I’ve never seen any evidence that Johnson is regarded as one of the worst Presidents.
According to this Wiki article which takes the average ranking of a President as ranked by various polls of historians, Johnson comes out around 14th.
The list sort of adds weight to RickJay’s arguments, too. Look at Polk up at number ten, Jackson at 8, McKinley at 18 and et cetera.
Interestingly I think several of the Presidents who are high on that list are pretty similar to GWB.
For example Wilson’s popularity was highly questionable at the end of his term. Many Americans who had gotten whipped into a frenzy to get involved in World War I were left wondering why we’d just lost over a 100,000 men and an enormous amount of money. Wilson was not viewed positively for getting us into World War I, but now he is viewed as being one of our best Presidents.
Harry S Truman was extremely controversial throughout his Presidency, and is probably a very good comparison to GWB when you are talking about level of fluctuation in public support and general feelings concerning the foreign policy of a President.
I’m not sure how I personally rank President Bush, he’s not my favorite President but nor do I think he’s on the same level as some of the ones who I rank as the worst. I’ll honestly need more time to come to my personal conclusion.
What I do know is that the visceral hatred that present-day opponents have for him probably won’t be reflected very much in the historical record. As RickJay has astutely pointed out, it’s just rarely the case that Presidents who have done the things Bush has done have turned out being viewed negatively.
I can’t see any positive assessments of his administration in the future. If you assume that he’s correct that radical Islam is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced, then he’s blown it because he failed to convince the rest of the world of this (even though 9/11 handed him a golden opportunity to do so) and gotten the US mired into a war which has served as a recruiting tool for the nutters, while the nations which did the most to promote the nutters remained unscathed. Let’s not forget that while we were busy invading Iraq, the North Koreans were busy building nuclear weapons, and Osama’s still running amok (or at least not officially declared dead). You can argue that the man was able to recognize a threat that the rest of the world didn’t see, I suppose, but without being able to get the rest of the world to go along, it’s a big down check on him.
If you don’t think that radical Islam is the greatest threat, then he’s a wanker of the highest order. The really depressing thing is that at some point in the future (and possibly within our lifetime), we’ll have a President worse than him!
It would be *so * nice, after 7 years now, not to be subjected to this sort of hateful nonsense any more. Do you really mean to say that what most abhor is not warmongering, hatemongering, imperialist conduct beyond Nixon-impeachment level, and torture? It’s just simple visceral personal?hatred of the kind the Pubbies have for the Clintons?
Puh-leeze. Do you really wish your thoughts on the subject to be taken seriously? :dubious:
Oh, what the hell , it’s quite noticeable that you yourself haven’t mentioned one single accomplishment for which he’ll be remembered posiitively.
And if he had been attempting to defend Bush, I’d agree that your comment was relevant. He wasn’t, though. I have no stake in this debate, but I do recognize that distinction.
How is it lack of accomplishment not relevant to a discussion about an administration’s place in history? How is claiming that those of us who are attempting to consider the facts are merely indulging in “visceral hatred” *not * “defending Bush”, in the only remaining way possible? :dubious:
Here’s a Puh-leeze for your very own. Cherish it.
I just don’t see at this point how Iraq can ever turn into a positive for Bush’s legacy. I don’t think anyone’s predicting Iraq will be “solved” in the next twelve months. So even if McCain gets elected - the candidate who has generally supported Bush’s Iraq policies the most - and the situation in Iraq turns around and the country actually does become a peaceful and stable democracy, the historical legacy will still be that the McCain administration saved Iraq. And that’s the best case scenario for Bush.
I agree with this completely. Even among the people who agree with Bush’s views, there has to be a wish that he had been able to do more about the issues he said were important. Bush may end up being remembered as the Republican equivalent of Jimmy Carter - a president whose heart was in the right place but who couldn’t handle the job.
I’m not saying it isn’t. It is not, however, relevant to Martin Hyde’s comment about “visceral hatred,” to which you were responding.
And if I had made that claim, your response to me would be relevant. I did not, though.
[QUOT=ElvisL1ves] Here’s a Puh-leeze for your very own. Cherish it.
[/QUOTE]
And if I had said “Puh-leeze” to you, that stinging remark would be relevant as well. I did not, though. Rather, I merely
Bush’s heart is not in the right place.
Well, it’s probably in a safe place at least.
Nah, that’s Cheney with his heart in the lockbox.
Depending on how badly the GOP corporate/religious alliance splits this year, Bush could be remembered as the anti-Reagan. That’s one step up from the anti-Christ, but still a long way below Jimmy Carter.
But there are people out there who believe the same things that Bush does. But even if somebody believes the same things that Bush does - that the war against terrorists is our main priority; that Iraq was an imminent danger that had to be addressed; that gays getting married are a threat to the American way of life; that lowering corporate taxes helps the economy; that New Orleans was asking for it; whatever - you still have to feel that while George Bush was 100% right about all the problems facing America, you wish he’d been a little better at fixing those problems.
Somebody mentioned James Polk. He ran on a platform of going to war with Mexico. A lot of people supported him for this and a lot of people denounced him for this. But nobody can dispute that he did indeed take this country into a war with Mexico. Or look at FDR. Many conservatives complain about how he turned America into a welfare state. But that’s what he set out to do (although he’d disagree with that description). So a president can be completely wrong and still be an effective president. And a president can be completely right and not be an effective president.
So while some people think Bush was right and some people think Bush was wrong, I doubt there’s any substantial number of people who think he’s been effective.