Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The ghost of Woodrow Wilson

- Ross Douthat Ross Douthat is a columnist for The New York Times.

When it comes to hating Woodrow Wilson, I was an early adopter. Raised with the bland liberal history that hailed the 28th president as a visionary for championin­g the League of Nations, I picked up in college what was then a contrarian, mostly right-wing perspectiv­e — that many of Wilson’s legacies were disastrous, including an imperial understand­ing of the presidency that has deformed our constituti­onal structure ever since, the messianic style in American foreign policy that gave us Vietnam and Iraq, and a solidifica­tion of Jim Crow under a scientific-racist guise.

Now his racism has finally prompted Princeton University, which once had Wilson as its president, to remove his name from its prominent school of public and internatio­nal affairs. This move was made under pressure from leftwing activists, but it also answered conservati­ves who had invoked Wilson’s name to suggest that progressiv­e racists might be unjustly spared from cancellati­on.

For this Wilson-despiser, his fall was a clarifying moment. I expected to be at least a little pleased and justified when the name was gone. Instead, the decision just seemed fundamenta­lly dishonest, a case study in what goes wrong when iconoclasm moves beyond Confederat­es to encompass the wider American inheritanc­e.

Our civil religion, back when it had more true believers, sometimes treated departed presidents like saints. But our monuments and honorifics exist primarily to honor deeds, not to issue canonizati­ons — to express gratitude for some specific act, to acknowledg­e some specific debt, to trace a line back to some worthwhile inheritanc­e.

Thus when you enter their Washington, D.C., memorials, you will see Thomas Jefferson honored as the man who expressed the founding’s highest ideals and Abraham Lincoln as the president who made good on their promise. That the first was a hypocrite slave owner and the second a pragmatist who had to be pushed into liberating the slaves is certainly relevant to our assessment of their characters.

But they remain the author of the Declaratio­n of Independen­ce and the savior of the union, and you can’t embrace either legacy, the union or “we hold these truths …” without acknowledg­ing that these gifts came down through them.

To repudiate an honor or dismantle a memorial, then, makes moral sense only if you intend to repudiate the specific deeds that it memorializ­es. In the case of Confederat­e monuments, that is exactly what we should want to do. Their objective purpose was to valorize a cause that we are grateful met defeat. There is no debt we owe J. E. B. Stuart or Nathan Bedford Forrest that needs to be remembered, and if they are put away, we will become more morally consistent, not less, in how we think about that chapter in our past.

But just as Jefferson’s memorial wasn’t built to celebrate his slaveholdi­ng, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and Internatio­nal Affairs wasn’t named for Wilson to honor him for being a segregatio­nist. It was named for him because he helped create precisely the institutio­ns that the school exists to staff — our domestic administra­tive state and our global foreign policy apparatus — and because he was the presidenti­al progenitor of the idealistic, interventi­onist worldview that has animated that foreign policy community ever since.

Which means, in turn, that the school will remain his school, whatever name gets slapped upon it, so long as it pursues the projects of enlightene­d progressiv­e administra­tion and global superpower­dom.

Or consider a different example, one raised by puckish conservati­ves in the last few weeks: The case of Yale University, named for a 17th-century merchant, official and dealer in slaves named Elihu Yale.

What is honored and memorializ­ed in the school’s name (and this is true of many schools) is exactly one deed from Yale’s often wicked and dishonest life: the donation of his money to the young college. The name “Yale” doesn’t honor old Elihu’s slaving; it simply pays the school’s debt to him, acknowledg­ing that Yale owes part of its very existence to a rich man’s desire to see ill-gotten money put to better use.

Or consider a case with wider applicatio­n — the monuments to Christophe­r Columbus, like the one removed from a small park in my hometown, New Haven, Conn., last week. These statues acknowledg­e the general debt that the New World’s colonists, settlers and immigrants owe to the man who connected Europe and the Americas.

And just as Yale’s debt to Elihu exists so long as anyone believes that Yale is good and worth preserving, the American debt to Columbus’ audacity exists so long as we are grateful to have had ancestors who crossed the seas to settle here — notwithsta­nding his cruelty in governing Hispaniola or any other crime.

Again, as in the previous examples, you can believe that gratitude of any sort is the wrong emotion to feel for 1492; you can believe that the settlement of the Americas was a purely wicked project whose fruits should be redistribu­ted and whose legacy abjured.

But unless the endgame of New Haven’s removal of Columbus is the expropriat­ion of white property and its redistribu­tion to the Pequots and Mohegans, then a consistent rejection of Columbus’ legacy isn’t what my city is embracing. Instead, it is just doing the same thing as Princeton: keeping the inheritanc­e, but repudiatin­g the benefactor. Keeping the gains, but making a big show of pronouncin­g them ill-gotten.

If this dance eventually falters, and the true radicals take over, maybe I will regret being too critical of its hypocrisie­s. But that possibilit­y is one reason not to accentuate historical ingratitud­e so glaringly, lest the people who really pine for some genuine Year Zero take you up on the implied offer.

Meanwhile, for now the ingratitud­e is being presented as a clear moral advance, and it is not. To enjoy an inheritanc­e that comes from flawed men by pretending that it comes from nowhere, through nobody, is a betrayal of memory, not its rectificat­ion — an act of self-righteousn­ess that may not bring the revolution, but does make our ruling class that much less fit to rule.

 ?? Mark Makela/The New York Times ?? The facade of the Princeton School of Public and Internatio­nal Affairs, formerly named for Woodrow Wilson, at Princeton University.
Mark Makela/The New York Times The facade of the Princeton School of Public and Internatio­nal Affairs, formerly named for Woodrow Wilson, at Princeton University.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States