I was called out today on my past errors, in Brian Greenberg’s eulogy for the Bush administration. Specifically, among Bush’s many other accomplishments which I did not anticipate, he refrained from large-scale invasions of more than two foreign powers, and he did not pardon himself or others for war crimes.
In both cases, not only do I freely admit to being wrong, but I also freely admit that I was hoping to be wrong. Unlike some who find it “disappointing” when they don’t find weapons of mass destruction, I’d rather have a less-than-perfect oracular record when that means that the world is a better place than I expected it to be.
Likewise, I’ll stipulate that I was glued to my news feed for the 72 hours prior to the Obama inauguration, watching for and expecting last minute abuses of presidential power. I can say that I am pleasantly surprised by Mr. Bush’s actions here as well.
I don’t have any good explanations for why Bush declined to be a greater failure in his last two months in office, but if I had to guess, I’d say he was just too damn tired. After the election, you just got the feeling that he was ready to go home, and the following two months were his prolonged Senior Week before graduation.
Brian points out all sorts of specific ways in which the United States currently differs from a 3,000-mile wide smoking nuclear crater, and suggests that each of these specifics are reasons to be grateful to 43 for not screwing up more.
And there, well, I have to agree with him from a philosophical perspective. It is, in fact, possible to envision a Platonic dystopia in which George W. Bush was even more misfeasant than he was in reality—say, by using Syria to stage the Iraqi invasion—which logically implies that he is actually less than perfectly awful. At the same time, it’s hard to figure out what you’d put on that Certificate of Merit.
I find it amusing how often Bush defenders (and the man himself) raise the question of how he’ll be viewed by history as a way of deflecting present criticism and debate, as if history doesn’t count until suitably large numbers of decades have passed. Unfortunately, history already has very clear opinions: Of presidents who entered into temporarily popular, but extended and unsuccessful wars. Of presidents who suspended Constitutional rights for some people, especially of a particular racial group. Of presidents who presided over great shocks in the nation’s economy after implementing their own brand of economic policy.
If you know history, it is not difficult to guess how history will view Mr. Bush. And it is not difficult to guess where he will end up—like other failed presidents, he himself will be the answer to the trivia question, remembered rarely, and generally thought of only when the next list is drawn up comparing Tyler to Buchanan to Harding to Bush.
Or perhaps, like Hoover, he’ll be remembered mainly in contrast to the president who succeeded him.
Seems we agree that George W. Bush wasn’t all bad. Turns out our violent disagreements in the past 8 years have been about how partially-bad he is. Who’da thunk it…
As for how history will judge him, here I’ll pick a bone with you. Presidents who suspended constitutional rights, particularly for a particular racial group, who presided over shocks in the economy – these guys have names like Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Truman. You could even put Washington in that category if you worked at it a bit. These are not universally hated men, despite how people felt about them at the time.
I think the whole “Bush = Harding” thing comes mainly from people who know nothing about Harding other than “bad president.” I think Bush will be remembered for the “big events” of his presidency – the 2000 election, 9/11, the Iraqi war, and the Financial Crisis(TM). I expect, at this point, to hear comparisons to Truman and Reagan as the years go by. Then again, I’m also humble enough to state right now that I don’t know how it will turn out, because if history has taught me anything, it’s that you can’t predict history without the necessary perspective that time allows.
Presidents who suspended constitutional rights, particularly for a particular racial group, who presided over shocks in the economy – these guys have names like Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Truman.
Huh? Roosevelt I’ll give you. Lincoln and Truman were both hated because of the rights they gave (or restored to) blacks. Kennedy talked a good game and didn’t accomplish much; Johnson’s inclusion on the latter list would make more sense.
Lincoln did play fast and loose with some Constitutional rights, but he didn’t make attempts like Bush did to bypass the entire system of rule of law, and he made course corrections as necessary when Congress and the Supreme Court dictated. Likewise, he was at war with a country whose capital was 100 miles from Washington, DC — all in all, I think the Civil War has a far greater claim to exceptionalism than just about anything else the country has gone through before or since.
I think Bush will be remembered for the “big events” of his presidency – the 2000 election, 9/11, the Iraqi war, and the Financial Crisis(TM). I expect, at this point, to hear comparisons to Truman and Reagan as the years go by.
Yeah, I think Iraq and the economy are going to trump everything else, and they damn well should. What is Hoover remembered for? How about Johnson? Both of them are defined by massive failures, even though both of them actually had some impressive personal traits and presidential accomplishments. Really, the only question in my mind is where the Bush superfecta of failure will place him on the historical rankings, and I’m thinking the only one who gives him a run for the money is Buchanan.
Unfortunately, the perspective we’re going to get from history on Bush is finding out just how badly America has been screwed — between our economic and military positions, plus the long-term effects of climate change, I’m afraid we’re going to look back on this decade as the opposite of how America rose in the 1940s to superpower status and prestige.