At this point, even as registered Republican, I have to admit it seems GW Bush is likely to be regarded as one of the worst US President’s ever, but people thought the same of Nixon, and historians have revised his legacy to the point that some regard him as personally flawed, but a foreign policy wizard, and overall a pretty decent President policy wise.
Is George W. Bush going to be redeemed? What are the chances?
I think he’s going to be right down there. He doesn’t really have any major policy successes to counterbalance all the fiascos. On a personal level, he’s also been one of the most charmless Presidents (I think Nixon may be the only Prez in modern history who had less charm) and will always be perceived as one the most intellectually lacking.
Add in the civil rights abuses, the lying to start a war, the myriad administrative scandals and the tanking economy – I don’t see how he could be revised up very far. He might not ultimately be seen as the all time, rock botton Prez, but I think he’s easily in the bottom ten.
And yes, I am politically biased against him but I would not make the same kind of evaluation of Reagan or Bush I, both of whom I could say positive things about.
I’m pretending that I’m an historian from the future trying to think of ways to rehabilitate Bush by capitalizing on good things that he did during his presidency.
I’m thinking…
…thinking…
…thinking…
I can’t think of anything.
I have no idea how historians in the future might be able to make Bush look good.
Didn’t he declare some large marine park? Possibly in Hawaii?
Edit: I think he might be partially exonerated by being viewed as just having accelerated downward trends (the increasing and excess US debt, for example) that were already present, rather than starting them completely. On the other hand, he certainly seems to have taken royal advantage of them.
I think he’ll be remembered far better than most people on this forum expect.
No Child Left Behind is not the boondoggle it likes to be touted as.
Subprime will haunt him
The lack of domestic terrorist attacks will be considered a plus.
A lot depends on how Iraq is in 5 years.
**
Diogenes** The charm thing is a funny little meme I’ve been hearing lately considering it was his charisma that he plowed through on. I think he has no charm to those predisposed not to like him, but he certainly charmed half hte country with his good ole boy routine.
We’ve talked about this before, and as much as I dislike him, he probably will not be that badly regarded by history. Like Truman, who was insanely unpopular, time will forget his at-the-time popularity.
Presidents don’t tend to be poorly remembered for starting wars, or else LBJ would be despised. The “Civil rights violations” he’s accused of are mostly either theoretical or, when real, are committed against foreigners. Bush himself has not been tossed out of office a la Nixon, and his immediate cabinet hasn’t been a nest of crime the way Grant’s was.
I know it’s difficult to believe, but he won’t be remembered that badly, because no President who’s done the things he’s done has been remembered that badly. Two term Presidents have to do a lot more than this to be badly remembered.
I can think of a few good things to say about him, although I doubt any of them are major enough so they’d spur a major redemption movement.
Okay, I can only think of one right now. But I swear I had 5 nice things to say about him during a “I bet you can’t say 5 nice things about the candidate you’re NOT voting for” thread in the 2004 election.
One might have been Bush’s using al-Sistani to reign in al-Sadr, which would actually drop off the list now that al-Sadr’s back with his militia.
al-Sadr’s been backing down. The idea that Iraq is irredeemably broken is a dogmatic meme that might not prove to be true in the end.
I’ll go along with that. He’s done it with women too. He should get credit.
My other good thing I usually say about him is that I appreciate the fact that he can throw a baseball over the plate. Most politicians look like toatl dorks when they throw out ceremonial pitches. They throw the ball straight down into the ground like girls or they do that pussy underhand thing. Bush can smoke one right in there.
I am totally against the Iraq war, but I’ll be the first to say it: there is the possibility that Iraq could turn out to be a success story in 10, 20, or 50 years, just like South Korea was a basket case for a long time after the war, and is now a modern democracy with a strong economy. If Iraq somehow turns into a success story, then it could be that historians credit Bush with sticking with his plan despite overwhelming domestic opposition.
I just can’t see that really being at all likely, though.
Academics tend to be liberal, and there is no critical distance right now. I’m willing to let the chips fall, but this chip won’t amount to much.
Historians tend to be conservative.
Huh? As I recall, there was a terrorist attack in the United States during Bush’s administration. I’m pretty sure it was mentioned in the news.
While I’ll credit Bush with running a “color-blind” administration, he’s not the first to do so. Clinton and Carter also appointed numerous non-whites to positions of power.
It could be argued that Bush’s was the first Republican administration to do so, though.
People also seem to forget the anthrax attacks.
Only if there were many more domestic terror attacks in administrations bookending his, I think. What happened terror-wise in Clinton’s administration? OK city? Maybe, maybe you could bring up the advent of school shootings in Clinton’s administration, but Bush hasn’t prevented those either. And obviously we can’t know what the next administration will be like in letting terror attacks slip past. But if McCain or Obama do well, I think Bush’s terms will look rather full of attacks, rather than empty.
Did the first WTC attack happen on Clinton’s watch, or Bush Sr?
February 26, 1993,, so a month into Clinton’s watch.
And I agree that no matter what the final verdict is, or should be, some historical distance is needed.