Some thoughts on former president George H. W. Bush, the 41st President of the United States, who died last night at the age of 94. (thread)
Remembering presidents in 2018 is an impossible task. The usual decorum of "respectful silence" we reserve for just about all people who have done things that were wrong or unsavory is now rendered obsolete when applied to those whose lives have extraordinary consequences.
Part of the reason is that presidents often act with persuasive intentionality to achieve results that knowingly and directly harm innocent people. These are not unintended consequences; they inflict pain and damage, and they are impossible to ignore.
I'm not talking about decisions said to be made for the greater good that have unintended consequences for some folks. I'm talking about direct, intended policies and actions that hurt people on a massive scale and have lasting consequences.
In the past, I think the vast majority of the country has sought to act with a respectful silence at bare minimum when a national leader--and especially a president--dies. This has been seen as a standard of decency and perhaps a hallmark of our national character.
The intention of this is a good thing: no matter our differences, we give each other space to grieve and most importantly, room for the family of the deceased--they who are essentially forced to mourn in public--room to process their loss in a dignified way.
(It should go without saying this standard is far, far less likely to be observed for national leaders who are persons of color, LGBTQ folks, and women. It's important to note this: even in death--especially in death--privilege rewards unearned benefits.)
The drawback of this dynamic is that remembrance in death for national leaders has a way of cementing one's legacy so as to erase their most egregious actions with a near permanency. This is most potent when presidents die. The good are canonized, the bad are absolved.
Lincoln held the nation together, emancipated the slaves, oversaw abolition, + acted with a public decency and empathy that is quite inspiring.
He also held views that were clearly racist. Lincoln was racist. This is a deeply uncomfortable truth that remains unobserved.
He also held views that were clearly racist. Lincoln was racist. This is a deeply uncomfortable truth that remains unobserved.
Even Richard Nixon, whose resignation from office severely diminished his legacy + turned out to be only the tip of the iceberg for his litany of failures as a leader and human being, was greatly respected later in life and upon death, which assuredly helped his legacy.
I am not here to tell people how to remember George H. W. Bush, but I think it's rather absurd to ignore that a president affects all those they serve (and countless more to come after) and deny or shame anyone for expressing their opinion on the effect of that service.
There are countless folks whose lives have been directly impacted in a positive way by Bush 41, and there are countless folks whose lives were severely harmed by his actions (or lack thereof). A president belongs to everyone. Their legacy belongs to everyone. Goes with the gig.
We are in a time when our social consciousness has accelerated to hold accountable the centuries of social injustice upon which American has been built. Many people rightly want equality *NOW* and they rightly see revisionism of our leaders as an obstacle to equality.
This is, of course, not helped by the fact that the clown who now holds the office is not only exceedingly inept and corrupt in his position but got there through treasonous actions. People are angry, and they are wondering why we offer unearned respect for poor leadership.
I think George H. W. Bush exhibited moments of great character. It is impossible for me to deny his good actions in those moments. Some: courageous WWII service, his support of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the letter to Clinton, the not-so-subtle public rebuke of Bush 43 + Iraq.
And there are moments that were undeniably wrong. Just some of them: campaigning against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, his negligence on the HIV and AIDS crisis (saying one thing and doing another), and notably: the multiple sexual assaults to which he admitted.
As an LGBTQ person, its hard to reconcile his attending a same-sex marriage in 2013 with his opinion, even at that time, supporting "traditional" marriage. It's hard to reconcile his signing the 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act, an LGBTQ-inclusive bill, with his silence elsewhere.
As a trans person, I am 100% confident that George H. W. Bush would have been lovely, warm, and welcoming if I had ever had the chance to meet them, and it would have been genuine. But even as of yesterday, did he support my rights? I can't say for sure, and that's troubling.
I'm reminded of the historian @TimNaftali's flat-out fascinating interview with Barbara Bush in 2015, much of it on LGBTQ rights, which leads like a rollercoaster. There's this profoundly touching moment when she dismisses praise for her AIDS/HIV advocacy. 
There's this exchange on visibility, which Barbara Bush has trouble understanding: theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
But wait--then there's the bit in which Naftali, a cisgender gay man, takes on the labor of educating Barbara Bush re: transgender people, and she's open to learning, and I find myself wishing that even *this* conversation could be had in tens of millions of homes.
And the capper, in which I am happy that Barbara Bush has learned about gender identity even while I cringe at the use of "transgenders" (considered a slur, as opposed to "transgender people") in her letter. Progress is often messy.
What am I supposed to make of this? I find myself grateful for the basic humanity, which is honestly not an amazing feeling. I am relieved she "got it" and also annoyed that someone with her outsized influence didn't already know, didn't make the effort previously to understand.
And that's the paradox with Bush 41 and Barbara Bush: seeing that these were people with good hearts who believed in the importance of public service and often sought to do the right thing but often clearly did not make the effort, sometimes with intentionality.
I believe in some ways, Bush 41 was a good president. Even an underrated one. And in others, he was lackluster and neglectful. Politicians seek to build legacies, and those must be earned. Even in mourning, there has to be space for ALL the public to assess that honestly. /thread
