Though it has been a long 53 years since former President Harry S. Truman was in office, he was the hot topic of conversation at The Hudson Institute on Monday, July 17, where a panel discussed his legacy and influence on current policies.
Truman’s defense-laden foreign policy has recently been compared to President George W. Bush’s tactics for the War on Terror; an association that was a major point of discussion for the three members of the panel. While the speakers all had their own specific opinions of the Bush-Truman comparison, they all praised Truman’s policies while he was in office despite the tough circumstances of the times, namely the Cold War.
Making up the distinguished panel were Elizabeth Spalding, professor at Claremont McKenna College in California and author of The First Cold Warrior: Harry Truman, Containment and the Remaking of Liberal Internationalism; Peter Beinart, Editor at Large of The New Republic and author of Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again; and John Hulsman, Contributing Editor for The National Interest and co-author of upcoming book Ethical Realism: A Vision for America’s Role in the World.
Spalding hailed Truman for breaking out of the “realism versus idealism” debate and providing a complete alternative: prudential statesmanship. “New liberal internationalism,” which is the topic of Spalding’s new book, was birthed from Truman’s conception, she said. “The nature of the Cold War drew something out of Truman,” Spalding said of the former President who was “always a man of principle and of action.”
Pointing out that President Bush is also driven by faith and is in office during a similarly difficult wartime, Spalding highlighted the parallels between Truman and Bush, though she said that it is “too soon for any definitive answer” on the “substantive comparison.”
Beinart, however, who spoke immediately after Spalding, disagreed with her Bush-Truman comparison. “The Bush administration contrasts very strongly with the Truman administration,” Beinart said. Citing a litany of disparities between the two Presidents, Beinart emphasized that “Truman did not take the Bush administration’s view of executive power” that “strips power from the legislative and judicial branches.”
International affairs commentator Hulsman echoed more so Beinart’s views on the Bush-Truman association than Spalding’s. “Truman didn’t believe in preventive war. He never would have fought a war of choice,” said Hulsman, referring to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. “Democracy isn’t one size fits all, other countries have histories too.”
Resolute in her belief that Bush and Truman were both multilateral, she maintained that a link between the two Presidents exists, noting the controversial and often unpopular decisions that they both have made. “Statesmen have to make decisions, while the rest of us have the luxury of hindsight,” Spalding said of the difficulties that surround being a sitting President and the inevitable criticism that stems from their policies.
“His practical policies were always in sync with his principles,” Spalding said of Truman, whose foreign policy she labeled as American, rather than partisan. Continuing to sing Truman’s praises, Spalding said that he “had a great respect for the founders, but was also a man of the twentieth century.”
She stressed, however, that Truman’s most important legacy is his prudential approach to politics, a trait that continues to be debated in President Bush.
Katherine Duncan is an intern with Accuracy in Media, Accuracy in Academia’s parent group.
