# Bush, worst president in history according the Rolling Stone **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 27, 2006, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511 "2006-04-27T21:12:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/1 "2006-04-27T21:12:16Z")
Ok, so Rolling Stone isn’t exactly a credible source for who is or is not the worst president in history. Nor are they exactly unbiased. According to [this](http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history?rnd=1145468541266&has-player=true&version=6.0.8.1024) story though: > [@](#): > > an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a “failure.” Now, this doesn’t exactly say that they consider him the WORST president, merely that his administration is a ‘failure’. And to be honest, I always thought that historians never tried to judge a presidents term while he was in office…prefering to look back after a few decades to see how things work out. Still, it does rather show an overwhelming majority of historians don’t think much of the Bush administration or what they have accomplished. > [@](#): > > The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been. > > Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole – a fact the president’s admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about “the current crop of history professors” than about Bush or about Bush’s eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled – and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating – reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled – nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success – flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush’s role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher. > [@](#): > > Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties – Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush – have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures – an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance. What I’m groping for to debate here is…how seriously should such polls be taken? How accurate is THIS poll (I don’t see much data on the actual poll or who took it)? Is it really representational of the professional historical community? I don’t really want to debate if Bush IS the worst president in history (I know there have been several debates on this in the past right here on the SDMB), but on how accurately and unbiased historians can evaluate a sitting president DURING his term. Can historians really make an unbiased evaluation of GW and state confidently that he is in fact THE worst President in history? So, are these guys politically biased and allowing their own distaste for GW to color their opinions, or are they giving an accurate and unbiased historical evaluation of the current sitting president. If the former, what does this say about their OTHER evaluations of past presidents? If the later, how well will such predictions (i.e. he will go down as the worst President or possibly among the worst) stand up to the test of time? After all, we’ve all seen presidents rise and fall in the eyes of historians…some presidents getting rehabilitated, others being villified after the fact. One has only to look at Carter to see a president that some are trying heroically to rehabilitate…and a guy like Andrew Jackson who was once considered one of the great presidents and who has fallen somewhat since then in many historians eyes. -XT ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/2 "2006-04-27T22:22:45Z")
My favorite saying in cases like this goes to Mao’s prime minister Zhou Enlai who was once asked his opinion of the French Revolution. “Its too early to tell,” was his reply. But, ever since I noticed this president disregard for what previous presidents did in a time of war, underfunding a war effort on purpose (no taxes to beat the axis) still makes no sense at all to me, and history will have to judge him on that. I do have to say the actions of this president will be with us for a long time, it is even more irresponsible that he has said already that the wars we have will not be his problem to solve. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/3 "2006-04-28T00:28:24Z")
“We surveyed a group of people who were selected from a cohort that tends to vote about 90% Democrat. To our surprise, very few liked the Republican president.” ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/4 "2006-04-28T00:32:43Z")
For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that Rolling Stone didn’t pronounce GWB the “Worst President Ever”; rather, that was done by Sean Wilentz, Professor of History and Director of the Program in American Studies at Princeton University ([credentials here](http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/98/q4/wilentz-bio.htm)). Not that it’ll stop the Bush apologists from trying to dismiss Prof. Wilentz as an “ivory-tower elitist” or other such nonsense, I’d imagine. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/5 "2006-04-28T00:39:54Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > “We surveyed a group of people who were selected from a cohort that tends to vote about 90% Democrat. To our surprise, very few liked the Republican president.” Why is it that people who devote their lives to examining the effects of political policies overwhelmingly choose the Democratic Party? Because they are evil ivory tower liberals, that’s why! :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/6 "2006-04-28T00:46:37Z")
Nice to see some closely-reasoned analysis here, **blalron**. I think that the fact that the historians polled were willing to comment on a presidency that hasn’t yet ended speaks to their lack of credibility. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/7 "2006-04-28T01:16:40Z")
I think the real question is how does Bush compare to [“We Built This City” by Starship](http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2004-04-18-worst-songs_x.htm)? ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/8 "2006-04-28T01:58:57Z")
And Og knows, if I want some serious historical analysis, Rolling Stone is my 1st choice of sources. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/9 "2006-04-28T02:08:07Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > I think that the fact that the historians polled were willing to comment on a presidency that hasn’t yet ended speaks to their lack of credibility. This seems mildly unreasonable. How does the fact that the presidency hasn’t ended yet render historical comparisons automatically invalid? Yeah, Bush’s administration isn’t a closed book yet, and I daresay that many of those historians would change their opinions tomorrow if he suddenly demonstrated the ability to raise the dead, or decided to reapportion the funds for Iraq in favor of domestic university history departments. I believe this is why the Post Office doesn’t put presidents on stamps until after they’re dead. (Or do they, these days? It’s been a while since I dabbled in philately.) But how useful is the study of history, if a given period must necessarily be over before it can be successfully evaluated? I can’t see what the point of military studies would be, for example, if its only legitimate application were to comment on battles that are already over. There have been plenty of histories written about the United States; surely their conclusions are not all invalid simply because the country’s history is still ongoing? I’d suggest that the most critical time for an informed historical perspective on a President’s performance is during his time in office; everything else is just taxidermy. Perhaps the Rolling Stone poll could have limited itself to “ranking Presidents’ performances at a point three-fourths through their time in office.” This would probably result in a markedly different standing for at least a few, but would at least have eliminated any problem with comparing the current Prez to his predecessors. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/10 "2006-04-28T02:11:55Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > I think that the fact that the historians polled were willing to comment on a presidency that hasn’t yet ended speaks to their lack of credibility. This is exactly the point I wanted to debate. Who were these folks, does this poll indicate the prevailing view in the historical community, and how seriously should we take such pronouncements? > [@flickster](#): > > And Og knows, if I want some serious historical analysis, Rolling Stone is my 1st choice of sources. 😛 Its a good point and one I made in the first line of the OP. In fact, that was exactly my first thought when I saw the cover with Bush in a dunce cap and the ‘Worst President in history?’ notation. Thats why I don’t want to debate Rolling Stones take on it but the poll itself. Interestingly enough only rjung has provided anything close to what I was hoping to actually debate here. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/11 "2006-04-28T03:12:07Z")
Even though I agree that something has to be OVER to look at its results, even if overwhelming amounts of people are looking at it as it unfolds and judging this, I think it’s fair to say that, after his presidency is over, this one is going to be in the bottom third at best. And, to echo what’s been said yet again, notice how the stock attack to this analysis would be to categorize these historians as elitists? 'Tis an attack on the person, not the statement. If they can bring out some solid facts and figures, then some serious debate can begin. I’d LIKE for there to be some facts and figured dug up to counteract this, by the way. The debate would denegrate into an old-fashioned mud slingin’. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/12 "2006-04-28T03:18:58Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I don’t really want to debate if Bush IS the worst president in history (I know there have been several debates on this in the past right here on the SDMB), but on how accurately and unbiased historians can evaluate a sitting president DURING his term. Can historians really make an unbiased evaluation of GW and state confidently that he is in fact THE worst President in history? The problem with this “debate” is that the two questions (only one of which you wish to discuss) are intractably related. Can a historian make an unbiased judgement that a President is the _Worst. POTUS. EV-HAR._? Of course! Let’s say that GWB nukes Iran, invades Canada, launches widespread, illegal surveillance of US citizens, has the CIA assisinate the remaining libral SC justices and makes recess appointments of, say, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and John Aschroft, makes ‘Let the Eagle Soar’ the official national anthem, proclaims the SBC the Official State Church, and starts rimming sobbing 7-year Mexican boys during press conferences. If all that happened, a historian could unquestionably make an unbiased evaluation of GWB and state confidently that he is, in fact, the worst President in history. There you go: question answered. Debate over. The real question is: does GWB’s presidency suck so bad that a historian could reasonably believe that it’s the worst ever? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/13 "2006-04-28T03:26:59Z")
But the thing is, Bush is doing already what others did not do before in history: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/) > [@](#): > > Russert: That’s a very important point. Every president since the Civil War who has gone to war has raised taxes, not cut them. > > President Bush: Yeah. > > Russert: Raised to pay for it. Why not say, I will not cut taxes any more until we have balanced the budget? If our situation is so precious and delicate because of the war, why do you keep cutting taxes and draining money from the treasury? > > President Bush: Well, because I believe that the best way to stimulate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own money. And I believe that if you raise taxes as the economy is beginning to recover from really tough times, you’ll slow down economic growth. You’ll make it harder. > > See, I’m more worried about the fellow looking for the job. That’s what I’m worried about. I want people working. I want people to find work. And so, when we stimulate the economy, it’s more likely that person is going to find work. And the best way to stimulate the economy is not to raise taxes but to hold the low taxes down. Well, I thought finding a mushroom cloud over an American city would make protecting jobs first a curious priority. (and before you reply, let’s remember that the administration came with that image) So, are we at war? Then this president will be tagged by posterity of at least being the very epitome of half-assed solutions in a time of war, by far the worst planning administration in American history. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/14 "2006-04-28T03:32:37Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > If all that happened, a historian could unquestionably make an unbiased evaluation of GWB and state confidently that he is, in fact, the worst President in history. Excuse me? How could any credible historian reach this “unbiased” conclusion? A president who fights terrorism in the Mideast, liberates Canada, uses his authorized executive powers of intelligence-gathering to protect loyal American citizens, strengthens the nation’s tradition of faith, and takes a vigorous public stance regarding the value of Mexican immigrants, yet somehow qualifies as “the worst President in history?” But yeah, I agree that ‘Let the Eagle Soar’ would probably push him beyond the pale. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/15 "2006-04-28T03:36:40Z")
If I submitted a paper like that in a journalism class it would have been thrown back in my face with a “F” on it. It’s one long childish rant. These “learned historians” fling adjectives like monkey poo. Reagan received the same treatment when he was in office. He was called a simplistic ideologue. Even the music industry picked on him. For those old enough to remember the long running MTV video of Reagan accidentally pushing the nuke button, he was made to look like a fool. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/16 "2006-04-28T03:41:20Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > And Og knows, if I want some serious historical analysis, Rolling Stone is my 1st choice of sources. They’ve got no credibility as a music magazine. Maybe their real talent is in politics? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/17 "2006-04-28T04:00:26Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Reagan received the same treatment when he was in office. He was called a simplistic ideologue. Even the music industry picked on him. For those old enough to remember the long running MTV video of Reagan accidentally pushing the nuke button, he was made to look like a fool. Yes. And…? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/18 "2006-04-28T04:06:53Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Reagan received the same treatment when he was in office. He was called a simplistic ideologue. Even the music industry picked on him. For those old enough to remember the long running MTV video of Reagan accidentally pushing the nuke button, he was made to look like a fool. Well, he was - at best. Not everybody worships him, you know. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/19 "2006-04-28T04:11:47Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > If I submitted a paper like that in a journalism class it would have been thrown back in my face with a “F” on it. It’s one long childish rant. These “learned historians” fling adjectives like monkey poo. Reagan received the same treatment when he was in office. He was called a simplistic ideologue. Even the music industry picked on him. For those old enough to remember the long running MTV video of Reagan accidentally pushing the nuke button, he was made to look like a fool. I need a cite for Historians doing that, not musicians. I see that there is still no consensus on Reagan, but even his historical critics call him shrewd: > **[The Great Communicator revisited / Historians land early blows in the...](https://www.sfgate.com/books/article/The-Great-Communicator-revisited-Historians-2719921.php)** > > The image of a president that eventually finds its way to our grandchildren's school... > [@](#): > > Reagan the man, who is often described as an enigma even by his official biographer and closest friends, is perhaps better understood as a historical force than a cheerful human being. John Ehrman takes this perspective in his book, “The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.” Unlike Lettow, who focuses on what Reagan said and did to prove a thesis about his personal objectives, Ehrman approaches Reagan as the embodiment and vanguard of a conservative movement led by elites, not the electorate, that has a momentum still with us today. The question embedded in this approach is whether Reagan was riding a wave or making one. > > A foreign affairs analyst for the federal government armed with a doctorate, Ehrman seeks to answer a genuinely puzzling question: “How was Reagan able to push a nonideological political system, rooted in the center and dominated by a centrist class with many liberal tendencies, toward the right?” The answer: Reagan was a “shrewd politician” who “accepted and worked within the gradualism of American politics, took his victories where he could, and compromised or backed off when he had to.” To Ehrman, voters are largely oblivious to the political sea change – they chose Reagan because he offered an alternative to Carter’s failed policies and was a likable fellow. > > Ehrman makes a convincing argument that Reagan was the political chef that made conservative thinking into a palatable dish for mainstream America. Though Ehrman may have been overly ambitious to attempt a review of all business, social, political and cultural changes of the '80s in a couple of hundred pages, he effectively connects the conservative ideas of the Reaganites with wider trends across the country. If Lettow is a student of the micro-Reagan, Ehrman looks at the macro-Reagan, though both err on the side of reverence. Surely these two books will invite more critical pens to spill ink. Just there I can see a series of items Bush is not even able to hold a candle to Reagan. When all what is happening in secret is eventually revealed, I have the feeling the status of Bush will diminish even further. Also, While Reagan made conservative thinking into a palatable dish for mainstream America, Bush is poisoning that dish, I think even conservative historians will get him for that. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/20 "2006-04-28T05:17:59Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > “We surveyed a group of people who were selected from a cohort that tends to vote about 90% Democrat. To our surprise, very few liked the Republican president.” This exact point was covered in the OP, but you have ignored that. If as you assert historians are 90% Democrats (love to know where you got that stat from), and unprofessionally let that sway their opinions, why did they pick on GWBush, rather than any other or all other Republican presidents? Question for the OP: leaving GWBush out of the published figures, did they rate Rep presidents are significantly worse that Dem ones? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511.md?page=2)