| OCR Text |
Show America's Presidential Libraries: History or Propaganda? Jay Rogers manual from which they must memorize information about the President's career. According to one elderly docent at the Reagan Library, volunteers are instructed to avoid making partisan statements because the museum is a government-run facility. Still, it is reasonable to suspect that political leanings often play a role in an individual's decision to spend his or her free time volunteering at a facility memorializing the Reagan Administration. Those leanings may affect the way docents conduct themselves. Other Incidents of Bias G.H. Bennett made his own visit to the Reagan Library and observed that "there is little sense that Reagan did not always get it right or that events like the Iran-Contra scandal and the Tower investigation merit serious discussion" (2003, 29). The partisanship and bias demonstrated at the Reagan Library appears to be typical of the Presidential Library system. Eric Gibson of the Wall Street Journal noted that "Hyde Park plays up the Hundred Days and plays down the packing of the Supreme Court. JFK's library celebrates the Cuban Missile Crisis while having strangely little to say about the Bay of Pigs invasion or the Diem assassination" (2001, W15). Neil Swidey of the Boston Globe opined that "truth is always a little elusive at presidential libraries.... Presidential libraries are designed to showcase their subjects in the most favorable light" (2002, Ml). A group of Clinton-bashers have denounced the newly completed Clinton Presidential Library as a one-sided propaganda machine (Hannaford 2004). They are raising money to build an anti-Clinton museum called the Counter-Clinton Library "within walking distance of the Clinton Library" ("Guys and Dolls" 2003). This move to discredit the actual government library sets a troubling precedent, one that underscores the degree to which presidential libraries are perceived as being political rather than historical in nature. In the future every presidential library might face a nearby counter-library built by the president's enemies. Reforming and Improving the Presidential Library System The Debate About Presidential Libraries Not surprisingly, presidential libraries have their detractors among historians and political watchdogs. Patrick McGee of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram interviewed many historians about presidential libraries, and some of these scholars complained that the "libraries are full of obstacles...that keep them from getting the full picture" (2004). Journalist Haynes Johnson criticized the large size and elaborate decor of the Libraries. He said, "they become almost monuments to the person involved, rather than... some thing else" (Presidential Libraries 1997). Gibson was even more scathing in his final assessment, asking, "Why do these white elephants exist at all?" (2001, W15). For these reasons, some historians have advocated a more central location for Presidential Records. Researchers studying an issue or event that spanned multiple presidencies are sometimes frustrated by having to travel across the country to distant presidential libraries (Bennett 2003, 35). Some propose that presidential libraries be replaced by a "Museum of the Presidents" that would be located in Washington D.C. The Presidential Libraries Act of 1986, devoted to reducing the cost of presidential libraries to the government, mandated a study of the economic viability of creating a centralized facility (Veit 1987, 28). But the government has not taken any serious steps toward changing its policy regarding presidential records storage. The idea of a centralized presidential archive has its own share of opponents. Fritz Veit argues that if presidential records were all housed in one depository, they would be more vulnerable to loss in a time of war. He also asserts that having presidential libraries in diverse regions of the country allows them to be cultural resources for local communities, and that removing existing libraries would be economically devastating and prohibitively expensive (1987, 22-23). Historian Michael Beschloss opines that individual libraries are more likely to be good stewards of the legacies of individual presidents. He states that those who work at the Eisenhower Library "specialize in making sure that every single scrap on Dwight Eisenhower is collected. That sure wouldn't happen if you had one faceless archive in Washington D.C." (Presidential Libraries 1997). Despite experiencing some frustrations regarding access to materials, many historians are strong supporters of presidential libraries. Doris Kearns Goodwin declared, "they're wonderful places. I mean, to presidential historians they're like food and water" (Presidential Libraries 1997). Now that the precedent of the presidential library system is ensconced, a Museum of the Presidents, albeit an appealing idea, seems unlikely to come into being. The flaws of presidential libraries would be best addressed through reform of the existing system. The Presidential Libraries Act of 1986 took a step in the right direction by limiting the size of libraries. But expense is not the only aspect of the presidential library system that merits concern. Taxpayer-funded ideological partisanship and the romanticizing of individual presidents need to be curtailed as well. Some may argue that bias in presidential libraries is not a major concern, since taxpayer money is already used for partisan purposes in other instances, such as federal matching funds for presidential campaigns. The difference is that campaign money helps voters make an intelligent choice between two (or more) candidates, while presidential library partisanship makes the public pay to support the glorification of a single president and his party. It is unfair to make taxpayers subsidize political propaganda they may not agree with when it has no important civic function. Fortunately, many commentators have proposed ways to reform and improve the presidential library system. 70 |
