Welcome to Historical Discussion #3, the Presidency of George W. Bush. This will be running concurrently with discussion #4, which is on the (future) presidency of Barack Obama.

Historical Discussion #1: Treaty of Versailles
Historical Discussion #2: Racial Views and History

When George W. Bush leaves the office of the presidency tomorrow, he will do so as one of the least popular outgoing presidents of all time. Many critics are claiming that he is the worst president ever, and will be remembered as such. The truth is this is almost assuredly not the case. This is not the first time that charge has been widely leveled at an outgoing president, nor will it be the last. Likely, we are simply too close to the scene to be able to step back and objectively make a judgment-- we are emotionally involved. This is not to say that in twenty years we will have a sudden change of heart; rather when we are able to see the big picture, it may not look quite as bad as we remember. For our current purposes, we will make note of various aspects of the Bush presidency in an effort to judge how his legacy should, or will, be written.

Some of the major issues, both positive and negative, of the Bush presidency include the following: the admirable handling of the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks; the ongoing conduct of the War on Terror; the launching of a preemptive war against Iraq; the reasons why we went to war with Iraq; the Patriot Act and related issues regarding civil liberties; the response to hurricane Katrina; the issue of torture; the secrecy, some would say deception, of the administration; lower taxes for most, if not all, Americans; the economy. Among these, the War on Terror, Iraq War, and the economy are all fluid issues that can yet change for the better or the worse after Bush leaves office. Undoubtedly, how these issues turn out will have a major affect on his legacy. So what will be Bush’s legacy? Will it be better or worse than it appears today? What will be the single issue the Bush presidency is most remembered for?



I initially wrote much more, going into details on several of the main points, however, I decided not to include that in the header post in hopes that the kind of observations I made will come out in the discussion, rather than me saying everything in the first post. Please discuss, feel free to add anything you wish, answer or ask questions I haven't raised. And of course, let's try to look at this from something more than a Bush=Hitler type of mentality.

I think, without a doubt, he'll be remembered for the economic collapse, although this is actually something he is least deserving of all the blame for. Sure, he certainly didn't help, and his economic policies have been dreadful, but they're not unique to him. Our nation has been more prodigal in the last 15 years than it was ever before, those who are charged to maintain a stable money supply (ie, the Fed) have been entirely reckless, and it seems to me this will end up being Bush's legacy.

I think secondary to that, Bush will be most remembered for the war, which is probably my biggest criticism. I don't think it will trump the economy, though.

I do think those who are claiming he's the worst president of all time have an obviously narrow perspective. He might be borderline top 10 for me, but there are just so many other people who have played a part in causing all of our current problems that it's hard to say Bush is the guy who signed off on everything.

Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. If the region experiences some sort of stability (and I don't think that'll be determined for years, maybe not even in our lifetime), Bush's legacy will be bettered (though, hopefully, not enough to make the argument that the ends justified the means).

One sidenote. It will be interesting as to how much people remember years from now that it was Bush that started the whole government bailout madness. It could kinda be like although Hoover got the lion's share of the blame for the Great Depression, he was heavily involved in pretty much every presidency since Woodrow Wilson.

Bush's legacy will need time to properly access. Some of the bigeest criticisms of the Bush presidency, War on Terror and Gitmo, may be looked back on fondly depending on future events.

How will people view Gitmo should anyone released as part of dissolving Gitmo be part of a terror attack?

How will people feel about shifting the focus of the War on Terror to Afghanistan should there be a teror attack on US soil?

As for the economy, well given that it's a world wide downturn we are in I think any harsh assessment is based on personality rather than anything Bush had a legitimate amount of control over.

I think one lasting criticism of the Bush presidency will be the complete lack of introspection and changing to meet circumstances. His approach to people and problem solving was not very effective and his ability to accept feedback and adjust accordingly was nil. He continually adopted a very authoritarian type of leadership and personality where the world and events were crying out for a consensus building strategy.

I agree. However, if the Iraq War winds up successful or other things like that, that stubborness and refusual to adjust can very easily be played as being strong in the face of pressure and criticism, sticking to the proper course no matter the political cost.

I've worked with leaders who had the personalities to stick to their guns without you thinking they were dick heads. Bush has fallen into that dick head category not because he stuck to his guns but because he didn't act on feedback on how his way of going about business was disenfranchising the very people he was supposed to be winning over. It's not only what you achieve but how you achieve it. It will take time to assess what Bush achieved or did not achieve. But I think it's pretty universal that the way he went about business was a complete failure.

iraq, it has to be iraq. if you follow the idea that any correctly functioning capitalistic economy is cyclical, then in some ways a collapse like this was bound to happen, and it'll correct itself in some manner within the next 5-10 years. the deep-seeded craters that iraq created will probably be felt for at least the next three or four generations. and the economy was basically a self-inflicted wound. we created iraq out of nothing, and we did it to somebody else. regardless how you feel about it, that's not going to be looked upon kindly by history.

plus, not even the most liberal media institutions are skewering bush completely over the economic stuff now. i don't know why that might change when history books are written years from now. if anything i think it'll be kinder on him.

But what if democracy eventually flourishes in Iraq? Or what if we are able to use Iraq as a base for operations against Iran in the case of them becoming belligerent at some point in the future? Its tough to say what the story would be then. Would the means look so bad still, or would they then justify the ends?

a fair case. but regardless of what actually happens, iraq will still be the weather mark by which we judge bush's presidency. there are others, yes, and the economy comes into play (although that wheel had already started churning), but iraq's outcome will forever be tied to dubya, good or bad. if iraq turns out to be a *relative* success in the coming years, bush's legacy will reflect that accordingly.

you're right in that its tough to predict that, but iraq - for better or worse - will be bush's largest and most enduring legacy. the economy will swing back in one form or another, and there were so many small contributing factors to the collapse that melded into one huge shitstorm that it'll be tough to pin that on any one person. but iraq? unprecedented, and a lot less complicated.

Eh, I tend to think presidents are remembered more for economic problems than wars... I guess we probably don't really have much of a precendent when it comes to presidents who presided over both wars and economic collapses, but more significant wars have been lost in history than Iraq. I think if Iraq were as large in scope as Vietnam, it may be true that it'd never be forgotten, but I don't think Iraq is the major prevailing issue on the public's mind, like WWII, Vietnam, and the Cold War were. I think 50 years from now, Iraq will be more or less an afterthought.

Perhaps. I think a year ago most everybody would have agreed with this. I think a lot depends on how bad this economic downturn is, so in that way he may be somewhat dependent on Obama doing a good job and not making the situation worse than it is. If it is merely a somewhat severe recession, but doesn't last too long, then the economy probably won't be the main issue we remember. On the other hand, if it really hits the fan and lasts a few years, I don't see how that won't be the main legacy of Bush, even if that isn't entirely fair.

The thing about Iraq is, and I don't mean to sound callous, but we've only had about 4,000 American deaths. I don't think we've had more than about 125,000 troops over there at one time. There thus far hasn't been the kind of dramatic moments caught on camera like there were in Vietnam that stay in the public conciousness and are written into the history books. There hasn't been that moment like the evacuation from Vietnam with people on the roof of a building boarding helicopters that just screams defeat. The Mission Accomplished banner is probably the closest thing we have to that. But my point is that in the large scheme of the things the Iraq War has been somewhat insignificant. I would say that the lies, deception, and manipulation of the media to get us to go to war will (hopefully) be remembered as much, if not more than, as the war itself.

You know, the best or worst President isn't usually decided by the one or two most important things they did. History isn't that close-minded.

As far as I know from my experiences, the best and worst Presidents are remembered for what they were like and what they did. When you look at a lot of the worst Presidents, they are often considered worst for what they were like and how they approached their entire administration. For example, Franklin Pierce is one of the worst Presidents in history, but he wasn't responsible for any one terrible thing. He just sucked. Look at Warren Harding who is considered one of the worst Presidents in history and he did nothing especially bad except being corrupt as hell, ineffectual, unpopular, and greedy.

Clearly I'm not a Presidential historian. But when I think of great Presidents I think of their personality, their temperament, and how they responded to the issues that faced them, and the same goes for bad Presidents. I think Bush will be remembered for his corporate croneyism, much like Harding, with all of his buddies occupying all positions of power. I think he will be remembered for being crooked and basing policies on his own special interests. I think he will be remembered for being unintelligent, a terrible speaker, slow-witted, and showing a complete lack of analysis or introspection. I think he will be remembered for lying, for always working with the lowest common denominator, and for endlessly appealing to the publics baser instintcs.

I'm not going to go on and on, though I could. The worst actual thing he did was the Iraq war, but almost every single thing he did was mildly bad. When I look at a list of the worst Presidents in history, I see things that make me think Bush could fit in perfectly. I think the Iraq war will be what determines whether he is considered the very worst in history, or just generally shitty enough to be in the bottom percentile without actually being the very worst.

One criticism of Bush that I think does not receive enough attention is his failure of leadership (it`s almost impossible for me to particularize here, my mind is flooding with corollaries, but anyway...). I especially disagree with the positive assessment of his immediate post 911 actions; the military response, fear mongering and suspension of civil liberties gave the terrorists exactly what they wanted. If history is kind to him because Iraq succeeds as a democracy that credit will also be totally undeserved.

Agreed x3

To me it was all about deception, arrogance, close mindedness, greed, and the thing that I think is the biggest flaw that any kind of leader can have, failure to admit mistakes.

I'm gonna make a comment on Iraq.

I don't think Bush will get any credit whatsoever.

Does anybody care about who rebuilt Germany?

No.

Does anybody care about who rebuilt Japan?

No.

Does anybody care about who rebuilt to Korea?

No.

If we had stayed the course in Vietnam, what do you think the presidents who presided over the actual war phase would be thought of as today? War mongering asshats? Or people that turned around Indochina and saved them from totalitarianism, plauges, and re-education camps?

If Iraq does indeed turn around, and result in a functioning democracy, Bush will not get any credit in a broad historical context. Historians may give him some credit, but I doubt much focus will exist in High School history books even. Bush won't be known as the savior of Iraq. He won't be known as the guy that transformed the middle east.

He's gonna be known as the guy who lied to the world and started a war. And he's gonna be known as a guy who bungled the occupation.

I don't see Bush getting any credit at all twenty years down the road. I don't see people reminiscing about how Bush started the surge. He won't be hailed as any sort of hero for doing the right thing, or sticking to his guns, or making sure the best case scenario unfolded. No. It will be none of that.

If anything, I imagine that Obama will get more of that credit. Particularly if Obama makes wise policy choices and has an eight year term.

Bush can keep dreaming about his legacy that's not going to exist.

as it should be.

the problem with that is that, yeah, iraq is by no means the costliest in terms of human life, but it certainly ranks in money per time spent in conflict, and at the very least the vietnam war dragged through several president's terms -- kennedy, lbj and nixon all had direct parts to play (and i dont know about ike but he might've too). you can maybe make a case that bush had some hangup from his dad's presidency or whatever, but iraq will generally be tied completely to bush (and unceremoniously so). had nixon not been a complete crook his presidential legacy would have reflected more of his relative success in putting an end to vietnam. obama has the very real possibility of carrying that same mantle, and history has been very kind to nixon in that regard and increasingly harsh on his predecessors. that speaks well for obama and not as much for bush, although there's still a lot of presidenting to go.

and i generally agree that at least comparatively speaking (to our other recent wars), iraq will be a relative afterthought in another 50 or so years. but only in the grand scheme of historical significance -- and im sure the iraqis would fight you to the death on even that. where bush's legacy itself is concerned, though, i don't see how iraq will ever fail to be one of the first two or three things mentioned for as long as his name exists in the annals of history.