rock-bottom ebb of popularity. . . . By 1969, Americans practically had forgotten him.

“Since then, there have been two waves of great interest in Truman. The first began with his funeral in 1972, and the publication of biographies . . . and it increased during the Watergate years. Truman’s popularity grew leaps and bounds during Watergate. . . .

“Then it went along kind of flat. And now, wow!, all of a sudden this boom in interest.”

Both surges of nostalgia about this ex-President, Zobrist notes, came at a time when Americans worried about their nation and seemed to yearn for a leader who would speak to them straight and plain. Through the distillery of time, Truman has come to personify such a figure.

President Bush now evokes the name of Truman against Bill Clinton, who claims it for himself. Curious isn’t it, this tug-of-war over the legacy of a chap Americans in his own time called “such a little man?”

Because Bush started it all, the essential question, the search for truth, is this: How far must the patrician Republican President from Yale stretch to get his arms around the ghost of Truman, the Democratic high school graduate and farm boy?

Zobrist and I go over the Truman-Bush parallels, and they are many indeed.

Both were ex-vice presidents whose stature suffered by comparison to their charismatic predecessors. Once in office, both were confronted by a world in turbulent change, and they were happily consumed by foreign affairs. In fact, the two men stand as the book ends of the Cold War--Truman was there at the start, Bush at the end.

Both took up reelection, Truman in 1948 and Bush 44 years later, to find Americans impatient with conditions at home and itchy for change after a long run of one-party control of the White House.

And, alas, neither President had much of a domestic record to offer. Neither chose to be contrite about it. Instead, they assembled a platform of their standard party beliefs, waved them under the noses of voters and blamed the lack of action on a contrary, ossified Congress controlled by the opposition party.

Both found themselves the underdog, and both felt misunderstood by the press. Both flashed teeth behind wide smiles and stormed the countryside with unflagging energy.

These are the similarities.

Other “truths” of the Truman-Bush story cannot be answered except by history itself. Thomas E. Dewey proved to be an unexpectedly feeble opponent for Truman. Will Clinton fade?

And Truman also illustrates nothing so much, Zobrist says, as the proposition that a person can grow hugely under the strain of office. In his early years, for instance, Truman showed himself to be a bigot. But as President, he decried racial injustice and ordered the integration of the armed forces. Will Bush similarly be credited for growth under the challenges?

We need not wait for history, however, to judge one truth: Bush holds a different premise, hugely different, from Truman when it comes to the purposes and directions of America’s two political parties.

Bush brought this up, remember. Truman can explain his part for himself. Here, from the dusty file cabinets, is part of a speech Truman delivered 44 years ago this autumn, in the desperate days of his candidacy, speaking in the Municipal Auditorium in St. Paul, Minn.:

“The American people in this critical year are entitled to a full and open discussion of the issues. They are not getting it from the Republican candidate for President. . . . On the other side there, is the Wall Street way of life and politics. Trust the leader! Let big business take care of prices and profits! Measure all things by money! That is the philosophy of the masters of the Republican Party.

“Well, I have been studying the Republican Party for over 12 years at close hand in the Capitol of the United States. And by this time, I have discovered where the Republicans stand on most of the major issues.

“Since they won’t tell you themselves, I am going to tell you. . . .

“They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing.

“They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights.

“They favor a minimum wage--the smaller the minimum the better.

“They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools.

“They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. . . .”

“They think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people.

“And they admire the government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. . . .”

Oh yes, Harry gave ‘em hell. And those of us down in the quiet rooms of the presidential library are left to wonder what is the truth? And if we should figure that out, we still have love to contend with.