I don’t think we can claim to know how history is going to judge the admin. Frankly, I don’t think future historians are in a better position to judge him than we are, either.
>I think one of the worst legacies of the Bush administration will be his contempt for the rule of law. Bush has repeatedly shown…
>There’ll be decades of problems from this issue. Future presidents will claim powers…
This is true, and may well be the big result of this admin in the historic view!
How history will judge the Bush Admin. has to do more with the future perspective than about past events.
Will America 2050 be the place where the legislative branch is all but dissolved and we look back at Bush as responsible for beginning that chain of events.
----or----
Does America 2050 exist in a world where little remembered military misadventures aside, the sacrificing of a few civil liberties makes the most sense.
It used to be for life, but late in Clinton’s term it was changed to ten years after the President left office (so Clinton would, under the current law, lose his USSS detail in January 2011). Since 9-11, and given the great antipathy towards President Bush here and abroad, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Congress changed it back to lifetime protection, as has been suggested, mebbe waivable by any ex-President after ten years. They could always extend it in 2019, if ex-POTUS Dubya seemed at particular risk.
For the false pretenses of the Iraq invasion, squandered international goodwill after 9-11, the deteriorating situation in Iraq and Afghanistan (unless miraculously turned around in the next, say, 25 or 50 years, which I doubt), the massive growth in the Federal budget deficit, the increasing degree to which U.S. debt is held overseas, the Plame affair and the botched Katrina response, this will probably rank among the Five Worst Presidencies Ever. Bush’s failure to acknowledge global climate change is also, in the long term, going to be a very big strike against him.
I also emphatically agree with everything Little Nemo wrote about this administration’s corrosive and contemptuous disregard for the rule of law. Bush has made claims of presidential power that are little less than royalist. The Framers would be appalled by the suggestion that, for instance, the President may declare a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant and hold him indefinitely, without charge and without access to counsel. Absolutely outrageous.
As a way of comparison, let’s look at the other favorite president here at SDMB: Andrew Jackson. this will go well, I’m sure
How well was he looked upon for his policies and actions while in office versus how it looks over 170 years later? While he was President he removed the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, issued the Specie Circular (which contributed to the Panic of 1837), the succession crisis that lead to Calhoun’s resignation and Van Buren’s Vice Presidency, and I think there was something involving Indians.
I realize, of course, that there are no polling records from that time, but what was the general view from that period of how he performed as President?
Damn, RickJay - excellent post.
Lots of other interesting points made - I especially appreciate the input from our Central American guest.
My biggest difficulty in assessing how “history” will judge W, is my doubt that there will ever be anything resembling consensus. Heck, right now you’ve got about 1/3 of the country thinking he’s doing a bang up job. No reason to think the mere passage of time and yet more facts are going to cause these folks to relinquish their delusion.
IIRC, the Secret Service protection for life only started with Truman, and may have beem because of Kennedy’s assassination. It’s not like we’ve been giving lifetime protection for a long time.
I was unaware that they’d changed it. Does this mean that Carter and Bush I aren’t getting Secret Service protection anymore?
You are all forgetting one massive, little detail- The Internets.
Never before has a presidency been as well documented, at least as far as the general public is concerned, as this one has. Past presidents, including Clinton to a lesser extent, have enjoyed the luxury, of having their legacies polished and embellished over the years. Events re-remembered and/or flat out forgotten. School textbooks, for example, could hardly be viewed as un-biased. In addition to the rewrites, there has been the ability of the media, be it print or television, to frame the discussion and influence the views of many generations that followed a particular president’s term. Despite a certain “news” channels best efforts, it is clear that this form of favorable lighting is fading away. Finally, on top of all this, the ability to know exactly what everyday people, from all walks of life, think of the administration’s actions, as they happen.
Look at this very thread for example, what other president has had such a debate, and this is just one of countless other flowing through these tubes, permanently preserved word for word for all to see? Even Slick Willie only had the influence of the internet at the end of his term.
Every detail of every angle of this presidency is preserved for all to see and judge. As further facts emerge(and there is plenty more to know) of all these ‘smaller’ scandals, that typically would be swept under the rug in the past; I think it will show a very calculated, yet often poorly managed, web of deceit, corruption, and carnage. As the cause and effect of one scandal begins to show how it influenced or directly caused another, I think in time, the entire thing will be viewed as one of, if not the, largest and darkest stains on modern American history.
Starting with Florida, then NYC & DC, out of Afghanistan and into Iraq, Ohio, NOLA, Guantanamo, all ending with a much ‘warmer’ Earth; it has been quite a world tour of destruction.
Those are just some of the main stops too. Darfur(lack of action), Iran(saber rattling), China(whole 'nother thread), N.Korea(nuclear reemergence), Secret Prisons(know/documented); these too all also bear mentioning.
As much as I would like to think of Bush/Cheney as the last remaining, rotting and bloated corpses of 20th Century politics, and Obama(Gore?-fingerscrossed-) as the new face of 21st C. politics; at least as far as this discussion goes, the Bush Administration is the beginning of a whole new era.
** tds1273**, nice post and welcome! Documents were frequently “lost” or “misplaced” in the past and memories manipulated over time. Nowadays it is getting harder and harder for information to disappear. With all this information it will be easier for future generations to dig through and get a better view of what transpired during the opening years of the 21st century.
All of them. All Presidents have been controversial. There may be a greater colume of debate now, but that doesn’t tip the balance either way. And let’s be perfectly frank; as much stuff as there is on the Internet, most of it is crap and even the good stuff is seen by few people.
Again; a President’s legacy is never judged by the number of foreigners he kills. If it were, Lyndon Johnson would be remembered as the worst American president ever. People don’t generally care about Darfur now, and won’t care about it in the future; Darfur will just be another sad and horrible footnote in a litany of African horrors. Nobody will remember “Saber-rattling” with Iran, they only remember actual wars. If anything, saber-rattling tends to be regarded warmly by Amnerican history; see Teddy Roosevelt. Presidents who start wars and use military force are generally regarded positively by history. History won’t much care about secret prisons because, again, you’re talking about killing foreigners.
I again have to point out that these are issues that have never hurt a President’s legacy in history before, and there’s no reason to believe Bush will be any different. They put Andrew Jackson on the money, for God’s sake.
I’m not trying to defend George W. Bush’s record; I think he’s an awful President. But a study of the way the previous Presidents have been remembered just does not support the contention that Bush will be poorly remembered.
I think he will be judged harshly…but I concede that I’m a biased against the man AND that it is impossible for me to objectively judge his legacy from so close in time. He isn’t even the former President yet! It’s tough to even judge what Clinton’s legacy may or may not be atm. I think histories judgment of Bush will hinge on how Iraq turns out. If it is a total disaster, and if the disaster spreads to encompass the region…well, I think Bush will rightfully get a lions share of the crap for that. If not…well, his legacy may be better than we currently think.
Economically, again, it is going to depend. As with Clinton it looks like the end of Bush’s term may see a definite downturn in the economy. Of course, with Clinton we had a period of unrivaled economic growth…while under Bush it has been a definite mixed bag. I think that, unlike Clinton, Bush is going to get the lions share of the crap for the economy going south even in the NEXT administration…rightfully or wrongfully. I think Bush is going to get painted with a LOT of crap by the next administration, again rightfully or wrongfully. So, I expect Bush’s stock to actually drop markedly as soon as we kick the dust of his presidency off our collective boots. Whether that remains the same 20 or 30 years down the pike though…that I don’t know. Presidents who have had good records have seen history treat them harshly…while other Presidents who were unloved, to put it mildly, have seen their stock rise amongst historians at least. From my nose on the glass perspective I find it VERY hard to believe that Bush will be one of the Presidents who history changes their collective minds about…but perspective is hard to come by this close to the events and stranger things have happened I suppose…
-XT
You did not how ever address the entire question, that being the most important part: "…permanently preserved word for word for all to see? "
Of course the debate about the future legacy of every president has been waged in the past, but when have they ever been preserved to the extent that they are now?
It does sway the balance. For instance, let’s say that in 50 or 100 years Iraq does become some great, open, democratic utopia, historians will look back at the debates, at the series of events, at the way his actions effected, not only the US, but the world; granted, depending how that change in Iraq does happen, he might come out looking like a prophet, however, my best guess is he’d be regarded as one lucky SOB at best.
Even better example, which looking back you brought up, the economy. You are correct in the past the blame has always fallen to who ever was left at the table when the check came. Not this time. With all of Bush’s failures so well documented and thoroughly discussed, he can not escape the blame. Of course, attempt to shift the blame to the acting president will be made, but that would only act as a thin, transparent layer of paint over the stain Dubya left.(assuming of course the acting president is not actively screwing up on his own). It is already beginning, where as in the past if those in the know could fore see a recession coming as they are now, it might have been possible to dress things up, obfuscate, and hold out long enough till the next president is in office. You can’t keep information like that quiet enough, long enough for that to work any more.
As far as “not caring about dead foreigners”, I believe too, that era is coming to a close. I agree with your point that, in general, presidents have not been heavily judged on this, but as does technology evolve and progress and change the debate, so too do the views of society. As this world gets smaller and smaller(again due in large part to the internet), I think the way in which we interact(Iran), or not(Darfur), with other countries and treat foreigners, will be weighed much heavier on a president’s record. Hell, even Bush knows this; in the quote provided by Squink Bush is trying to give his legacy a bump by trying to trump what he’s done for disease and hunger in Africa.
All I’m saying is…“Give peace a chance?”…well that too, but more so, is just that with the development of the internet, at least as we know it now, we will no longer be able to look at history, including the judgment of presidents, the same way again.
*BTW, thanks for the welcome Slypork
You don’t mention British Rail, which was a classic natural monopoly that Thatcher insisted be privatised. That privatisation cost millions (including large fees to companies that backed her party) resulting in companies being appointed to run trains by giving far larger subsidies than British rail ever was. No private company is going to build new rail lines.
British Airways has been struggling for decades against low-cost airlines.
It is indeed Thatcher’s fault. They followed her policies. Indeed city advisers from London made a packet advising the Russians.
The companies are profitable, but the country has been swindled out of billions worth of assets.
The one-off profits from the oil were very high during Thatcher’s Government, which meant her economic blunders were covered up.
The reason that millions took to the streets is that it’s not a fair tax.
The Falklands are free to do what exactly? Vote in UK elections?
Thatcher had no idea that there would be political consequences. She merely had a gut reaction to anyone challenging her. Before the war there was a strong possibility that the Islands could have been handed back to Argentina. Why did the UK want a colony thousands of miles away?
If a single extra missile had hit a UK ship, causing further casualties it could easily have led to a storm of public opinion and the loss of the war.
For years there was unease here that Thatcher ordered the sinking of the Belgrano illegally.
Goodness me. All these parties using Keith Joseph’s ideas and none of them admitting it? :smack:
Why hasn’t the NHS been privatised if every party supports it?
I agree that the number of foreigners killed doesn’t count, but the effectiveness of a war does. The Spanish-American war came out very nicely. The Vietnam war not so much. If we start it or not counts also.
Secret prisons might count - Wilson is thought less off because of the decline in civil liberties during WW I. Not foreigners, Americans I know, but Gitmo is in US territory, more or less.
As for the economy, I think it would depend if the historian were looking at the Dow or at wage growth. Now it seems like he’ll be leaving in the midst of a recession - caused by ignoring the bubble, so that will hurt. However I doubt it is going to be big enough to count all that much.
History books will show New Orleans under water. That might count more against his reputation than you might think - good picture, and good sound bite.
I never said that they were all successful.
This is pure drivel. If person A does something, how is it A’s responsibility if B does the same?
Please. Things like the ERM were far from covered up.
Factually incorrect. It was a per-person tax replacing the per-property tax. Totally fair. That it meant that many households would be paying more meant it was an unsaleable tax.
Be free. The Americans here might agree that that’s rather important.
Thatcher had no idea that there would be political consequences. She merely had a gut reaction to anyone challenging her.
[/quote]
Again, factually incorrect. Thatcher was told that we could re-take the Falklands. So she went ahead.
Missiles did hit ships and there was no storm.
Parts of the NHS have been privatised.
Please take your blind hatred of Thatcher and go read up on what actually happenned. Mrs Thatcher turned this country around. She was by no means a paragon of perfection, but the good she did vastly outweighs the bad.
But as I’ve pointed out, the Presidents who started the Vietnam War - Kennedy first, and then for the most part Johnson - are not that badly regarded by history. And the Vietnam War was a disaster on a scale that dwarfs Iraq, if we’re going by how many Americans it hurt.
And what evidence do you have that starting a war makes a President badly regarded? Again, where’s the hatred for Polk, McKinley, etc.?
That’s entirely possible; it’s hard to say how important history will consider Hurricane Katrina. But if I had to bet ten bucks either way I’d bet it that FEMA’s incompetence will be forgotten as to how it hurt a bunch of poor black folks with little political influence. It’s already being forgotten by most people, and in fifty years a natural disaster will probably be remembered as a natural disaster, not as a political event. How much historical regard is given to the government’s response to Hurricane Hazel or the Galveston catastrophe?
A warfaring President is judged on the success of his war, for right or wrong. Johnson *is * regarded as one of the worst Presidents, his domestic policies aside, precisely because he lost the war he adopted and escalated (not merely inherited). Polk and McKinley are considered successful (when considered at all, granted) because they won, and greatly expanded US territory in the process. We actually don’t care much about immorality if it works, sadly.
It’s certainly possible that a well-conceived war and a well-conceived occupation and reconstruction plan might have permitted Dubya’s war to meet some reasonable definition of success, and he’d get broad-based credit for that, sure. But he didn’t do that, he’s failed, and nothing can change that now.
Pretty harshly, i’d say. Bush believed his advisors (and Ahmed chalabi) who told him that th Iraq invasion would result in a peaceful, pro-American government coming to power. However, the whole justification for the invasion was based upon lies. for this, Bush deserves being placed among the worst presidents in history. I kind of feel sad for the guy, because he obviously believed he was doing the right thing-Tony Blair thought so, too.