Historians writing textbooks love President Woodrow Wilson. They relate to him. He was a college professor and the president of Princeton before he entered politics. Unlike most politicians, he came from the intellectual side of town, my side. They idolize him as America's philosopher-king, as indeed he was.
Historians praise his championing the League of Nations. He undertook a noble and costly fight for a good cause that appealed to historians, so the school textbooks they write tell us about it terms aglow.
But textbook writers fall short of telling us that Wilson, a southerner raised during the racist jim crow era, brought racism -back- into government hiring, and was one of the most racist presidents of all time. Some male historians who mention it say his wife was to blame. Is it not acceptable anymore for a philosopher-king to be racist?
Textbook writers also do not tell us that on the sidewalk outside Wilson's White House was a permanent circle of women gathered around a fire making a spectacle for the press of burning Wilson's speeches. Why? Woodrow Wilson, philosopher-king, was the most powerful voice of his day arguing -against- giving women the vote.
Historians couch in soft terms, if they even mention it, that Wilson sought campaign contributions and support from the most despicable big money self-interests in the nation. Then he repaid them by sending US Marines to invade more countries south of us than any President before or since. The purpose? Exploitation.
Woodrow Wilson was the father of banana republics, that league of cruel and corrupt nations south of us beholden to United Fruit and other US business interests.
The philosopher-king validated the concept of colonialism-without-responsibility. Wilson's policies destroyed the chance for successful democracies in South and Central America - and the lives of millions - by giving big landowners everything, plus the firepower to keep it.
To stay in the White House, the philosopher-king knowingly allowed himself to be used by evil interests for evil purposes, and knew it. This conflicts with the values we extol, especially the belief intellectuals are morally superior, or at least moral. Are they? Woodrow Wilson wasn't.
Was it so important that Wilson be re-elected? His campaign slogan for re-election was "He kept us out of war," and Americans thanked him for that by voting for him. But once re-elected, he took us into the war, causing the death of 116,500 American boys and the wounding of 204,000.
Would it damage Wilson's credibility as the philosopher-king and the champion of the League of Nations to teach a balanced view of him? Absolutely. It would raise issues about his motives. It would teach us that philosopher-kings use lying, corruption, and opportunism just like other politicians.
American Myths
