Respected Historian - Bush Worst President in History? (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Sean Willentz, who is one of the most respected historians in the nation, assesses the presidency of George Bush, and his assessment is not kind. Historians, according to Willentz, are a very cautious bunch, and that is what makes this judgement of Bush a very brutal one.

As opposed to great presidents, the worst ones typically show the opposite qualities in leadership and character. Most historians agree the the four worst presidents in history are Buchanan for letting things get so out of hand that we had a civil war, Andrew Johnson for actively siding with former Confederates against reconstruction, Warren G. Harding for the corruption his administration suffered, and Herbert Hoover who showed complete incompetence in dealing with the factors which led to the Great Depression. Now, most historians are adding a fifth - George Bush, and some say that his presidency will be known as the worst of them all.

How will history judge this presidency? Extremely brutal, the historians are now saying.

Article is here.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Methinks the historians ought to stick to historical analysis-- and leave the "historical" analysis of President Bush's administration to their grandchildren.

I don't disagree with him, and I support his right to speak his piece, but to claim any academic authority on how history is going to look back on this era is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[jfuh]

Well technically since the Bush administration is not yet history, they can not be judged yet.
I think the most radical change in judgement in history will be that of Nixon.

 

[cnredd]

Methinks the historians ought to stick to historical analysis-- and leave the "historical" analysis of President Bush's administration to their grandchildren.

I don't disagree with him, and I support his right to speak his piece, but to claim any academic authority on how history is going to look back on this era is absolutely ludicrous.

Exactly...

In the 1860s, Lincoln was one of the most hated men in the country...9 states didn't even have ONE vote for his Presidency...

If there was a CNN/USAToday poll, Lincoln would've been living in the teens percentagewise...

From the linked article...

No historian can responsibly predict the future with absolute certainty. There are too many imponderables still to come in the two and a half years left in Bush's presidency to know exactly how it will look in 2009, let alone in 2059. There have been presidents -- Harry Truman was one -- who have left office in seeming disgrace, only to rebound in the estimates of later scholars.

If no historian can responsibly predict the future, then I declare this guy irresponsible...using his very own words...:shrug:

EDIT: I thought I'd read up on this guy...I found a wonderful article that makes Al Franken look moderate...notice the red colored sentences by "one of the most respected historians in the nation"...The partisan hackery dumfounds...

Boomerang Effect
Bush v. Gore comes back to haunt Republicans in California's recall.

By Sean Wilentz
Web Exclusive: 9.16.03

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to stay the California recall election makes clear as never before that the entire effort to recall Gov. Gray Davis can only be understood in light of the Florida recount struggle of 2000 -- and of the larger efforts by the Republican Party to undermine democracy in order to seize and control power...

...Enraged Republicans, with their radio talk-show minions out in front, are now in the position of opposing, at least in theory, the basis on which the Supreme Court handed the presidency to Bush...

Either way, the political outcome will almost certainly favor the Democrats. Turning aside the stay would inflame opponents of the recall, who have been building great momentum in recent days anyway. Upholding it would delay the recall election until the date of the state's presidential primary next March. Davis' fate would thus be decided on a day when vast numbers of California Democrats turn out to vote anyway, with the pressure brought on by the state's immediate budget crisis that much further in the past and with the meltdown of the California Republican Party -- epitomized by the split between Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Sen. Tom McClintock -- that much further advanced...

And for getting itself into this mess, the Republican Party has no one to blame but itself. The California recall effort, from the start, had been of a piece not just with the Florida recount but with the partisan impeachment drive against President Bill Clinton in 1998, the GOP's voter suppression efforts in the 2002 elections (directed chiefly at racial minorities) and the continuing redistricting war in Texas. In each instance, the Republicans have shown that they will mangle established rules and procedures in order to gain power -- even when, as in the cases of the 1998 impeachment, the 2000 election and now the California governorship, the GOP has not won the backing of the majority of the voters. The Republicans will stop at nothing, and use any pretext or excuse (backed up with their greatest resource, special-interest money), to prevent rightfully elected Democrats from carrying out their responsibilities in office -- or from taking office at all.

And this is from a "respected historian"?????...This guy's Ward Churchill with a NYTimes book!...

"Respected"...Where?...In Jeanette Garafalo's attic?...:rofl

 

[Kandahar]

It's true that later historians often have different views of presidents than their contemporaries, but I find it very hard to believe they will be at all kind to George W Bush. He has had at least two major fiascos - the War in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina - through which it is practically impossible to see him as anything other than a blundering idiot.

Furthermore, he has fiddled while Rome burned regarding Iran's nuclear programs. If Iran does eventually get nukes, as I think they will, historians will almost certainly place the blame on George Bush for not stopping them.

His fiscal policies have been an unmitigated disaster. Government has not only gotten bigger, but it has gotten more inefficient, more porky, and we are operating on the biggest deficit in American history.

Furthermore it's very unlikely that he'll do anything in his last 2 1/2 years that historians will regard as a success. Even if he suddenly had a brilliant idea, he's been so politically neutered by his previous incompetence that it's unlikely he'd succeed in getting anything done.

Looking back over Bush's 5 1/2 years I really cannot think of a single success. The only thing where historians might not view him as a disgrace is the war in Afghanistan...but that was such a small-scale military operation that I doubt it will have much impact on the overall view of him in history.

Am I wrong? Has Bush had great executive successes that I've overlooked?

 

[danarhea]

It's true that later historians often have different views of presidents than their contemporaries, but I find it very hard to believe they will be at all kind to George W Bush. He has had at least two major fiascos - the War in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina - through which it is practically impossible to see him as anything other than a blundering idiot.

Furthermore, he has fiddled while Rome burned regarding Iran's nuclear programs. If Iran does eventually get nukes, as I think they will, historians will almost certainly place the blame on George Bush for not stopping them.

His fiscal policies have been an unmitigated disaster. Government has not only gotten bigger, but it has gotten more inefficient, more porky, and we are operating on the biggest deficit in American history.

Furthermore it's very unlikely that he'll do anything in his last 2 1/2 years that historians will regard as a success. Even if he suddenly had a brilliant idea, he's been so politically neutered by his previous incompetence that it's unlikely he'd succeed in getting anything done.

Looking back over Bush's 5 1/2 years I really cannot think of a single success. The only thing where historians might not view him as a disgrace is the war in Afghanistan...but that was such a small-scale military operation that I doubt it will have much impact on the overall view of him in history.

Am I wrong? Has Bush had great executive successes that I've overlooked?

1) I disagree with you on Afghanistan. Instead of finishing that war, Bush sent us to Iraq, and now the Taliban are back in charge of almost all of Afghanistan.

2) Bush's high marks will be his appointment of judges (Harriet Miers excluded, but she was eventually pulled by Bush). I can give Bush an A+ on this issue, and this will be about the only bright spot on this administration from future historians.

 

[Kandahar]

1) I disagree with you on Afghanistan. Instead of finishing that war, Bush sent us to Iraq, and now the Taliban are back in charge of almost all of Afghanistan.

2) Bush's high marks will be his appointment of judges (Harriet Miers excluded, but she was eventually pulled by Bush). I can give Bush an A+ on this issue, and this will be about the only bright spot on this administration from future historians.

John Roberts and Sam Alito are competent, qualified judges to be sure, but I don't think they're anything special. Almost every president appoints at least one Supreme Court justice...I wouldn't give Bush any bonus points for this. I'm unaware of a single case in the annals of American history where even the most brilliant jurist's success translated into fond memories of the president who appointed him.