I am predictably untrusting of conventional wisdom. Too often, I’ve seen the wisdom of the masses turned upside-down by subsequent events.
Healthy skepticism certainly applies to athletics. So many people had predicted the Indianapolis Colts to roll over the hapless Chicago Bears on Super Bowl Sunday, it created a backlash of Bears support. No way the Bears could lose, some argued, because so many were convinced the Colts were destined.
History is riddled with conventional wisdom gone awry, particularly in regard to wars and U.S. presidents. If not for the miraculous crossing of the Delaware which allowed George Washington to reverse a Revolutionary War effort that seemed completely hopeless, America’s first and perhaps greatest president might have been written up in history merely as a brave and charismatic, yet unfortunate, figure. Similarly, Abraham Lincoln had been mired in an impossible U.S. Civil War situation until fate saved him. So unpopular was Lincoln prior to his re-election bid and so tired of war were the American people, that they were ready to tar and feather Lincoln and send him back to the backwater on a rail.
Go figure. Bouncing back from the brink of oblivion, Washington and Lincoln have fared fairly well in the history books.
I am inclined to wonder: Is it possible that George W. Bush is poised for an historic comeback on the level of Washington or Lincoln?
This is where I pause to allow the laughter and derision to die down. ... OK, are you finished?
In my last column, I wrote about scientific revelations regarding the origin of the universe and noted that, according to smart people, if the energy of the big bang had deviated just one part of 10 to the 120th power, there could be no life anywhere. According to my calculations, that’s approximately the odds against President Bush cobbling together any definition of success in Iraq. Which is even longer odds than the Vikings’ chances of winning a Super Bowl in your lifetime.
It’s easy to be highly suspicious of success in Iraq now, especially when the great majority of armchair quarterbacks already count everything as lost. But with so many people declaring game over, self-congratulating themselves on their own genius even before the ballyhooed “troop surge” plays itself out, one is tempted to draw comparisons to Washington and Lincoln. Today, with their place in history already sealed, it is difficult for us to grasp the fact that the final outcomes of their wars were far from predictable.
Meanwhile, Bush remains a tragic figure capable of inspiring both sympathy and anger at the same time. The poor guy just can’t catch a break.
He is hated by many, for hate’s sake. His enemies have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at him, calling him both stupid and cunning at the same time. Can he be both?
Can he be a buffoon if he is calculatingly evil at the same time — capable of pulling the wool over an entire country just to get us involved in an unwinnable war? No, if President Bush goes down in the history books as a failure, he will go down as a sincere failure. He was willing to take big risks with his presidency because he believed it was necessary. He consistently claims to know the consequences of failure in Iraq, in the form of a worsening worldwide Islamic terror movement, even if his enemies don’t understand, or don’t care.
Of course, that doesn’t matter much now. The ink on this president’s legacy is already being pressed to the paper.
Perhaps they’re right, and it’s already too late. But then, no one would have given Washington or Lincoln much of a chance, either, at their low points.
Incidentally, the Bears DID lose on Sunday. Chalk one up for conventional wisdom.
Doug Wolter is night news editor at The Free Press and a member of the editorial board.
