Is G.W. Bush the Worst President in American History?
Much has been made over the last few years by both historians and the public alike, that our current President, George Walker Bush, deserves the label of the worst President in American History. From preemptive wars of choice, to hurricane Katrina, to economic collapse, unconstitutional monitoring of US citizen＇s communications, endorsement of torture, and Guantanamo Bay. Asleep at the switch causing 9/11, waves of illegal immigrants, no child left behind is a disaster, tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, bail outs on Wall Street but nothing for main street, and climate change is killing us. And more. Much more. I＇ve heard it all. And it＇s all placed right at the feet of GW.
I mean, even the man＇s DOG, Barney, came under fire recently for biting a Reuters reporter that got a bit too close. Holy smokes. The dog, too?
Sure. GW has made some mistakes. All Presidents do. From Vietnam with LBJ to Watergate with Nixon. Iran-Contra with Reagan to heath care reform and Lewinsky with Clinton. And those just list the most recent Presidents. We could go back farther as far as mistakes, but why bother?
The only real way to get our arms around whether or not GW really sucked as bad as he＇s made out to be is to look at the top; and compare from there.
If you look at any top five list of American Presidents, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) are right in there. By general consensus, three of our greatest. They all have lavish monuments sculpted in their honor in Washington DC. But what made them so great? From what I can gather, it＇s because they shepherded the nation through very trying circumstances. Washington led the birth of the nation, and set the standard for the peaceful transition of power. Lincoln had the Civil War and preserving the Union. And Roosevelt, the Great Depression and World War II. When faced with horrible situations, they acted decisively and boldly. Can you imagine Lincoln ending the war at the high water mark of the Confederacy in 1862, because the war had become too costly? Or Roosevelt keeping the United States out of World War II by reaching a peaceful settlement with Japan? Or Washington deciding he would like to be King? Plus, another good thing Lincoln and Roosevelt have going for them, is the Presidents that came before them are viewed as either doing nothing to help solve the problems facing the nation, or actually making them worse (hence, the demonization of Hoover and Buchanan).
So that must be the standard. Bold and decisive action in the face of horrible threats to the nation. Now let＇s look at Bush.
No one can say Bush didn＇t act when the nation was attacked on 9/11/2001. He started the war on terror, and we haven＇t seen another terrorist attack in the United States since.
No one can say Bush didn＇t act during Hurricane Katrina. When it became obvious after a few days that FEMA and the State of Louisiana were dysfunctional, he more or less took personal command of the situation, sent in the military, and got the people out.
No one can say Bush didn＇t act when the credit markets froze up due to the housing crisis. He pumped billions into Wall Street all through 2008 trying to manage the disaster, and finally asked for and got an additional 700 billion from Congress to save the economy. Yes, we＇re still in Recession. But it＇s not going to be Great Depression II. He prevented that by acting boldly and decisively (both domestically and abroad).
True. He hasn＇t done squat to make climate change any better. But before Bush, who did?
So what gives? Why does it look like he＇s going to be hammered like a tent peg and his legacy trashed?
That＇s a fair question. And I believe it＇s because our very definition of a successful President, vice an unsuccessful one, has changed over the most recent generations. It＇s no longer about solving a crisis. Or acting boldly and decisively in the face of a crisis. It＇s about preventing one from happening in the first place. And having the foresight and vision to NOT make matters worse, through various forms of action or inaction.
Armed with this new standard, we get the following:
The war on terror is failing because we engaged in a preemptive war of choice in Iraq, which had no ties to terrorists like Al-Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and posed no serious threat to its neighbors due to allied containment operations. All this served to do was to reduce our standing in the world, especially with our allies, and strengthen the hand of Iran, relative to influence in Iraq. It also forced us to largely ignore the real terrorist threats to the United States based in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Katrina was a disaster, made worse by an incompetent President who was asleep at the switch, and failed to act in time to save lives.
The economy is in the toilet because Bush virtually mandated our regulatory structure be emasculated to the point of irrelevance, allowing greed and hubris to take over on Wall Street. Is it any wonder we are spending trillions to prevent Great Depression II?
Climate change is getting worse because Bush has failed to recognize its impact on the Planet, and take appropriate steps to engineer a soft landing; vice the crash we all see coming.
Does all of that sound familiar? It should. Because we hear about and read statements like that everyday. And it all speaks to the changing expectations of the nation, in relation to its governance; the federal government in general, but the conduct of the President in particular. The government is no longer expected to simply "back stop" the country; providing a "social safety net" in the forms of Medicare or Social Security. The government is no longer expected to simply "defend the nation if attacked". The government is no longer expected to simply "react to a crisis". Today, the expectations most Americans have of their government are far broader in reach and scope than they have been in the past. Proaction, prevention, and stability are now the keys to success. The government is expected to both lead and act in areas like job creation, health care reform, international conflict management, climate change, and economic growth. And the President, over the most recent generations, has become the focal point for those expectations.
Let＇s face it. GW＇s legacy is in trouble, because he believed a "hands off" approach to governance was best; especially in economics. He was primarily reactive vice proactive. And he failed to articulate a clear vision to move the nation forward; one that an overwhelming majority of Americans could live with and support. And on top of that, he engaged in foreign policy initiatives that divided both the nation and the world.
All of this, at a time when the very definition of a successful President had moved beyond Bush＇s conception of the President＇s role in governance.
So, have we answered our question? Is George Walker Bush the worst President we＇ve ever had?
Maybe. At least in terms of our current definition of success. Only time will tell if that verdict holds up.
Cheers!
|
|
