…and yet he never, ever shows up on the “worst of” lists. If we are going to draw parallels between this war and Vietnam and declare Bush a horrible President, it’s only legitimate to paint LBJ with the same brush, especially given that the carnage was many times worse for his bullshit.
In fairness, Bush’s Presidency was victimized by terrorism that was going on long before he took office, and his three predecessors had already slipped in the thin end of the wedge of American commitment. He shouldnadunnit.
Sounds stupid, doesn’t it? Yet that’s essentially what you’re saying. LBJ’s lie inargubaly cost much more to all involved than Bush’s.
I said Bush because of the damage he’s done to the actual foundations of US Democracy and the Constitution itself. His contempt for balance of power, signing statements, destruction of habeus corpus, wiretapping, internment of civilians without due process or even formal charges. Other presidents have been lousy, evil, reckless, corrupt or stupid with their decsisions, but Bush is the first one who I think has actually damaged the very hardware of America and not just been bad software.
Believe me, I’m not going to defend LBJ over the Vietnam War. The only thing I’ll offer in his defense is that both left and right believed firmly in the domino theory, and it was conventional Cold War wisdom, as much as Johnson himself, that got us embroiled there. And who knows? The spillover of the Iraq war may end up being just as bloody as that little affair in Indochina.
Morever, Johnson gets a few offsetting credits for his civil rights and Great Society programs. Even though many of those initiatives ended in failure, they at least began to move American society toward a post-racist future. This was a huge deal – no president since Lincoln had ever done so much to attack the entrenched evil of racism, the bane of American society.
LBJ at least had something great on the credit side of the ledger, namely, the Civil Rights Act. Bush has only debits. I can’t think of a single positive accomplishment by Bush, and I could name several by Reagan and Bush Sr.
Real quick and dirty, here are Presidents that have done far worse than Bush, case by case:
Balance of power: Jackson, FDR
Destruction of habeas corpus: Lincoln, FDR
Wiretapping: Nixon, LBJ (COINTELPRO)
Internment of civilians without due process or even formal charges: FDR
FDR hits 3 of 4 worse than Bush, does that make him the worst ever? Is it necessary to explain why it’s ridiculous to say that Bush is the worst ever before he’s even gone?
I’d put Bush in the low to mid 30s, but the worst ever? No way. I’m always amazed that even with educated people that should know better recent Presidents always top the lists.
I’m surprised that nobody’s nominating William C. McKinley.
He’s twice the warmonger that Bush is…
Annexation of Hawaii (1898) (not really a war, but an annexation of a sovereign state)
Spanish-American War (1898) (went to war on shaky pretenses… 3200 US dead)
Philippine-American War (1899-1913) (subjugation of territory gained in previous war…4324 US dead)
Commanding general at the Battle of New Orleans, a thoroughly inspiring US victory even if it didn’t matter. Surely we have to consider the totality of the “candidates’” public careers. Give Jackson credit for the Bank of the United States policy - arguable, sure, but not obviously disastrous.
There were something like 620,000 soldiers’ deaths in the Civil War, and some undetermined number of civilian deaths on top of that, so Bush isn’t necessarily up there yet in terms of total body count (the war is being escalated, though).
LBJ’s war, despite its scale and disastrousness, was still balanced by a very substantive set of social-policy achievements domestically (yes, the RW ideologues will dispute that). Nixon’s thorough misuse of office was balanced by his own policy accomplishments both foreign and domestically. But Bush’s offsetting contributions are, well, what, really? Surely we have to consider uniformity of disastrousness, too.
Buchanan’s errors were of omission, not commission - he didn’t actively try to start a war, he even thought he was preventing it. He, like Harding, was far too small a man for the job, but didn’t generally try to use it malevolently.
Bush hits ALL of these points. None of the others do. The others also have positives to go with the negatives, Bush has only negatives, and I didn’t list ALL of Bush’s negatives, only the ones related to his undermining of the Constitution.
I’m aware of the bias towards recent memory but I honestly think Bush belongs in the bottom five Presidents of American history. I can agree to disagree about whether he’s worse than Harding or Buchanan, but he’s in that company. he’s the worst of my lifetime for sure.
Incidentally, what do you mean by “low to mid 30’s?” Are you talking about a scale of 100 or something?
I don’t think it’s fair to include Bush Jr in the deliberations. For one thing, his presidency isn’t over, and he may yet find ways to be a worse president. And also, the comparison really needs a historical view- we shouldn’t start considering Bush as worst president for at least 20 years, after the scholars have a chance at him and after we see the results of his decisions.
Skipping pre-Teddy Roosevelt history (which I don’t know well), I’d say LBJ or possibly Wilson. Drafting civilians to fight and die without absolute necessity is viler than anything and everything Bush has done to date. Truman is also guilty on this count, though perhaps he deserves a little slack for the much greater waste of life he had prevented through nukes.
Its really silly to even attempt to judge Bush on such a list as he’s still president. IMHO its silly to even attempt to judge Clinton on such a list and shaky even for GW’s daddy. We just don’t have the political perspective to make such a determination.
But then, these threads aren’t REALLY about debating who was worst, only about bashing Bush…so its all good!
IMHO Johnson is nominally the winner of the worst of debate IMHO. His great ‘achievements’, so touted here, are of course a matter of perspective (mostly partisan perspective). I will grant the civil rights initiatives, but most of his Great Society crap was just that…crap. What many here fail to realize (because of the way this board skews) is that someone from the right wing could very well see similar ‘achievements’ from GW…because such things are a matter of perspective.
To me his domestic side was a wash (much like most folks here, me included, feel GW’s domestic side initiatives have been a wash or even on balance negative), so IMHO he should be judged by the even that was the major impact during his presidency…namely the Vietnam war. By any sane standard Vietnam was worse than Iraq COULD ever be.
I think in the fullness of time GW will be judged well down the list…perhaps even in the top 10 of ‘worst presidents’. I highly doubt he will ever achieve the number one slot there, except by the rabidly partisan…the bar is simply too low for him considering some of the absolute scoundrels we’ve had in the oval office. Buchanan? Nixion? Wilson? Harding? Johnson? These guys are going to be hard to beat. GW may join their illustrious company (when he and his actions can actually be judged rationally), but I don’t think he’s going to manage the top spot…
How long *do * we have to wait? Don’t cop out, just to think you’ve avoided looking like a reflexvie Bush-hater, now. Maybe there *are * good reasons, ya know?
If this is directed at me…I DO think there are good reasons. I just don’t think we have the historical perspective to judge while the guy is sitting in office. As for time limits, again, if you are talking to me read my post…I said I think its equally silly to attempt to deeply judge Clinton as well, and even Bush I is shaky…so that works out to an aprox. 20 year time frame (give or take). I think thats fair myself.
