OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics 2005 The Federal Solution In 1987, John Berry of Library Journal issued a sharply worded editorial called "Archives or Lightning Rods?" that lamented "the inability of the private founders and funders of the presidential libraries...to separate their obvious pride in 'their' president from the nation's need for a fully accessible repository containing the entire record of an administration, good news and bad." Berry insisted that "Congress should help to reduce further the controversy.. .by forcing the federal government to accept its responsibility for the planning, governance, and operation of these national libraries" (1987). Historian Robert Dallek suggested that "Questions about whether Clinton exchanged donations to his library for pardons can serve at least one useful purpose. Let's avoid future allegations of this kind by providing federal funds to build and administer all presidential libraries" (2001). Columnist Richard Cohen echoed that "If these libraries are really in the public interest, then why not have the public build them? We're not talking Pentagon budget here" (2001). Including the construction of presidential libraries in the federal budget would be expensive, but not as prohibitive as one might think. Having them built using taxpayer funds would create an incentive to place strict limits on their size in order to decrease the annual cost of maintenance. Recently, the dollar amount being used by private foundations to build these facilities has been increasing above and beyond the inflation rate; for example, compare the $57 million price tag of the Reagan Library to the $100 million used to create the Clinton Library. These increasing costs of construction may indicate that former presidents are engaged in a contest of one-upsmanship; Goodwin recalls that Lyndon Johnson "always wanted more people to go into his library than were going to the Kennedy Library in Massachusetts" {Presidential Libraries 1997). Government oversight would discourage such petty rivalries and ensure that the facilities remain modest in size and scope. Some may argue that presidential libraries will receive fewer private donations if they are made entirely public. However, NARA already operates the archival portions of these libraries, so procedures regarding the administration of documents would remain the same. Private papers are already subject to access restrictions stipulated by the donor, and the legislation concerning access to presidential records would not change simply due to public funding of depository construction. The outgoing president should be consulted about the location and style of the library that will bear his name, but his influence should be limited. An ideologically balanced panel of distinguished historians should design the museum portion of presidential libraries. They should keep in mind that the goal is not to idolize or demonize the president in question. It may be difficult to get the panel to agree on a specific interpretation of a historical event, but with sufficient administrative oversight these historians can be encouraged to compromise on a balanced portrayal. Tour guides should be trained NARA employees with backgrounds in history, not volunteers who have taken a crash course. The libraries should attempt to focus on the challenges that faced America during a given presidency and on how the administration in question responded to them. Museums in presidential libraries will become great educational resources for the American public if they are done fairly and correctly. Conclusion Presidential libraries should never be cults of personality or "shrines to presidential-size egos" (Thurman 1997). Unfortunately, many of them currently present a biased and propagandistic viewpoint. Federal funding and administration of presidential libraries would lead to a more fair commemoration of the presidents. Taxpayer funding would keep libraries from being unduly expressive. Banning private foundations from libraries would prevent them an opportunity to exert a propagandistic influence. A museum designed by a non-partisan panel of historians and administered by professional tour guides would ensure a more balanced picture of any given president. Enactment of these changes would cause America's presidential libraries to advance toward the admirable goal of historical preservation, and move away from the dubious proposition of propagandizing an ideology and glorifying an individual at taxpayer expense. References Albanese, Andrew. 2004. "Sen. Questions Archivist's Exit; Weinstein Hedges on Bush's Order; Electronic Archives Planned." Library Journal, 1 September, 22. "Archivist Resigns to Take Bush Job." 1993. New York Times, 14 February, 25. Bennett, G.H. 2003. '"Goodbye Mr. President': Presidential Libraries and Public History in the USA." European Journal of American Culture, 22(1): 23-36. Berry, John. 1987. "Archives of Lightning Rods?" Editorial. Library Journal, 112, 1 May, 4. A Brief History of the Presidential Library System. 2004-<http://www.archives.gov/presidential_libraries/about/history.ht ml> (April 28, 2004). Brune, Tom. 2004. "A Quiet Nomination." Newsday, 17 April. <http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usarchl...prl,0,2678036,print.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-head-lines> (17 April 2004). Carlson, Margaret. 2002. "Peace is at Hand." Time, 13 May, 53. Cohen, Richard. 2004. "Presidential Libraries Could Balance Their Books Better." Editorial. Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 17 February. <http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/feb01/cohen 18021701.asp?format=print> (28 May 2004). Dallek, Robert. 2001. "Our Presidential Libraries." Nation, 26 March, 4. "First Steps Taken Toward Nixon Library." 2004. American Libraries, 35, January: 16. 71 |