A tale of two presidents

Re “Vision, luck and legacy,” Opinion, March 30

Joseph S. Nye Jr. compares George W. Bush with Woodrow Wilson. I can’t think of two figures more dissimilar. Consider academic backgrounds -- try imagining Bush as president of a major university or as the author of a multivolume history of the United States.

Wilson saw the purpose of the “Great War” not as simply having colonies change hands but as an opportunity to foster a world of independent, democratic nations.

Bush’s policies hearken back to the days of colonial empire, with war as a means to ensure access to another country’s resources.

Wilson looked forward to a 20th century in which the United States would become the preeminent model for, and supporter of, emerging democracies.

Bush looks back on that same century with nostalgia for the days of robber barons and gunboat diplomacy.

These distinctions will remain, no matter how many years elapse before the definitive history is written.

Howard W. Hays

Sierra Madre

--

Why should we expect anything less than an unflattering Op-Ed article on Bush from your newspaper? In one breath, Nye notes that it takes 50 years before a presidency can be historically appraised, and then in the next breath, he accuses Bush of mismanagement and recklessness. I am not averse to criticizing some decisions made by this administration. However, Nye and The Times would have been the first to call for Bush’s impeachment if Saddam Hussein had been involved in an attack on our soil after 9/11 and the president had failed to take preemptive action or ignored the intelligence. Perhaps if Wilson had had the foresight to be proactive, World War I might not have been so devastating. Nye and his allies in academia think that they have the answers when in fact they lack the intelligence data that the president has. The professor would do well to wait for that data to emerge before he makes hasty suppositions.

Peter J. Demetralis

Los Angeles

--

Although Nye may have impressive credentials, his argument is hurt by two statements that have no historical basis.

Saying that Bush and Wilson “responded to a crisis ... with a bold, moralistic vision” completely neglects all the evidence that Bush misled the country repeatedly in an effort to start a preemptive war, and only tried to justify his actions on humanitarian grounds after his earlier reasons were proved false.

Worse yet, to say that President Reagan left office “at the top of his game” completely ignores the huge list of scandals and foreign policy errors that plagued his final term, including training and equipping Muslim extremists, making deals with Iran, supporting dictators all over the world and creating a massive national debt.

With regard to “self-created bad luck,” there is a huge difference between having the right idea at the wrong time -- like President Carter pushing solar energy in 1979 -- and taking advantage of a moment to implement the most incompetent and corrupt foreign policy decisions in the history of this country, as Bush did.

If future historians do vindicate Bush, it will not be because history is written by the winners; it will be because history is now written by the highest bidder.

Lon Shapiro

Granada Hills