Richard Shenkman

• Inauguration Special Report • Shenkman was online in December to talk about the election • Talk: Politics message boards • Live Online Transcripts

The pomp and circumstance begins as the nation waits for George W. Bush to take the oath of office and become the 43rd President of the United States. What will George Bush's inaugural address say, particularly in light of the recent contentious election of 2000? Why is it important? Has an inaugural speech ever affected the course of history?

Richard Shenkman is a best-selling author of five history books, his most recent being 1999's "Presidential Ambition: How the Presidents Gained Power, Kept Power and Got Things Done." He gives lectures around the country on several topics, including American myths and presidential lies. He is currently an adjunct lecturer in journalism at American University and was recently named managing editor of the Internet magazine, TomPaine.com.

Shenkman will be online to talk about the inauguration on Friday, Jan. 19, at 2 p.m. EST.

Below is a transcript.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Alexandria, VA: Sir:

Whom, in your opinion, would be in the top 5 as the most successfull US Presidents?

Thanks

Richard Shenkman: George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower.

Dupont Circle: What president does W. most resemble?

Richard Shenkman: Well he resembles Warren Harding in his laziness; he resembles his father in his inability to string two sentences together. He reminds me of Calvin Coolidge in his lack of curiosity and imagination and that may be his greatest defect of all. Thus far, he has not displayed any qualities that remind me of the great presidents, although he does have a rapport with people that you would find in an Andrew Jackson and a Ronald Reagan.

ny, ny: All the political pundits make such a big deal out of the inaugural address, state of the union address, etc. Is there any real evidence that those speeches actually make any difference. My belief is that actions speak louder than words.

Richard Shenkman: Well some of the speeches have made a difference in that they have helped Americans define what it means to be an American. Certainly Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address had an enormous impact. This is the address in which he told us "With malice toward none, with charity for all ..." That helped define us and our humanity. John Kennedy's rhetoric had an impact. His call to sacrifice, his summoning of idealism helped inspire a generation of Americans including civil rights activists. Franklin Roosevelt's inaugural address in which he told the country "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" had a sudden and powerful effect on Americans, helping them shake off the devastating impact of the depression. And it had a very real impact on behavior. Americans by the millions agreed to put their money back into banks because FDR told them in a subsequent speech just a few days later that it was safe to do so. When a president who has the support of the people makes a statement, it can have powerful consequences.

Reston,Virginia: How will it play out in the History that the 43 President was not elected but selected by the US Supreme Court? Will it be written that a lot of the people especially those that did not vote for him will never consider he our president. I don't have confidence in the US Government and will never have confidence again in the US Supreme Court.

Richard Shenkman: What George Bush is going to be remembered for without question, is how he came to power, not what he did with it. And that is going to be a black mark on his presidency, no matter how good a job he does. Unless we have some enormous crisis on the scale of the Cuban Missile Crisis, I think my prediction will hold true.

Williamsburg, PA: What does George W. Bush need to say in his inaugural speech for it to be effective?

Richard Shenkman: That's a great question. Her certainly has to reach out to the country and appeal to Americans to rally around his presidency and make a powerful effort to appeal to their desire for unity. To a very great extent, actually, he needs to strike the same notes as his father in his inaugural address. So far he has not been able to convince millions of Americans that he speaks for him and he damaged himself greatly with the nomination of John Ashcroft. He needs to make a statement as well that's memorable. One of my favorite lines from an inaugural address is Benjamin Harrison's, in which he says, "He serves his party best who serves his country best." Bush needs to make a statement like that. It was easy to remember. People talked about it afterward, and it didn't sound so rhetorical as to be false. And that's the hard thing in the age of television. Kennedy succeeded better than anybody else. His rhetoric was soaring at the same time as it was convincing.

Washington, D.C.: The inaugural protests planned are getting a lot of play. Have protests always been a part of inaugurations (I never remember them getting any coverage)? Will this inauguration rival others in the scope and attention given to the parties protesting?

Richard Shenkman: There was only one inauguration in our history in which there were mass arrests and that was in 1968. Over a hundred people were arrested. They were protesting the Vietnam War. The country is not divided today the way it was then, but there are powerful pockets of discontent as was evidenced in Seattle during the protests over the WTO.

Indianapolis Indiana: I have just finished reading "Presidential Ambition" and found it to be very fascinating and the concluding chapter to be quite prophetic. Certainly the events of the past year have provided ample material for a sequel. When should I look for it in my local bookstore?

Richard Shenkman: Thank you very much. I'm not planning on a sequel but if there's a publisher out there who wants to throw some money at me to write one, I'll do so.

reno, nv: It is my understanding that Bush did not have any real presidential ambitions until
a couple of years ago. Assuming that to be true, was there anyone else in history that came into the presidency with such little presidential ambition.

Richard Shenkman: I think George W. is far more ambitious than he's given credit for. Back in the 1970s, when he was a young man, to the surprise of his parents and family, he ran for a seat in Congress and he ran an exceptionally good campaign and he worked very, very hard. His run for governor also came as a surprise to his own family. His mother tried to talk him out of it. So why did George W. run? Was it because his family was pushing him to run? No. Was it because the Republican party in Texas was pushing him to run? No, not at first anyway. So something in him was driving him to run for political offfice and it had nothing to do with avenging his father's loss of the presidency. This is a guy who obviously was interested in holding political office. He may have been driven-and this is just a theory-by a desire to impress his mother who always seemed to favor Jeb over George W. But assessing the motives of politicians is the most difficult of challenges and I wouldn't presume to understand his motives. But as sign of a person ambitious is the price they are willing to pay for it. And in the last twelve months, George W. has showed that he was willing to pay a high price. In South Carolina, when push came to shove, and he reached a do or die moment in his contest with John McCain, he was willing to play dirty. That is a sign of his deep ambition. So I reject the notion this is a man lacking in ambition. He's just better at hiding it than some others.

Silver Spring, MD: How would you compare the overall national attitude towards this inaguruation to that the last time the man who became President received fewer votes than his opponent, over 100 years ago? Has the final popular vote count been pretty much forgotten by everyone except those inside the Beltway?

Richard Shenkman: A hundred years ago, Benjamin Harrison was elected with a minority of votes and he had an inconsequential presidency. The great danger for George W. is that he will follow in Harrison's footsteps. Both, interestingly enough, were decendents of presidents.

I don't think Americans will forget how George W. came to power. In fact I think that he is at the high point of his legitimacy. From here on out every time he makes a controversial decision or gets in hot water, people will remember the circumstances of his election, will hold it against him, and make them eager for another election in which a president will receive a real mandate. This president has not mandate.

The one thing this president could do to add to his legitimacy he has already indicated he will not do. And that is to champion ballot reform and campaign finance reform and that is one of his biggest early mistakes. By ignoring these issues he is leaving the field to somebody else. That somebody else, whoever it is, will be able to tap into the enormous well of anger that is so deep in so many millions of Americans.

OKC OK: Historically, which Presidency offered the most experienced cabinet? Siting your criteria of xperience, rank the experience of this cabinet.

Richard Shenkman: Warren Harding, oddly enough, had a cabinet that was filled with experienced people, along with a couple of very bad apples. Like Bush, he was regarded as a lighweight and stocked his cabinet with heavy hitters to reassure the public about his presidency. Bush has done that as well, which is especially ironic in his case, because of course, he campaigned as the outsider.

chicago, il: I fail to understand why historians insist on treating Reagan so well. From my vantage point, it was a time of high inflation, extraordinarily high interest rates, double-digit unemployment, junk bonds and tripling of the national debt. Please enlighten me on what I am missing.

Richard Shenkman: Ronald Reagan was a far more complicated figure than either his friends or his adversaries like to acknowledge. He came into office promising to cut the deficit and of course, he vastly increased it. When he came into office his opponent, like Jimmy Carter, predicted he would drag us into war. And if you remember, in the early 1980s, European peaceniks feared he would get us into a nuclear war. And yet he was the first and only president actually to cut an entire class of nuclear weapons (intermediate range nuclear weapons). This record demonstrates how complicated a figure he was.

I give Ronald Reagan high points for 1., generally hiring very competent advisors, 2. reinvigorating American optimism, 3. having the imagination to conceive of a world without nuclear weapons.

Alexandria, VA: In my local libraries, other than Jefferson and some recent presidents, it's not easy to find biographical books on the individual presidents. My interest is more humanistic than scholarly. Can you direct me to a good source please? George Washington is my first interest. It's amazing how many biographies one can find on talk-show hosts. Thanks.

Richard Shenkman: If you want to read a great biography of George Washington, find James Thomas Flexner. If you want to know about Andrew Jackson, look up Robert Remini's biography. If you want to know about Lincoln, try Stephen Oates's biography.

ft. lauderdale, fl: Has there been any speculation on whether JFK would have faired well in a 2nd term given the Vietnam problems. Was his thinking significantly different from LBJs such that the great strides made in America under LBJ would not otherwise have been successful.

Richard Shenkman: Historians disagree about what would have happened had JFK survived. Thomas Reeves believes Kennedy would have been impeached because the news about his sex life would probably have come to light. Others argue that because he wasn't as gifted as LBJ, he never would've been able to get as much legislation passed through Congress regarding civil rights and other Great Society programs. And then finally, there is the question what he would've done about Vietnam. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. argues that Kennedy intended to withdraw our remaining from Vietnam following the 1964 election. Others insist he would have felt compelled to fight just as LBJ did. Interestingly enough, the advisors around Johnson who recommended fighting had all been put in place by Kennedy. So he would've had to go against the advice of his own people if he decided to withdraw from Vietnam.

Tenafly, New Jersey: I fell strongly that George II is the weakest president ever elected (other than Hayes who most people seem to feel stole his election- (I don't count Quincy Adams b/c at that time there were multiple canidates)). Anway, George II lost the popular vote by 500,000, won the electoral college by the second narrowest margin, won the electoral college ONLY b/c he won many more states overall, and he won the state that put him over the top (Florida) in a major dispute (by the way, his brother was the govenor and all of the people who voted for George II on the USSC were appointed while his father was VP or Pres.).
Additionally, George II ran on a platform not really of policy but one more of "morality" and "personality": he ran as a good man, who would restore honor and dignity, and above all elsee be a uniter and not a divider.
Given the weakness of his election, his apparent lack of a mandate, questions about his legitimacy, and his platform of unification, I am very surprised by his strong turn towards the right. He seems to be acting like a man who won on overwhelming victory and an overwhelming mandate. My question is this: to presidents normally act in accordance with the size of their victory (their mandate)? If yes, what explains George IIs behvior? Either way, do you belive his behavior is poilitcally wise? Lastly, why do we hear almost no talk about the weakness of his victory?

Richard Shenkman: It is not strength that is driving George W. to the right; it is weakness. He must keep faith with the right wing because that's his base. So he will continue, in my opinion ,appeasing the right wing because without them, he has no administration at all.

People may seem to be engaging in a deliberate act of amnesia. Believe me, this is only temporary. Even Andrew Jackson granted John Quincy Adams a decent interval after the election before he started publicly complaining that Adams had stolen the White House from him.

Automatically Update Page    |    Get New Responses    |    Submit Question