I’m putting this here because it’s one of my gripes, and people might want to dispute it or argue in favor (or against).
Barack Obama announced his Presidential Library is going on the South Side of Chicago. While they could probably use the attention and the bucks, my complaint is that this is being built at all.
Ever since FDR (at least) donated his stuff to his personal compound at Hyde Park, every president has had to have his own Presdidential Library. Previous presidents have had their own libraries retroactively established (George Washington’s just opened in 2013). It’s become a major funsing activity as each outgoing president tries to get together funding for the mausoleum of his memory and picks out where it’s going to go. When it opens, editorial cartoonists have a field day. Then it’s forgotten, for the most part.
Why the hell do we do this? What other country is committed to erecting such sprawling monuments to its former chief executives? Does Russia have a Khruschev Library? Do British Prime Ministers vie to build the most opulent library commemorating their term in office? Is France dotted with libraries of the leaders of the Fifth Republic?
Our Presidential Library system has become institutionalized with the Presidential Libraries Act of 1955 (and subsequent legislation), but why do we do this? Presidents used to leave their papers to universities – Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson left theirs to Priinceton, Theodore Roosevelt to Harvard. (Although TR, self-promoter that he was, tried to establish his own library. For some reason, he didn’t succeed. Heck, the Museum of Natural History in NYC ought to be enough of a shrine.) Why don’t they leave their papers to Universities? Heck, the JFK Library is virtually at the University of Massachusetts in Boston.
You could argue that the papers associated with presidencies have multiplied vastly in recent decade, and that specialized libraries are needed. But that ought to hold true elsewhere in the world, too. Does Canada have such a Ministerial Library system to contain the bulging files of bilingual literature? Why do we have and need such a system of self-aggrandizing monuments?*
*The Nixon Library has not a bad thing to say about Watergate, I understand. I also understand why, and don’t suggest they should necessarily do otherwise. But contemplating that circumstance, and what it implies for all the other presidential libraries and their treatments of the facts and opinions regarding each president, ought to give you pause, no matter what side of the aisle you’re on.
This, you see, is one of my points. I myself would take issue with this entire mindset, but I admit that I’m prejudiced. When the Barack Obama library gets built, Republicans will be undoubtedly equally upset about what HIS interactive displays will say about the ACA.
In an ideal world, of course, any presidential library will feature a balanced discussion of the issues. But we don’t live there. We’re just adding more exhibits that will be candidates for future editions of James Loewen’s Lies across America.
I’m not trying to come down on one side or the other (and I sure as heck don’t want to get into a “they do it more!” argument). My question is Why Do It At All? Obama’s papers can go to some college on the South Side of Chicago. George W. Bush’s can go to his choice of a Texas college. Or they can go to Columbia and Yale, respectively. Heck, they can both send them to Harvard (with equal justification).
Generally, no. Look at the link. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) runs most, including the George W, Bush library (although in his case, there is some link with SMU. In his father’s case, it’s linked somehow to Texas A&M. LBJ’s is NARA and U Texas at Austin. But in most cases it’s just NARA.
I don’t think you can just give the papers to a college. They’re government documents (and government property), which is why NARA has to be involved. I admit that I’ve never visited a presidential library (I think the whole concept is vanity run amok) but AIUI they’re not just full of the former POTUSes’ private correspondence and walking sticks and so on.
I’ve never been to a presidential library though I think Nixon’s is somewhere close by.
Does it actually feature books that you can check out like a regular library? Can you find Lord of the Rings in a typical one, or the Magic School Bus in the children’s section?
Has any president tried to do something else other than a library? Presidential museum perhaps? Presidential restaurant, paintball arena, pharmacy?
Do just regular librarians work there or some special workers connected to the president? Like, can I just apply to work there as a minimum wage stockroom person?
I want to know why the last few deceased presidents have been buried in front of their libraries? Who the heck wants their final resting place to be a library? and why do their wives want their final resting place to be in front a library?
I’ve been to the Kennedy library. It’s essentially a museum to Kennedy and his administration. The papers and whatnot are not open to the public. And no, it’s not a “real” library; you can’t check out Harry Potter or 50 Shades of Grey or anything like that.
I assume the other presidential libraries are similar. If you don’t have any particular affinity for that president, there’s really no reason to go there.
Most of the libraries are built close to the presidents’ birthplaces, so they are choosing to be buried more or less where they were born. That’s not odd.
Construction and development is privately funded. They are maintained and operated on our dime under the Presidential Libraries Act of 1955.
Earlier presidents gave their papers to the university libraries – see the OP. And even if the government has to be involved, surely there’s a way to either guarantee that the universities properly handle them, or else they get handled directly by the government.,
As I said, I don’t know of any other country with such a bizarre system, yet they handle sensitive government documents from past administrators. So how do they do it?
Well, it’s a massive vanity project and propaganda-maintain edifice, and despite the privatized costs of constructing it, run on your dime. You might want to at least consider it.
Most countries don’t have the same head of state and government, so their chief executives are not as visible (to say nothing of their power.) I should note that Australia has prime ministerial libraries, and the UK is about to get its second (I won’t derail the thread by commenting on what I think of Thatcher of all people being the second to be so honoured.)
Well, they don’t have to be purely vanity projects or museums; Jimmy Carter made his into the Carter_Center, under whose aegis he’s arguably effected more longterm social change and improvement than he ever did as President.
While clearly little more than an unimaginative attempt to copy the Americans, whatever form the Thatcher Library ends up taking, it won’t actually be a presidential library on the American model. That’s because it won’t have any of her papers. The official papers have gone to the National Archives, while her personal ones were donated by her to Churchill College, Cambridge.
Churchill College has established itself as the unofficial repository for the papers of modern British politicians. The main exceptions tend to be Oxford graduates, such as Macmillan and Wilson, who instead leave their papers to the Bodleian. The assumption is that Thatcher gave hers to Cambridge as long-delayed revenge for Oxford’s honorary degree snub.
