Both his temper and his injudicious selection of advisers were indicative of flaws that would come to devour his presidency. Wilson attracted some of the most talented figures in American political history to his administration and his causes — Franklin Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, Herbert Hoover, Walter Lippmann and Bernard Baruch, among others — but too often he failed to delegate well, routinely writing his own speeches and even typing his own policy papers. Absolute loyalty was valued over candor. Again and again, Wilson broke with his closest associates when he felt they had betrayed him.
Despite these tendencies, he managed much of the war effort brilliantly, delivering a surprisingly effective army of more than two million men to France by the end of 1918. The United States stumbled onto the world stage a full-blown colossus, turning overnight from the world’s largest debtor nation to practically its sole creditor. Arriving in Europe to negotiate the peace, Wilson was greeted with an ecstasy no American president had ever matched, hailed as the savior of mankind.
He was quickly wrestled back to earth by his allies, the French premier Georges Clemenceau and the British prime minister David Lloyd George, and embroiled in endless, debilitating conferences on every detail of reconstructing the world. Wilson’s always fragile constitution began to break down. He suffered repeated cerebral episodes in Paris — probably strokes, perhaps even early onsets of dementia — that drove him into fits of paranoia and incoherence.
Wilson nonetheless carried his main objective back to America, a treaty for a “League of Nations,” intended to prevent future wars. Ratification required support from Republican senators he had needlessly antagonized and cut out of the diplomatic process, and when they demanded changes to the treaty he refused. The Senate, led by the waspish Lodge, responded with a campaign of insult and filibuster. Wilson tried to take his case to the people, embarking on an arduous speaking tour of the West, but there he broke down once and for all. Rushed back to Washington, he suffered a crushing stroke that left him an invalid for the rest of his life.
The government professor now put the Constitution through an acid test. For over a month, Wilson’s contact with the outside world was limited largely to his wife, Edith, and his doctor, and he remained in his bedroom for nearly all of his last year and a half in office. Rumors flew that the president had gone mad, while the country descended into bloody chaos. Corporate America crushed the country’s labor unions, and white mobs attacked black communities. The dark side of Wilson’s war effort had been a series of restrictive laws, censorship decrees and organized vigilantism designed to silence dissent and leaving the country, as Berg states, in “a period of repression as egregious as any in American history.” Now his most abysmal appointment of all, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, used these wartime statutes to raid homes and social clubs throughout the nation — and inject into our political system the hardy plague bacillus of J. Edgar Hoover.
Here begins the enduring national legend of Wilson as Christ, the American leader clean of hands and noble at heart, betrayed by perfidious Europe and the “little group of willful men” back home in the Senate. Wilson’s final struggle is indeed a tragedy and Berg plumbs its depths, but once again he elides the broader context.
Nowhere does he address Margaret MacMillan’s arguments in “Paris 1919” that the whole idea of a tragic peace is overstated — that deconstructing the ancient empires leveled by World War I was too complicated a task to have ever gone well, and that there was no conceivable peace the Germans would not have resented.
Yes, we should have joined Wilson’s League. But how much would a deeply isolationist and distracted America have wanted to intervene in the Europe of the 1930s? How much would England and France have allowed us to do so? In short, did Woodrow Wilson’s martyrdom really matter so much in the end . . . or is it more a story we like to tell ourselves?