Hagiography by Party

Regular readers know I’ve been writing posts putting up numbers looking at the difference between Republican and Democratic Party performance when it comes to growth. The posts come irregularly – its a slow process because I have a day job and other committments and running the numbers takes time.

But it has gotten me to thinking about Democrats and Republicans in general. I had a post the other day noting that Reagan did not live up to his billing – he was a cut and runner when it came to terrorism, he sold weapons to the sponsors of the very terrorism from which he cut and run, his contribution to the war effort as a young man was to work less and brag about it, his economic performance (once you account for the debt) was sub-par, etc. And yet, he’s treated as a saint.

I noted yesterday that not long ago, writers respected by right wingers looked at GW as someone who was potentially Mount Rushmore material. Many still look at him as someone who is generally correct, and would be succeeding if only the rest of us would believe.

I was thinking… are Democrats as likely to sanctify Democratic presidents as Republican presidents? There is JFK, but I’m not sure he ever reached sainthood. I would imagine even Democrats that are fondest of JFK would admit the Bay of Pigs was a horrible mistake horribly executed. Roosevelt? I don’t think he’s been sanctified either.

And if Democrats are not as likely to elevate their presidents to superhuman status as Republicans, why is that?