Yesterday, I published a post, linking to an article in which Eric Foner asks the question whether George W. Bush is the worst President in U.S. history. One commenter wrote in the comment section of that post:
Far be it for me to advise any self censorship here at TMV, but I think posts questioning whether Bush is the “Worst President Ever” come across as overly partisan (even if that is not their primary intent). And I say that as someone who voted against him twice (once for Gore, once for Badnarik) and has generally been displeased with his policies.
As should be obvious, I disagree with that point of view. My post was not partisan. In fact, the title of the post is “The Worst President Ever”, indeed, but in the actual article I criticize Foner’s column. My conclusion:
I do consider such conclusions to be premature. Foner himself points out that views change during the course of years or decades. Besides that, Bush still has two years left in which he can change some of his, umh, less good policies. Also, I cannot help but feel that Foner’s views are, to say the least, ideologically tainted.
Bush 43 will undoubtedly never be considered to be the best President in U.S. history, but the worst might be exaggerating it a bit.
Today, a new column appeared questioning whether or not Bush 43 is America’s worst President, this time written by Douglas Brinkley for the Washington Post:
Shortly after Thanksgiving I had dinner in California with Ronald Reagan’s best biographer, Lou Cannon. Like many historians these days, we discussed whether George W. Bush is, conceivably, the worst U.S. president ever. Cannon bristled at the idea.
Bush has two more years to leave his mark, he argued. What if there is a news flash that U.S. Special Forces have killed Osama bin Laden or that North Korea has renounced its nuclear program? What if a decade from now Iraq is a democracy and a statue of Bush is erected on Firdaus Square where that famously toppled one of Saddam Hussein once stood?
There is wisdom in Cannon’s prudence. Clearly it’s dangerous for historians to wield the “worst president” label like a scalp-hungry tomahawk simply because they object to Bush’s record. But we live in speedy times and, the truth is, after six years in power and barring a couple of miracles, it’s safe to bet that Bush will be forever handcuffed to the bottom rungs of the presidential ladder. The reason: Iraq.
[…]
There isn’t much that Bush can do now to salvage his reputation. His presidential library will someday be built around two accomplishments: that after 9/11, the U.S. homeland wasn’t again attacked by terrorists (knock on wood) and that he won two presidential elections, allowing him to appoint conservatives to key judicial posts. I also believe that he is an honest man and that his administration has been largely void of widespread corruption. This will help him from being portrayed as a true villain.This last point is crucial. Though Bush may be viewed as a laughingstock, he won’t have the zero-integrity factors that have kept Nixon and Harding at the bottom in the presidential sweepstakes. Oddly, the president whom Bush most reminds me of is Herbert Hoover, whose name is synonymous with failure to respond to the Great Depression. When the stock market collapsed, Hoover, for ideological reasons, did too little. When 9/11 happened, Bush did too much, attacking the wrong country at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. He has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president.
Since my opinion on this matter has not changed since yesterday, I have to agree with Lou Cannon on this one. For one, it is way too early to call Bush 43 the worst President ever, besides that opinions change: one year a President might be considered to be ‘bad’ the other year ‘average’ and again the other year ‘good’.
More people join in on the fun at the WaPo:
David Greenberg, who sensibly writes:
Bush has two years left in his presidency and we don’t know what they’ll hold. They may be as dismal as the first six. Future investigations may bear out many people’s worst fears about this administration’s violations of civil liberties. And it’s conceivable that the consequences of the invasion of Iraq may prove more destructive than those of Nixon’s stubborn continuation of the Vietnam War. Should those things happen, Bush will be able to lay a claim to the mantle of U.S. history’s worst president. For now, though, I’m sticking with Dick.
and Vincent J. Cannato, who is of the opinion that:
history should at least teach us humility. Time will cool today’s political passions. As years pass, more documents will be released, more insights gleaned and the broader picture of this era will be painted. Only then will we begin to see how George W. Bush fares in the pantheon of U.S. presidents.
I don’t know how history will judge him. My guess is that, like most presidents, he will bequeath a mixed record. We can debate policies and actions now, but honesty should force us to acknowledge that real judgments will have to wait.
Amen. Let’s not jump to conclusions.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.