But Truman did not leave America a legacy of damage and debt, and post-war Korea was not a quagmire.
Iraq will undoubtedly sort itself out eventually. But most likely it will be so far in the future that nobody could possibly credit Bush’s destruction of it with its eventual regeneration.
But Truman was capable and effective. The Marshall Plan alone should guarantee him a permanent place in the top ten. It would take an “unforseen consequence” of hugh benefit to America to raise Bush out of his own muck. I can’t see that happening, but anything is possible. . . .
I’m curious: just what would a two-term president have to do to be badly remembered?
Small nitpick: during Watergate people were aware of his competence in foreign affairs; it just tended to get lost in the noise resulting from the bad side of his administration. People knew Nixon was pretty capable when his head was screwed on tight; the problem was, it kept coming loose.
It didn’t really take revision by historians for people to consider Nixon a foreign policy wizard even in the wake of Watergate. For example, the ‘Book of Lists’ (1977) included the results of a Gallup poll in which respondents were asked to rank the presidents from FDR onwards in various areas. Nixon ended up last or tied for last in every category except foreign policy, where he was first.
I recall that book – Nixon was ranked first in the “Most Loved Americans” and the “Most Hated Americans” lists.
But this is only clear to us now.
At this point in Truman’s administration relative to Bush’s, inflation was ramping up (and the Fed reaction to this would in part trigger a recession in 1953).
Korea was indeed a quagmire - the fighting was over trivial territory gains and losses around what is now the DMZ. Furthermore, people remembered very well how we had had the North Koreans pushed back all the way to the Yalu - and then had to retreat ahead of the Chinese.
And while Truman was a pretty honest guy, many members of his administration were not, and this corruption became not only a campaign issue but a mark against Truman personally. There was no way he could have won in 1952, and he was not constitutionally prevented from running.
I don’t know how Bush will look in sixty years. He might well look worse. But if you had told an average American in 1952 that Truman would be well regarded one day, they likely would have laughed in your face.
I am also a Republican who is extremely disappointed in GWB, but in order to rank him historically, I think we need some time separation. IMHO, it is too early even to judge Reagan.
One thing no one else has mentioned: The Medicaire Prescription Drug plan. As flawed as it is, it still helps elderly people buy their prescription drugs, a step up.
…the US president who led the USA out of “superpower” status. This is a GOOD thing for us “little people”-no more “grand startegies”-, “nation building”…and the burden of policing the world!
Think about it-we can actually spend our bloated military budget at home! We can fix roads, bridges, and have a decent healthcare system!
We can join an alliance of nations, if we like-but will no longer maintain a two ocean navy, and an army/airforce of such huge proportions.
Some things take a while before we see the ultimate effects. I don’t see Bush ever cracking out of the worst 10 presidents, but stranger things have happened. If Iraq is a liberal democracy in 20 years Bush is going get a lot of credit, if it’s still an anarchistic hellhole or an authoritarian theocracy in 20 years Bush is going to get a lot of blame. Here in 2008 it seems pretty likely that Iraq is going to be a hellhole for decades to come, and so Bush not only gets the blame for its current hellhole status but also pre-blame for its projected future hellhole status. And even if Iraq recovers someday, Bush still won’t be given too much credit–after all, we don’t give Jefferson Davis credit for the 13th Amendment.
This thread seems somewhat to not have a point, no offense. I mean, nobody is going to come in and say their current opinion is or will be viewed as wrong down the line.
Ha, just wait til you see what President Obama has in store for us. Neither Obama nor McCain will lead us away from nation-building. Obama has a plan to take responsibility for building up the third world. There will be many more grand strategies.
I don’t see that Iraq is destined to be a hellhole at all. I see that it is possible, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary lately.
:dubious:
I think LBJ would be remembered as an okay if not good president if not for Vietnam, whereas now he’s remembered as okay bordering on bad, if not outright disliked.
It depends on the war. (No wars are good wars with the exception of the Americal Revolutionary War, World War II and the Persian Gulf War, to quote Bart.)
Iraq is unquestionably a hellhole now. Given the level of damage the invasion and occupation have done, it will be many years before the economy and quality of life recover to pre-2003 levels – even given an optimal political settlement in the short term, which does not look likely.
Too many ifs involved.
Today, at any rate, W’s approval rating has just reached a new record low of 28%. (Meanwhile, Congress only gets 23% and that’s a bump from previous polls.)
Bush owns the bottom. He took a strong economy and trashed it. He oversaw the largest giveaway to the wealthy since the gilded age. He gleefully took the rights of privacy from the American people. He took a country that was rather respected and taught the world to resent and distrust us. He pushed torture that went against the Geneva convention and made our war values equivalent to a 3rd world dictatorship. He packed the court with activist judges who will agree to the gutting of the peoples rights. He oversaw the illegal wiretapping and listening to the private conversations of citizens. His off the cuff speeches have been embarrassing.
No, no! “Activist” judges are judges that invent new rights! Just ask Bricker! 
How quickly they forget the whole dot com bust thingy. Oh well, another fact free post by gonzo…I’m sure there is wide spread shock.
GWB’s legacy is going to hing on Iraq as far as any redemption goes. If Iraq is a quagmire 10 or 20 years down the pike then I can very well see GW remaining (I assume he’s there already) in the bottom 10 worst presidents category. If Iraq is moderately better then GW will probably rise up to the bottom quarter of worst presidents. If Iraq is an unbridled success…well, I seriously doubt GW will EVER get beyond the worst half of all presidents but I could see him topping out somewhere in the middle I suppose…assuming all that actually happens.
He’ll never, IMHO, get higher than that no matter how well Iraq works out though. He’s simply made to many mistakes and screwed the pooch to many times and in to many ways to ever get beyond that no matter how well Iraq turns out in the long run.
However…that’s just my opinion looking at things from the perspective of the last 7 years and with a serious bias on my side. I concede that we don’t know how things will work out with the next few administrations. Some of them may stink enough that people look back at GW and our time as a sort of golden age or something. Who knows?
-XT