Will Bush II be Regarded as a Great President?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

Look, I’m fascinated with drawing historical comparisons from the past to present situations. We don’t seem to learn from the past and keep repeating mistakes. If history is relevant, then I see the Truman presidency offering an insight for the future of the present Bush II legacy.
I’m going to draw comparisons based primarily on this Wikipedia article. Some of these comparisons will be appear to be mundande and pointlless, but allow me to have some fun with this. The seriousness primarily involves comparing Korea to Iraq. To be fair, the Truman presidency is much bigger than Bush’s. After all, no one else is responsible for nuking several hundred thousand civilians, for which he is most remembered.

1. Both Truman and Bush succeeded charismatic presidents with high profile wives.

2. Both presidents “confounded” the populace by winning re-election.

3. Both presidents believed they faced internal threats from a foreighn ideology. I Truman’s case it was communism, in Bush’s case it was arab/islamist terrorism.

4. Both presidents faced corruption scandals in their administration.

5. Both presidents had numerous appointees fired.

Truman, whose demeanor was very different from that of the patrician Roosevelt, was a folksy, unassuming president. He popularized such phrases as “The buck stops here” and “If you can’t stand the heat, you better get out of the kitchen.”

Remember “mission accomplished” and “bring it on” ?

7. Both served in the National Guard.

8. Off the cuff stupid remarks to the press corps. None of Bush’s come to mind, help me out, but for Truman, "“If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word.”
   [/quote]

9. Obsession with American security.

To strengthen the U.S during the cold war against Communism, Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947 and reorganized military forces by creating the Department of Defense, the CIA, the U.S. Air Force (separate from the U.S. Army), and the National Security Council.

Bush reorganizes for Homeland security and directs Rumsfelt to reorganize the military.

10. Disagreement with the Secretary of State?

Thus, when Truman agreed to meet with Chaim Weizmann, he found himself overruling his own Secretary of State. In the end, Marshall did not publicly dispute the President’s decision, as Truman feared he might.

Remind you of Colin Powell?

11. Re election against the odds of public opinion.

In the spring of 1948, Truman’s public approval rating stood at a dismal thirty-six percent,[53] and the president was nearly universally regarded as incapable of winning the general election.

Who would have thought that Bush could win an election after he lied to the American people?
Finally we get to the relevant comparisons
12.

Truman sent in the full military resources based in Japan. United Nations (primarily U.S.) forces under U.S. General Douglas MacArthur crushed the North Korean invasion in 90 days. However, Truman decided not to consult with Congress, an error that greatly weakened his position later in the conflict

Ring a bell? A swift victory with a lack of congressional consultation.

13. Inadequate armoured vehicles.

In the first four weeks the American infantry forces hastily deployed to Korea proved too few and were underequipped. The Eighth Army in Japan was forced to recondition World War II Sherman tanks from depots and monuments for use in Korea

Ring a bell? Inadequate armour on humvees? Inadequate forces?

14. Blaming the president.

Fierce criticism from virtually all quarters accused Truman of refusing to shoulder the blame for a war gone sour

Ring any bells?

15.Current presidential assessment.

When he left office in 1953, Truman was one of the most unpopular chief executives in history

Need I say more? How about

At one point in his second term, his public opinion ratings were the lowest on record,[14] but many US scholars today rank him among the top ten Presidents.

Its hard for me to understand why the “scholars” presumably the professors that educate us have come to that conclusion, even for a man who nuked hundreds of thousands of people but it suggests to me that one day America will regard Bush as one of the great presidents in history.

The legacy is interesting to imagine. The next president of the other party will draw a line, withdraw and station troops in the north (as opposed to the south) forever and ever to protect our kind of people, the Kurds and let the rest suffer in their own misery.

I’m trying to find a cite that would suggest Truman doesn’t drink.

Seriously though, will American troops be stationed in Iraq for as long as they are in Korea ? Where next?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Either that or the greatest president.

Anyhoo, saying both men served in the national guard is misleading. Bush’s reason for joining was to avoid service in Vietnam, while Truman served honourably as an artillery officer in combat in WWI, rejoining the guard (he’d left it in 1911) specifically to fight in France, despite a plausible medical excuse (very poor eyesight).

[ElvisL1ves]

Truman’s retrospective reputation for greatness (several steps down from the truly great Washington, Lincoln, FDR, but let’s grant the term anyway) boils down to 2 things:

1. The Buck Stops Here
2. Preventing the massive expansion of a war

Those are conspicuously absent from your Bush comparison list. It’s also worth pointing out that many great men have been heavily derided in their time, but being derided does not make a man great.

[XT]

No way to predict this but I am highly skeptical. Just because there may be some (superficial) similarities between Truman and Bush doesn’t mean history will repeat itself and future scholars will conclude Bush is the same calibur president that Truman turned out to be (regarded by scholars). I would say Bush’s ‘greatness’ or whatever will hinge on how Iraq is perceived 10 or 20 years from now. If its regarded as another Vietnam then Bush will probably be ranked with Johnson…if its seen as somehow necessary, or perhaps if by some surprising sequence of events it all works out well then perhaps Bush’s stock with the scholars will go up some.

-XT

[Boyo_Jim]

The comparison isn’t even close:
#1 – is irrelevant to both of their administrations.
2. Bush’s re-election was not a stunning upset that confounded the pollsters.
3. Truman never suspended habeas corpus or authorized torture of suspected internal enemies.
4. I cannot think of a single president who didn’t have corruption scandals.
5. Ditto #4.
6. Truman’s popularized statements were, and are, quoted as accurate observations; Bush’s are cited with bitter sarcasm.
7. Got me there, but Truman saw active service on the Western front in WWII.
8. Truman was not president when he made the stupid quote you cited. The US wasn’t even at war at the time.
9. Maybe a point for you, but Truman was up against Stalin and the Soviet Union, not a pissant like Saddam.
10. Again, I can’t think of any president who didn’t sometimes act against the advice of cabinet officers.
11. This is a repeat of point #2.
12. Truman was responding to an actual land invasion by an army – to wait was to lose. Besides, Bush DID get Congressional approval.
13. See #12. To wait was to lose. Bush was under no such threat.
14. I don’t know – show me a cite where Truman refused to accept responsibility for the war and we’ll talk. What you have cited is a quote about others making such a claim against him. Besides, Bush has taken responsibility, responsibility for the “victory”.
15. Ok, another point to you.
16. The “Need I say more” cite is entirely meaningless, as I haven’t heard anyone, even a conservative christian republican, claim GWB is among the best presidents ever.

BTW, Truman drank.

[carnivorousplant]

@The Flying Dutchman

Will Bush be regarded as a Great President?

Shit.
I beg your pardon, but eloquence fails me on this subject.

[Boyo_Jim]

@carnivorousplant

Shit.
I beg your pardon, but eloquence fails me on this subject.

I wish I had thought of that before I wrote my bloated reply.

[carnivorousplant]

Thank you, Sir.

[Malodorous]

Truman’s legacy also stems largely from his adopting Containment as the method for dealing with the Soviets and other communist countries, a philosophy that shaped the foreign policy of the next half century.

Some people think that the fight against terror will be as big a deal in world affairs in the future as the Cold War was in the past. I’m dubious, but regardless, I seriously doubt that future presidents will continue with the Bush philosophy of using military might to spread democracy as the method of fighting terror.

[pantom]

Going around Congress to get into war is not exactly something someone sworn into office on an oath to protect and defend the Constitution should be proud of. It’s actually the principal duty the President has under the Constitution. Note here that I’m talking about Truman. The current President at least bothered to get authorization for his excellent adventure in Iraq.
The presidential oath is more or less similar to the one administered to new soldiers/airmen/sailors in regards to the Constitution (from answers.com ) :

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The presidential oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Note that defending the Constitution of the US is paramount in both cases.
Citing Truman is the last resort of a loser.

Bush I, just to finish this off, has a far better claim to the Truman mantle than the current occupant. He was vice president to a president who redefined the national debate, although he wound up unpopular for a different reason than Truman; he lost the enthusiasm of his base when he caved in to the Democrats on taxes. It was a pretty trivial reason not to back his re-election, but that was the decision of a small but decisive segment of his own party. Today, looking at the behavior of his infinitely incompetent heir, we pine for a time when we could disagree with a President who we nevertheless felt was in full command of his office. And comparing how he handled Saddam with how the current occupant did just makes the pang of nostalgia sharper.

[Evil_Captor]

Depends on who wins the White House in '08. History is written by the victors.

[Boyo_Jim]

@pantom

… we pine for a time when we could disagree with a President who we nevertheless felt was in full command of his office. …

Not to mention his faculties.

[Malodorous]

@Evil Captor

Depends on who wins the White House in '08. History is written by the victors.

That…doesn’t make any sense…

[cosmosdan]

Yes, if great = scumbag

[gonzomax]

Like the Onion said…Thank god the era of peace and prosperity is finally over.
Plus the National Debt thing.

[JimSox5]

The main problem I, and probably history, have with this argument is that Iraq wasn’t in the midst of a conflict at the time when Bush came in to stir shit up. Korea was already in a state of turmoil when the US came in. The context of the two invasions is a very different thing, and one which makes a lot of difference.

On Edit: Also, if it weren’t for Vietnam, Johnson would have been considered probably one of our great presidents for his work for civil rights. If it weren’t for Iraq, well, I still think Bush would have been regarded as a fuck-up by most of the population. Has he done anything beneficial?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The comparisons to Truman are a distraction at best. Bush, like any other POTUS, will be judged on his accomplishments, not his superficial comparisons to Truman. Bush does not have a single “great” accomplishment to his name. His hallmarks are intellectual deficiency (“folksy” and inarticulate are not the same thing), incompetence, cronyism, reckless grandiosity, incuriosity, irresponsible warmongering and contempt for the Constitution. In all seriousness, the guy is now at least in the conversation for Worst President Ever and is probably a shoo-in for the bottom 5. Even Nixon had some things on the good side of the ledger. I can’t think of anything Bush has ever done which will ever be regarded as a significant positive accomplishment. I think in another 50 or 100 years he will be remembered primarily for a disasterous war in Iraq and a reputation for lack of intellect.

The answer to the OP’s question can be summed up in a single word: No.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

By the way, Bill Clinton and Thomas Jefferson were both named Jefferson.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Diogenes the Cynic

… I can’t think of anything Bush has ever done which will ever be regarded as a significant positive accomplishment. …

I give him credit for 1 thing: trying to promote a rational immigration policy. He is failing because his own party won’t back him on it.

But after that, I got nuthin’ good to say about him.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Boyo Jim

I give him credit for 1 thing: trying to promote a rational immigration policy. He is failing because his own party won’t back him on it.

But after that, I got nuthin’ good to say about him.

That’s actually the one thing I’ve supported him on and thought of citing as a positive accomplishment. The problem is…he hasn’t actually accomplished it.