Now that we come to the end of the discussion of the myth of Reagan which I have found stimulating (and I genuinely thank the TPMCafe and Will for inviting me to participate), particularly the different viewpoints represented, we now might ask for Will to start writing a new book on the mythology of George W. Bush.

Some may laugh and find the concept absurd, but I live in one of the true "Red" bastions in all America, the Gilbert/Mesa suburb of Phoenix that often makes the conservatives in Orange County look like bleeding heart liberals. I also was raised in West Texas in the Odessa/Midland area where many family and friends continue to reside (Mr. Bush spoke at my high school commencement in 1982). To them, George W. Bush is a true American hero as witnessed by the massive welcome home party in Midland in November that drew 25,000 people from as far away as Lubbock. In both places, as well as many others, the president has a strong following, and I have heard and read in print the numerous ways that the structuring of his mythology has already begun.

First, the partisans note that Bush kept us safe from another terrorist attack after September 11. People in Middle America love his bravado as it fits their concepts of masculinity and forcefulness. The president and his advisers have also been developing for many years that he will be judged like Harry Truman, an unpopular president upon leaving office but one evaluated much better as historians came to understand him and his accomplishments. This is already seen in the works of people such as prominent historian John Lewis Gaddis at Yale who influenced the decision to focus on a Democratic icon after the Reagan comparisons fell flat. Bush's people believe that he will be evaluated positively for initiating policies that ultimately defeated the terrorists, much like Truman's decisions in 1947 constituted the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union.

Second, to his supporters, the war in Iraq was about freedom, a great idealistic crusade that destroyed a supporter of the terrorists, along with the defeat of a terrorist state armed with yet unfound weapons of mass destruction (they know that there were there however). Bush's supporters already characterize the war as a success as demonstrated by the surge. While there are many weaknesses in their arguments, the long-term development of Iraq will be a showcase if it works out in any way that they can spin it as a success. Equally important, as the Reagan people have already done they will take a very narrow definition of the expansion of "freedom" and push it very hard. Finally, if the process fails, they will blame President Obama for the failure to follow up and allowing Iraq to digress into a bloody civil war that many expect once the troops numbers decline. Using the Vietnam analogy, they will say it was the weak Democrats who undermined President Nixon and that troops withdrawals and the lack of aid caused the downfall of the South Vietnamese, not the host of other problems plaguing the adventure from the start.

Third, Bush's people portray the president was a moral man who stood in great contrast to Bill Clinton and the Democrats. This borrows straight from the Reagan playbook of contrasting Clinton to Reagan that was much easier than taking a harder look on issues of character and applying them to the man that Reagan defeated in 1980. For many people, Bush was a devout Christian man who relied heavily on his spirituality to make hard decisions (I am sure Paul Kengor is already writing the book on this topic and several have already been published). He made decisions and stuck to them because of his convictions, not the polls like Clinton. He also remained loyal to Laura and never embarrassed the presidency like his predecessor with Oval Office rendezvous or last minute deals on pardons. Many elements of this line of reasoning already exist and continue to grow.

Fourth, to his conservative supporters, the president packed the Supreme Court and federal benches with conservatives that will shape it for the next two-three decades. The pro-life advocates already believe that he laid the groundwork for changes on Roe v. Wade while many others celebrate the appointments for being able to work with Reagan appointments such as Scalia in overturning environmental and civil rights laws with which they disagree. This will be the long-term legacy in their eyes of George W. Bush, one that Obama and subsequent Democratic administrations will not be able to overturn.

Finally, the blame game for the economy has already started and for many, Bush is not responsible for its failure. Instead it was the Democratic Congress that took over in 2006 as well as others Democratic choices dating back to the Clinton years caused the collapse. Much like the president himself who never took responsibility for anything that he did that failed, these advocates view Bush as not really being in control when the bust occurred. Instead, they argue that the economy generally hummed under Bush. Nonetheless, they will be more than happy to take credit for any improvement in the economy in the next decade, arguing that the tax cuts and deregulation of his early presidency really set the stage for the growth and that the current recession merely reflected a momentary correction in the global markets to eliminate waste and prepare for the next great boom.

Of course, there are many holes in the arguments, but these are the perceptions that will linger (and all should sound familiar after reading Will's book). Bush is banking on the improvements in the economy and Iraq and that people's views will mellow over time as they even did for Richard Nixon. He and Cheney and many others will hit the lecture circuit and also write books outlining many of the ideas presented above to reinforce their perspectives. They will have strong allies in various media outlets that daily will sing their praises such as Pat Robertson and Sean Hannity. The voices from the other side will move on to other topics, leaving the debate dominated by the court historians. Much like with Reagan, although I think to a much lesser degree, the same arguments that Will has made in his book will be applicable in ten-twenty years.

On the other side there also could be some push back, possibly some with outlandish results. The people of San Francisco recently voted to replace the name of the Oceanside Water Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant. It lost overwhelmingly (some people worried about insulting sanitation workers with the change), but still made it to the ballot. One wonders what the new plans are in the future from the other side or whether they will lose interest and move on to other things.

In conclusion, let the debates begin, but start them earlier this time to prevent the massive problems of the myths that Will has outlined in his timely and well done book.