One of the things Truman was famous for was personal integrity (e.g., keeping himself strictly honest even while working for the incredibly corrupt Pendergast political machine in Kansas City). No one will ever accuse W of that.
Well, that’s just silly.
First of all, it’s impossible to keep track of everything a President does. There’s just no way.
Secondly, I can easily list three things off the top of my head that I agreed with him on, and all are things he actually did:
1 - First, and most controversially around here I’m sure, the tax cut on dividends from stocks. Reason why is complicated, and probably has nothing to do with why Bush pushed it through, but being right for the wrong reasons is still being right, regardless.
2 - Retaliating against the Taliban after 9/11. Not following through to capture Bin Laden is a failure, but it doesn’t take away from the initial retaliation.
3 - His worldwide AIDS initiative. An unvarnished Good Thing.
Uhhh…well, he made Nixon look good.
:dubious: A “guest-worker” program has no place in a rational immigration policy.
Oops, I did forget about that. Well, at least his proposal had a route to legalizing the illegals.
But I’m gonna shut up now, as defending the guy makes me queasy.
Compare this:
“The buck stops here.”
–Harry Truman.
“I hope I – I don’t want to sound like I’ve made no mistakes. I’m confident I have. I just haven’t – you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.”
–George W. Bush
It is likely that 9-11 50 years from now will be a historical curiosity. Future generations will be wondering why, for 8 years, the leader of the largest democracy in the world failed to do anything about impending environmental disasters (including but not limited to global warming). If our next president understands what truly needs to be done the historical contrast will be even greater. The puzzlement of future generations will kind of sound like “Why did the US, with all the highfalutin’ language in their Constitution about equality et al., tolerate slavery for 80 years?”
Don’t Bogart that joint, my friend.
Harry Truman is responsible for:
- ending WWII through the dropping of atomic bombs
- the containment of communism through the Truman Doctrine
- the rebuilding of Western Europe through the Marshall Plan
- the desegregation of the armed forces through an executive order
- the saving of West Berlin from starvation through the Berlin Airlift
- the protection of Western Europe through the formation of NATO
- avoiding WWIII with China through the firing of MacArthur
- the birth of democracy in the Middle East through the recognition of Israel
- eventual democracy in South Korea through the Korean War stalemate, and
- the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union through his containment policy
George W. Bush is responsible for:
- 9-11
- the loss of New Orleans
- the clusterfuck in Iraq
- the Patriot Act
- Alberto Gonzales
- Guantanamo Bay
- Dick Cheney
- Walter Reed
- Abu Grahib
- Terry Schiavo
- etc, etc, etc
You are right. It’s a tough call.
Hindsight…its a wonderful thing, ain’t it? 
:dubious:
The rest of the list I can quasi-agree with…he IS president after all. Though I don’t think in fairness you can lay ALL of that stuff on him. In addition, I’m sure that someone unbiased (not I) could come up with some positives to offset your list, the same way that there were negatives to offset your Truman list. Recall, at the time most folks would have had only negatives to say about Truman, thus leading to his very low popularity scores with the folks of his own time. Its only in hindsight we can look back and see how events have shaped things, and put much of what he did in a positive light. As I said earlier, I don’t think GW will be seen in a similar light…but its not the no brainer you seem to think. And all the negatives you list are from an obviously biased viewpoint. My own viewpoint is biased on this as well, so I can’t come up with positives…but I do realize that they are there and that its at least possible that future historians will view things differently than we do.
-XT
and
37,000 troops stationed in little South Korea 50 years after hostilities.
:dubious: Define ‘likely’…and what leads you to think this incredible statement is likely.
Perhaps…though I doubt it. I think future generations will understand quite well why nothing was done. We understand pretty well, for example, why whale oil was used as long as it was, why train travel died off in the US, and any number of other things after all.
I think the reasons slavery was tolerated is pretty well understood from a historical perspective. Its folks who are generally ignorant of history who don’t understand the answer to that questions. I think it will be the same with questions about Global Warming in the future. People will understand quite well (and may be more sympathetic than you seem to assume) WHY a country like the US took the stance and action that they (we) did. In fact, it may be that our stance and actions (allowing private industries to figure out on their own that green is economically benificial) was actually a better response than to attempt massive regulation. Who knows? I don’t have a time machine…do you?
-XT
Truman made a lot of decisions that had short term consequences and long-term benefits. So his reputation grew as the benefits were realized over the years.
Bush, on the other hand, has made a lot of decisions that had short term benefits and long term consequences. The benefits have already been used up and the consequences have only begun to arrive. Bush’s reputation will probably continue sinking for several decades after he leaves office.
You forgot the decisions that weren’t very good in the short term, but catastrophic in the longer perspective.
Hoo, boy, do I ever disagree. Johnson, despite severe flaws as a human being, and despite being obsessed with Vietnam, both drove and enabled magnificent steps forward on the domestic front. Bush will not be known for the latter. Whoever it was that started the Mexican War? Polk? Buchanan? Bush? That’s Bush’s legacy, without even the saving grace of adding territory to the country.
So?
No seriously, so what? We still have troops in Germany and Japan 60 years later as well. Not to mention Cuba 100-some years later. Its’ just what America does: win a war, build a base, hang out.
ETA: That would be Mr. James K. Polk, Napoleon of the stump, Frank. He also made sure the tarriffs and made the British sell the Oregon terriority; he build an independent treasury. Having done all this he sought no second term. Mr. James K. Polk, our 11th president. Young Hickory, Napoleon of the stump.
Truman was a pretty good president who just happened to have really bad approval ratings–that’s the only thing that makes the comparison interesting.
On the other hand, most presidents with poor approval ratings were getting exactly what they deserved. Bush is a member of that shameful club.
I’m tring to think of what short term benefits there were – other than electoral ones for Republicans in 2004. I’m stumped.
Yeah, His Belligerancy. Well, after reading the wikipedia on him, I’ll grant him some domestic accomplishments, and I’ve already admitted the territory thing. So he’s better than Bush, despite his war-mongering. 
The tax cuts are a short term benefit, for individuals if not the country.