Mass Eyes and Ears points us to the Washington Post, where historians Douglas Brinkley, Eric Foner and David Greenberg engage in a fun debate (under the exceptionally grim circumstances) as to whether Bush is
- absolutely hands-down the worst President ever:
Bush has taken this disdain for law even further [than Nixon]. He has sought to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national defense. The court’s unprecedented rebukes of Bush’s policies on detainees indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.
Yeah, rolling back the Magna Carta seemed like a bit of overreach to me, too.
- possibly the worst,
At first, you’d want to compare Bush’s Iraq predicament to that of Lyndon B. Johnson during the Vietnam War. But LBJ had major domestic accomplishments to boast about when leaving the White House, such as the Civil Rights Act and Medicare/Medicaid. Bush has virtually none. Look at how he dealt with the biggest post-9/11 domestic crisis of his tenure. He didn’t rush to help the Gulf region after Hurricane Katrina because the country was overextended in Iraq and had a massive budget deficit. Texas conservatives always say that LBJ’s biggest mistake was thinking that he could fund both the Great Society and Vietnam. They believe he had to choose one or the other. They call Johnson fiscally irresponsible. Bush learned this lesson: He chose Iraq over New Orleans.
- it’s too early to say and that he hasn’t yet sunk as low as the also-thoroughly-corrupt warmonger Nixon:
Bush has two years left in his presidency and we don’t know what they’ll hold. They may be as dismal as the first six. Future investigations may bear out many people’s worst fears about this administration’s violations of civil liberties. And it’s conceivable that the consequences of the invasion of Iraq may prove more destructive than those of Nixon’s stubborn continuation of the Vietnam War. Should those things happen, Bush will be able to lay a claim to the mantle of U.S. history’s worst president. For now, though, I’m sticking with Dick.
You know a man by the company he keeps, huh?
Of course, the things that could partially rescue Bush’s legacy require the character traits that he utterly lacks: reflectiveness, humility, flexibility. It’s not just that he has goals (or “interests”, or cronies) to which he is utterly committed to; it’s that he is completely incapable of changing his methods to achieve those goals. And therefore the ends and means are inseparably tangled, creating and exacerbating the catastrophe in Iraq. Bush has to do it his way or no way at all, and so we’ve got the latter. Go figure.
Even Reagan, who Bush clearly imagines himself emulating, realized that in Gorbachev, he had a partner with whom he could do business. Reagan was so enthusiastic about this relationship that he even upped the ante for “liquidating” nuclear weapons — before he was talked down by his own appalled military advisors. Reagan had a goal, but at least personally, he was willing to change tactics to achieve it. (I never thought I’d be nostalgic for Reagan, but there it is.)
On the domestic front, Bush could partly haul himself out of the historical gutter by taking significant action on global warming; on prescription drug costs; health care for kids (at the least); reforming No Child Left Behind; agreeing to some rollbacks of the most obscene upper-income tax breaks; rationalizing immigration; and finally sorting through the prisoners at Gitmo in a fair and systematic way. Good luck on any of those, of course.
On Iraq, there’s simply no way to un-catastrophize the situation. Many thousands of Americans are dead or maimed; some 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead; civil war/anarchy/genocide; and really no way to salvage our own strategic interests.
The checks and balances that we rely upon, from Congress to the media to the voting public itself, all utterly failed from 2000-2006. In the next two years, it’ll be interesting to see how much real-world externalities affect President Bush’s actions. But knowing his temperament, I’m not expecting much. The Worst President Ever bandwagon rumbles on, full speed ahead.
I had heard about the Foner commentary, but had not had a chance to actually go the Wash Post editorial page, so now I’m looking forward to reading the whole series. Glad they are hosting this debate. Should get the whole country talking. Who knows maybe word will seep to the President himself. Should be interesting.
I’m with Eric Foner. It will take us generations to undo the damage to our standing in the world, and generations to undo our damage to our world itself. His policies will also enable many authoritarian rulers to oppress the people in their own nations, citing the example of the way the Bush Administration conducted itself.
<
p>
Domestically, the Bush administration has caused far more damage to people, the nation, and our democratic institutions than any other President. His administration’s corruption and incompetence, whether the issue is Katrina, defense contracting, or the environment, are unparalleled. When I compare the constitutional crisis Nixon caused to the constitutional crisis we are now facing, Nixon’s actions are just the warm-up act.
<
p>
I wonder whether this next two years will see our country turn back from the edge of an abyss, or will see us go over that edge into a very dark chasm. We’ll know as 2009 begins.
<
p>
The optimist that I am hopes that historians of the future will point to 2001-2008 as another period of history like the McCarthy era.
<
p>
How about a poll, Charley? These are terrific op-ed pieces.
Of course I should have done a poll — but you can’t edit one in after you’ve posted! :((((
<
p>
Well, you all will just have to post your votes in the comments …
Worst prez in modern times.
he wasn’t inspiring, but he didn’t to very much long term damage.
<
p>
Incidentally, I’m not so sure that Bush will play out as the worst, not by a long shot. Crazy, I know. If Iraq does get resolved with a mixed review (instead of its current total failure perspective), even if it isn’t Bush that finishes the job, then the albatross won’t hang so heavily around his neck. The rest of his (IMO) terrible policies: most can be undone over time. Sure, there’s personal suffering in the mean time, but history tends to forget that.
<
p>
So, I think if Iraq resolves with some positive notes and the Dems are able to reign-in the out-of-control GOP deficits and lack of any reasonable oversight, that much of the Bush damage can be undone.
<
p>
And, if nothing else, he signed the “Do Not Call” legislation — legislation that was a long time coming.
that’s a hella lotta “ifs,” stomv. And I don’t think there are ANY “positive notes” to the Iraq debacle – unless, of course, you’re a defense contractor or an oil baron.
<
p>
I would hardly call the “Do Not Call” bill a counterbalance.
<
p>
Even if the Dems are able to undo the damage, I still feel confident that that damage will still be hung around the scrawny neck of the Crawford Chickenhawk.
Carter is certainly no better than mediocre, and probably on the weak side of average. Nevertheless, as stomv notes, he didn’t do any long-term damage, and he at least had a major foreign policy success (Camp David).
<
p>
The hostage crisis certainly is a major stain on his record as well, but this at least was an external issue, rather than something directly caused by American policy (i.e. Vietnam, Iraq). Time will tell, but in 20 years if Bush’s record (in two terms, as opposed to Carter’s one) looks like it does now, I’m not sure how Carter will be considered worse than Bush.
Dept. of Education. Dept. of Energy.
<
p>
‘Nuff said.
I was actually going to mention Carter’s administrative organization as one of his few domestic successes. I suppose reasonable people could disagree with this actual policy, but surely this was an important domestic initative that has had a significant impact on the workings of government.
<
p>
This is the real benchmark to use — after all, liberals would disagree with plenty Reagan did, but it would be difficult to rank him anywhere but in the top third of Presidents because of the many areas in government that he had a major influence in his 8 years.
Uh, no. First, the U.S. engineered the coup in Iran in 1956 that overthrew the elected government there. (See Stephen Kinzer’s All the Shah’s Men) Then, the U.S. government gave support to the Shah as his brutal police arm, the Savak, ground down all secular opposition. The only folks left were theocrats. Were it not for the coup or the brutality of the Savak, there would be no hostage crisis. Were it not for American policy, there would have been no coup and no Savak.
<
p>
By the way, the British had wanted a coup during the Truman Administration. Having been booted out of Iran, they asked Truman’s help. He opposed them. In 1953, the incoming Republicans, showing future generations their virtuoso skill in improving the Middle East, jumped right on the goal of overthrowing Mossadegh.
Certainly not from LBJ or Nixon…the two most responsbile for the war in Southeast Asia. On the domestic front, Johnson moved the country forward on civil rights further than anyone before or since. Nixon’s domestic initiatives, though scorned by liberals at the time, look positively progressive compared to those of Bush.
<
p>
There may have been some 19th century presidents who fouled up one way or another–those immediately preceding Lincoln probably deserve some of the blame for events leading to the civil war–but Bush stands alone in taking a country (US) that was in pretty damn good shape, well-liked considering it was the world’s sole superpower, and turning it into a hated global pariah that begs for alms (demanding contributions from poor countries to help the victims of Katrina), not to mention what he did to Iraq…
<
p>
Bush, no ifs ands or buts.
Nixon was a crook. He violated laws.
<
p>
Bush has ATTACKED the Constitution. He’s actually claimed that the courts and Congress are merely advisors – they have no jurisdiction over a President during “war”.
<
p>
I think this takes the prize – Bush has tried to utterly eviscerate the Constitution. Give that man a Medal of Freedom.
Furthermore, Bush did his damage not in reaction to a crisis, like Andrew Johnson, but after a presidency that left us in good shape economically and respected internationally. You might call him a proactive disaster. And no, 9/11 didn’t change everything. A real leader would have asked more of us and not used the event for his own selfish purposes and those of his cronies, both ideological and corporate. Katrina was collateral damage, a casualty of a government that had become a wholly owned subsidiary of this criminal cabal.
<
p>
“Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over,” indeed.
<
p>
But yes, to me the belittling of and the unprecedented ongoing attacks on the Constitution puts him in the sub-basement of Chief Executives.
It’s impossible to say now whether Bush will be the worst President in history. One probably needs about 20 years after the Presidency to really get a good handle on where the tenure ranks in history.
<
p>
That said, Bush has set himself up well to be one of the worst, no question. Can anyone think of a two-term President with fewer domestic accomplishments than Bush? And this is with a Republican-led Congress for 5 out of the first 6 years.
If a Dem had produced them, he’d be carried around the nation in a sedan chair.
<
p>
Also – for the simple folk outside of Massachusetts who don’t HAVE Prescription Advantage – the addition of Medicare Part D is a godsend.
<
p>
Parenthetically, while not a domestic accomplishment, the US has finally made a committment, instead of a concert series or photo op, to world AIDS under George Bush. Imagine that.
I have looked at the stock market and interest rates, but the fact that you decided to focus on these helps highlight how little Bush has actually done domestically. Do you think Clinton is the best President of all time because of the stock market and interest rates during his tenure? I don’t think so — and I think you would have a difficult argument to make that the President has a major impact on these two factors.
<
p>
Of course, the President has the most impact on foreign policy, and that’s where Bush will be judged (and it is unlikely to be a good judgment). But noting the almost complete lack of domestic achievements just puts a point on what seems to be a failed Presidency. If it turns out that Bush’s political strategy also help regionalize the Republican Party (kind of the anti-Reagan effect), then that will be a count against him historically as well.
<
p>
Maybe AIDS funding will be a domestic achievement for Bush, but only if, you know, he funds it in his final two years to match his so-far unfunded pledges. My bet is on immigration reform, but we’ll see if he wants to go in that direction.
I think most Republicans view a lack of Big New Domestic Initiatives as an accomplishment. Indeed, many conservatives hold this president’s domestic programs: No Child Left Behind and the expansion of Medicaid — against him, and would be pleased with a domestic agenda that consists of : a tax cut.
Pledges are meaningless without funding and followthrough. Anyone can make grand speeches when it is politically expedient to do so. It is revealing which promises Bush ignored after the crowds had gone home.
<
p>
And no, I don’t hold up much hope that the AIDS pledge will be fulfilled. Iraq has effectively drained the bank account.
First of all, that’s a wildly imperfect meter of the economy’s health, much less the sense of prosperity as felt by the average person. But since you mentioned it:
S&P 500, Jan. 2, 2001: 1,320.28
S&P 500, Dec. 1, 2006: 1,396.71
<
p>
Nearly six years later, that’s an appreciation of a whopping 5.8%, or about 0.9% a year. I should be grateful about this? I can send my kid to college on those returns?
<
p>
Perhaps President Bush would also like to take credit for stagnant (if not declining) median wage growth and spiraling health care costs.
<
p>
I’ll tell you who else thinks Medicare Part D is a godsend: PhRMA. One for us, 99 for them. That’s how the Republicans do business: the little guy gets a little benefit, special interests get a massive payout, and the future is mortgaged to the tune of $900 billion over ten years with no negotiating power for the government on behalf of the taxpayers. Part D is a benefit, sure; but mindbogglingly wasteful with our money. Mend it, don’t end it.
Here are two Dow Jones Industrial Averages –
<
p>
May, 2001 – 11,732.92
<
p>
July, 2002 – 7,702.34
<
p>
Anything happen in the meantime?
<
p>
I remember Carter and the hostage crisis and the emergence of OPEC. We had gas rationing and 21% interest rates. After 9/11, the stock market lost about 1/3 of its value, and in 6 years it’s just about even again – with no significant effect on the domesic economy. 15 straight quarters of GDP growth, in fact.
<
p>
And the worst shot you have is a stagnant minumum wage?
The Dow is a measure of nothing, except for the Dow.
the Carter Administration is always pulled out of the hat as a Democratic benchmark against Bush’s disaster of an administration.
<
p>
Instead of, say, that of the reviled Bill Clinton, who was also Bush’s immediate predecessor.
I made no attack on either Clinton or Carter.
<
p>
And, to be fair, Carter’s is chosen because Clinton’s administration, apart from his zipper and the damage it inflicted and potential that it sapped, was mostly successful, triangulation and all. Carter’s was not.
My apologies for the confusion. It was meant for bostonshepherd and/or Peter Porcupine.
of the Worst. President. Ever. award is George W. Bush in a landslide. The list of adjectives to describe this miscreant is too long to publish here.
Gutless, clueless, and now, graceless and mindless, Jimmy Carter let this country drift to the edge of the abyss. Doubtless, he would have drove us right over, had the public not awakened long enough to throw him off the bus.
<
p>
We’ve had a couple of piss-poor-presidents in my lifetime. But nothing compares to those gloomy, dispiriting four years that we endured without a leader.
Any statistics to back your contentions? Or are they just, you know, “truthy”?
<
p>
Carter oversaw GDP growth that averaged 3.3% per year. GDP growth under Bush has been about 2.3% per year. In fact, GDP growth is almost always much lower under Republican presidents than under Democrats – from my blog: http://blueworksbett…
<
p>
Remember back under Carter, when an average family of four could live “the American Dream” on a single median 40-hour-a-week salary? [sarcasm on]Yeah, it’s so much better that we need two median jobs. If we’re really lucky, we’ll be able to put children to work in the coal mines.[sarcasm off]
<
p>
Republicans, including New “Democrats” like Clinton, have brutally sodomized the Middle Class from the day Reagan took office. Perhaps that’s been good for you, Mr. Romney – but it sucks for most of the rest of the country.
Certainly a long line of offenders. But, isn’t the problem simply that the politicians do things to us, not for us. Can you really trust people that say how much they love us, feel our pain, kiss our babies and not be a sap? The politicians are in power to help themselves. They enjoy a certain amount of government force while doing this. This force is directed against us. The very leaders that set up this government warned us about putting trust in our politicians.
<
p>
The best governments tend to be the ones where one party may have the Executive, and the other may have the Senate and the House is about equally divided. The politicians of both parties then spend most of their time bickering with less time to devote to skinning us.
<
p>
Does anyone believe there are real ideological differences between the parties?
<
p>
The answer to that would be an emphatic yes.
<
p>
You’re not one of those “not-a-dime’s-worth-of-difference” people, are you?
So, one party’s worthless playboys, scoundrels and weasels are better than the other party’s? The public seems to know there isn’t much of a difference. Look at the presidential elections and how close they are in recent years. Could either candidate fire up a vision of what this country should and ought to be? The ads are negative on both sides because neither has anything positive to offer. We vote for the lesser of two evils.
<
p>
If only the party leaders could clean their houses. We might get a candidate that would be worth our vote.
No need for us to trouble our heads about ideology. That’s all for show. We await the purity of the perfect politician who might save us.
<
p>
This, too, is an excellent argument for monarchy. “God Save Us,” I say. “God bring us a King!”
We made a grave mistake not having a monarchy. Queen Elisabeth II loves her people and, with more power, I’m sure she’d do a better job than those venal politicians you mention. They’re in it only for themselves.
<
p>
Nothing beats the pure heart of a well-raised monarch.
W.
<
p>
Nixon’s record:
Crimes:
– illegal wiretapping of citizens re Pentagon papers.
– obstructing justice in the Watergate coverup by stonewalling subpoenas.
– attempting to tamper with witnesses at Watergate grand jury with bribes.
The three charges above were in the articles of impeachment which would have been passed if he had not resigned.
– prolonging the Vietnam war 1969 to 1974, bombing Cambodia. These two are arguably criminal as millions died as a result, but he was not indicted for them.
<
p>
This Nixon record is awful; Reagon’s was bad, also far-reaching, but with a few up moments. Both are skimpy compared to the Bush regime’s comprehensive assault on decency.
<
p>
Its Crimes:
– Starting a war without any reason.
– Many lies justifying that war and countless other matters.
– Reckless prosecution of the war, resulting in the abuse of military personnel by overlong tours of duty while neglecting to equip them properly or having any plan to end the war.
– Crimes against the Iraqi people including destruction of their institutions and infrastructure and more than half a million deaths.
– Using inhumane weapons on civilians (Admittedly lots of company here).
– In effect creating more terrorists, this on the testimony of US generals.
– Illegal arrests, years-long detentions and deaths of innocent people.
– Advocating and justifying torture in violation of the Geneva conventions
– Widespread practice of torture, as well as the use of proxies outside the US to conduct torture.
– 750-plus Presidential statements of intentions not to obey laws.
– Widespread election tampering.
<
p>
Atrocious policy:
– Refusing to act of global warming.
– Discrediting science.
– With its enormously successful propaganda machine, comprehensively disrespecting, duping, and disabling the citizens of the United States.
<
p>
Nixon has some things to his credit such as creating the Environmental Protection Agency. The only non-destructive thing I can think of on the part of Bush is the normalization of black people and women in high positions. Unfortunately one of these is a willful perpetrator of lies, Condolleezza Rice, and another, Colin Powell, soiled a fine career in collaborating on lies which have had catastrophic results.
<
p>
Tom from Troy NY
<
p>