Also, Washington was married in 1759, if he had his first child (George Bush Washington) that year, his son would probably not have been old enough to even run for President until the election of 1796, by which time someone else would have served two terms as President already. And Yorktown would have been quite some time ago in the national memory, meaning it’d be hard for someone with overtly negative characteristics to hold on to his father’s legacy for such a long period of time.
Martin: Very good sumamry, and you make some excellent points. I find it odd that people feel the need to make Bush look even worse than he actually is. I know some Bush supporters try to do the opposite, but the fact of the matter is a modern day president has much more ability to “destroy the union” than any 19th Century president did. Bush hasn’t destroyed the union today, and he most certainly wouldn’t have done so 200 years ago.
I have to disagree, John. From what I’ve read about the early years of the Republic, the union was much more breakable then when the government and its constituant states were still trying figure out how to form “a perfect union” (remember that the Constitution established our second federal government). The conventional wisdom now is that the Civil War “settled” the question of whether states could seceed. (Also, I think the multitudinous hassles involved in a state disentangling itself from the USA today would dissuade anyone from trying it - i.e., it’d just be too damn difficult at the practical level.)
It occurs to me the whole question is terribly moot. Our first four presidents were men deeply involved in the Revolution and/or the Constitution. No was a third-rank pol like GWB could have been elected then.
The Union was more breakable by the states because if a state like New York or Virginia (then the most populous) had decided to give up on the union, the union would have collapsed. However, it was not more breakable by the President, the President had very little power.
If we assume everything the OP wants us to assume, and make Bush the first President, and he’s just as evil and bad as the OP asks us to assume he would be (interesting how many assumptions we have to make to even do this) the one effect I think it would have is a restructuring of the Presidency. A very bad first President would just mean the office of the President would become very second-fiddle to the legislature.
Bush has become quite the boogeyman on these forums and in the left in general. But, he’s not some Dr. Doom-ish supervillain. Anything Bush does, he doesn’t do alone. It’s either done with the support of Congress (sometimes many Democrats), the support of multiple members of his cabinet, the support of military leaders, etc. Sure, there are conflicts. Sometimes Bush has done things that say, members of the cabinet support but the Congress doesn’t. Or things that members of the cabinet support that the military leadership doesn’t. But Bush doesn’t act alone. No President really does, or can.
And one thing I forgot to add is it is done with the support of the people. Some of Bush’s most villified actions were, at the time they happened, supported by a majority or a plurality of the public.
Bush was reelected post-Iraq war.
Its a silly question designed (for some odd reason) to try another vector at attacking Bush. As if its not a target rich environment enough with the man, it seems that some folks never tire of digging up new and (not so) interesting ways of calling him a poopy head who would have wrecked the union.
I can’t think of a single one of the early presidents that Bush would have had a snow balls chance in hell of beating. Hell, I doubt he’d have even been able to run…who would have nominated him? And since there WAS no Republican party, what party exactly would he have been in? Wigs?
After Madison the Union was pretty much stable enough to take a pack of some of the most incompetent screwups we’ve HAD as presidents (excepting the one man who, IMHO, is one of our greatest presidents and managed, despite the fuckup-age of those that came before him managed, somehow, to keep the Union together)…so it couldn’t have been all that fragile. We survived them (though of course we eventually had that Civil War thingy…probably inevitable though) and could have easily survived Bush.
One point I haven’t seen anyone make here is that Bush WOULD have been pretty much a care taker one term DOMESTIC policy president but for 9/11. He would never have gotten any traction (nor probably had the inclination) for things like our Iraqi adventure. Oh, he may have had wet dreams about it, but it was so far beyond reality that he could have rallied not only Congressional support but the support of the people as well for an invasion as to make snow balls in hell seem probable. On the world stage Bush would have just been a bumbler (or maybe mumbler), semi-inarticulately spouting the standard party line…and pretty much ignored. It was US…the People…who, in our anger, fear and frustration over being kicked in the balls/sucker punched on 9/11, empowered Bush and his administration and allowed him/them to be what he’s become. Us and unforseens events. Without them Bush would have been nothing…and IMHO someone else would be president today.
Seriously, stick to attacking the man for his myriad failings. As I said, its not like its not a target rich environment. 
-XT
That’s true, but it would’ve been Congress that caused a break, not the president. The OP makes that same mistaken assumption (in addition to ignoring the relative weakness of the office of the president in the 19th century):
Domestic crises? You mean like FEMA related? No such thing.
Institute Religious law? The Presidient doesn’t “institute” any kind of law. Only Congress can do that.
Declare War? Congress decalares war, not the president, and the idea of giving that power to the president (when it’s explicitly given to Congress in the constitution) is a late 20th century idea, not an early 19th century one.
Putting very modern ideas into a pre-modern context is absurd. No early 19th century president could have conceived of projecting American power abroad in order to remake the geoplitical reality of a region like the M.E. That’s why these “if so-and-so didn’t happen” or “if so-and-so lived in…” ideas are generally nonsense. We might as well be asking: If Bill gates lived in 1800, what effect would Microsoft have had on the economy of the time.
I’m picturing Bush’s handlers slinking about and slandering McCain in a manner equivalent to what transpired in 2000.
Now I’m picturing McCain confronting Bush on the floor of the United States Senate. With a gold-capped gutta-percha walking stick. Like Rep. Preston Brooks and Senator Charles Sumner.
And I’m likin’ it.