Reading an article hypothesizing on the source of G W Bush's polar nature, I got to thinking...

When does partisanship give way to objectivity? Or does it ever? It's interesting to me that my own personal historical opinion of past presidents is only clouded by partisanship as far back as I was consciously aware of their term of office. I hold my own opinions of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush the Sequel because I lived through them. Farther back than that though, I gauge a president's effectiveness based on what history thought, and that history, found in the textbooks mostly, usually speaks with one voice, with both the right and left channels mixed into monophonic.

Where does that national consensus come from? Who decides, in the end, whether our children and grandchildren see GWB as a great leader or bully dullard?

At the end of a presidency, do we all take a deep breath and say "okay, now that it's a moot point, yeah, he was really bad. Thank god there's this new guy" or will Republicans stand behind him even after there are more intelligent and worthy leaders at the point of the GOP's blade?

As an example, I'd probably have supported Carter 100% against Reagan in 1980, but now I'd freely admit that his talents didn't particularly lie in his presidential acumen. Is this polarization inherent in a two-party system mirroring the 'with us or against us' polarization we fear so much in our sitting president?