(Politics) It's 2108. How does history view the George W. Bush Adminstration?

[flere-imsaho]

st.cronin's post here got me thinking about this. Obviously Bush is a polarizing figure now, but when the time finally arrives (is 100 years enough time?), how will the objective historian look at the history of 2000-2008 and the man who led the U.S. throughout it?

Poll to follow.

[flere-imsaho]

It's hard for me to see how history is going to look kindly on George W. Bush. The military and foreign policy blunders have been talked to death, but I think the legacy there is that 2002/2003 marked the beginning of the end of American hegemony in the world. I think it's going to be very easily for historians to conclude that the distraction of the invasion of Iraq made the economic collapse that started in 2006-2008 even worse (or, at least, even harder to avoid. While the rest of the world was figuring out how to compete in the globalized economy, the Bush Presidency tried to re-live the late Colonial period about 50-100 years too late.

[Alan T]

When you say "History", do you mean the ordinary average person, or historian, scholars and the like? I think there will be a fairly big difference 100 years from now depending on which group you mean. The average person generally doesn't seem to have that long of a retention of a "bad" president. I remember when I was younger, Nixon or Carter were often referred to as our country's "worst" presidents, even if that was far from the truth.

We remember bad events such as the Civil War (even if the end result of that war led to some good events), or the great depression, or such.. but we tend to not remember bad presidents as much. Our memory for presidents of the past seems to be reserved for those "great" presidents of our history such as a Lincoln or Washington or Roosevelt instead.

As an example, it has been nearly 150 years since Andrew Johnson was president, and I doubt most people on the street would even know that he was the president that followed Lincoln, much less remember him as a "bad" president. Same seems to be true about Harding's presidency even if it was easily 10 times worse than any of the recent "bad" presidents such as Bush, Nixon or Carter.

I think in 100 years, there will be history books that speak either good or bad about the "war on terror" and various footnotes depending on whatever the end result of all of this is.. but I doubt Bush will get much more than a casual mention.

[flere-imsaho]

By "history" I mean the consensus assessment by professional and objective historians. And it's possible 2108 is too soon for such a consensus and objective assessment, but I mostly picked that date out of thin air.

For instance, the consensus assessment by professional historians was that the reign of King Henry V of England (1413-1422) was very much a success, with the sole flaw (but considerable one) that he left only a 9-month son as a successor and did not leave a clear strategy for how to continue his work.

That kind of thing.

[Wolfpack]

This is going to be impossible to know, simply because his biggest legacy (the War on Terror) and his second-biggest (at the rate things are going), the Wall Street bailout, have unknown outcomes. I think we'll at least have an answer on the bailout and its effects over the next decade, but then that leaves the WoT, especially in Iraq. If Iraq stands up and eventually becomes a modern model Arab democracy, would it be viewed as a short-term disaster that produced a long-term victory? That might (might, considering the animus around the world against the US over Iraq) give him some legacy points. Of course, if Iraq collapses, then that pretty much cements his basement standing for the long term, regardless of anything else.

There's no way to guess at his final legacy because his presidency will be one of the few that doesn't "end" when he physically leaves office next year. But, I have a very hard time seeing him rising up to anything more than average in most estimations, if only because a lot of time has been spent on how lousy a president he has been in the here-and-now, especially in history departments around the world. That would be with a long-term success in Iraq and Afghanistan plus having the bailout work its magic to revive the global economy before the end of 2009. Fail at any of those things, and his legacy is toast.

[Abe Sargent]

Undertsand that the historians have changed over time, as more info such as White House tapes and logs comes out. Over the past twenty years, as historians find out more about the Eisenhower administration, he continues to rise in people's eyes, because he did a lot of good things behind the scenes. For example, he never mentioned it in public, but hte French were getting their asses handed to them in Vietnam and his military and diplomatic advisors were in accord in advising Eisenhower to invade Vietnam back in the 1950s and instead, Eisenhower said that it would be impossible for the US to win a war there and kept us far away. That's just one example of the things Ike was doing behind the scenes, plus we've seen the value of some of his initiatives, such as the interstate system, after decades of hindsight.

Who knows what would come out that might cause Bush jr to jump up or down in the ratings of objective historians and political science experts.

I think he'll be looked at as average. Homeland Security dept was a good move, as was him taking us to Afghanistan. Politically, we was able to hammer through a lot of what he wanted, including this bailout. If the bailout works well, for example, he'll look like a genius with this particular piece of legislation. No one knows at this point, but I suspect administratively he was an ineffective as Carter who tried to recreate FDR's style of running the governnment, but he had neither the aacumen nor the temperment to suceed, plus the size of governemtn has expanded massively since then, preventing the strategy from working today. I suspect he was very uneffective, with the worst attributes of Reagan and Carter combined, but none of the good stuff, but I reserve the right to change my mind if the tapes are realeased in ten years and show soemthing very different.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My best guess is that he presided over the official beginning of the end for the U.S. as a clear dominant force in the world.

[Kodos]

Hey. Me and JiMG agree on something! I also believe he may well be looked at as the single worst president in history.

[Swaggs]

I don't see any way that people will look back on Bush and think that he had much of a positive effect domestically. I think his handling of Katrina, cronyism, No Child Left Behind, and the financial crisis will be what he is most remembered for at home.

Although I (unfortunately) doubt that things will shake out well in the long run, I could see his standing in foreign affairs improving over time.

If you think about what his obituary might contain, I think the Iraq War, financial crisis, and Katrina will be strongly noted, along with the speech he gave at Ground Zero after 9/11. The period of time immediately following 9/11 will probably be his highlight.

[kcchief19]

My point of reference for Bush at this point are the eight years of Harding/Coolidge. I think Jon and Kodos are thinking in the right direction that the Bush era will be looked upon as a time when America's political, military and economic dominance was seriously eroded.

Our isolationist and regulatory policies of the 1920s laid the groundwork for the economic collapse of the 1930s and for the dominance of Germany and Japan on the world stage. We're certainly facing a possibility of a similar economic picture, although this time it's not our isolationist policies but our activists policies that are eroding our global power.

I'm not entirely convinced from looking at the evaluations of presidents over the years that opinions change that greatly over time. Over the last 60 years of surveys, some presidents have fallen in rankings over time but almost no one has ever been perceived as better than they were a half century ago. Whatever Bush's legacy is on Jan. 21, 2009 will harden over time and could get worse, but not better.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Hey. Me and JiMG agree on something! I also believe he may well be looked at as the single worst president in history.

Don't get carried away I said he presided over the beginning of the end, not that he had much to do with it.

[Shkspr]

I don't think history will view the Bush administration. I'm not convinced anyone still around at that time will be worrying about the Presidents of 100 years ago. I'm not even certain they'll be studying them in schools.

[ISiddiqui]

The problem with looking at it 100 years hence, is that what will stick will be the BIG things and some of the smaller stuff (not to us, but maybe to future generations) like USA PATRIOT and whatnot won't matter.

What will matter will be things like how Iraq actually turns out. I think with the surge, it may actually end up to be a fairly decent democracy for a number of years. However, how we got in will be remembered (wars are always very explored in detail). So I go "mostly bad, but did have some good ideas". The good ideas will be the massive increased funding for AIDS in Africa, his ideas on illegal immigrants (which will be picked up by either a President Obama or President McCain, because they both agree with him on that), and Medicare Part B, which will be seen as a step to eventual universal health care, whenever it comes.

Originally Posted by Shkspr

I don't think history will view the Bush administration. I'm not convinced anyone still around at that time will be worrying about the Presidents of 100 years ago. I'm not even certain they'll be studying them in schools.

Which crappy ass schools did you go to . 100 years before today, President Theodore Roosevelt was leaving office and President Taft was about to assume the bully pulpit. They sure taught me about TR and Taft in my high school.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Which crappy ass schools did you go to . 100 years before today, President Theodore Roosevelt was leaving office and President Taft was about to assume the bully pulpit. They sure taught me about TR and Taft in my high school.

I was guessing his implication would be that the US won't exist any more. I think it's more likely that we just won't be a superpower- we'll be like Germany or England, decently major player in the world but nowhere near like now. The real shame of it, of course, is that while we did some good, we had the potential to do so much more.

SI

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My best guess is that he presided over the official beginning of the end for the U.S. as a clear dominant force in the world.

Really? The rise of China/India and world seems to me to be something that its hard to blame him for - its the natural trend of empires. Do you mind extrapolating?

[st.cronin]

Lots of good answers so far, some that I even agree with.

[Vegas Vic]

Sir Isaac Newton predicted that the end of the world will occur in 2060, thus there won't be anyone around in 2108 to analyze the Bush presidency.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Sir Isaac Newton predicted that the end of the world will occur in 2060, thus there won't be anyone around in 2108 to analyze the Bush presidency.

I thought the world was supposed to end May 5th, 2000. Or is it going to be 2012?

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Really? The rise of China/India and world seems to me to be something that its hard to blame him for - its the natural trend of empires. Do you mind extrapolating?

{scratches head} You seem to be supporting just what I said -- that he presided over the beginning of the end but that he wasn't to blame for it.

In that event, I'm confused as to why you would want me to explain that to you (at least not if we were talking about the same causation, which we weren't specifically, but that's beside the point I think).

I'm guessing that you misread my post to Kodos, about him not being to blame, as me blaming him.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I thought the world was supposed to end May 5th, 2000. Or is it going to be 2012?

SI

December 21, 2012.

This will be roughly after Jeb wins a close election vs. Obama.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{scratches head} You seem to be supporting just what I said -- that he presided over the beginning of the end but that he wasn't to blame for it.

In that event, I'm confused as to why you would want me to explain that to you (at least not if we were talking about the same causation, which we weren't specifically, but that's beside the point I think).

I'm guessing that you misread my post to Kodos, about him not being to blame, as me blaming him.

Sorry, you're right - I did partially misread it. I guess my thought process is that to me, it wouldn't be part of the Bush legacy per se because he couldn't really control it - that's just a macro trend beyond anyone's control. After years of telling the rest of the world they need to open up / liberalize / embrace the Western model, they're starting to do so and the inevitable long term trend is a diminishing in the raw power of the US (compared to say, 1989).

[Surtt]

Just to be a little different, in a hundred years I think Bush will be discussed for his:

1. Expansion of Presidential power (at the expense of congress and the courts)

2. His failure to break up Microsoft.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Just to be a little different, in a hundred years I think Bush will be discussed for his:

1. Expansion of Presidential power (at the expense of congress and the courts)

I honestly don't know what this means, although I've heard it a lot.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Just to be a little different, in a hundred years I think Bush will be discussed for his:

2. His failure to break up Microsoft.

I actually don't think this will be an issue... perhaps President Obama will be blamed for "his failure to break up Google"?

[larrymcg421]

As I said in the other thread, no matter how Iraq eventually turns out, I don't think Bush's mismanagement will be forgotten. Historians will certainly fault him for his loyalty to the obviously incompetent Rumsfeld. The success that happens (if it does) will be seen as him finally giving in to the wisdom of others.

As for the bailout bill, I don't see him getting judged by that no matter how it turns out. His economic record will look pretty bad from a simple statistical standard, and at best he will be seen as better than Hoover because he actually tried to do something.

There are other things that will definitely look very bad for him, especially Katrina. As for things that will look good for him, well both of his SCOTUS justices will probably be there for a while and will likely leave a legacy on the court, and he appointed the first two African-American Secretaries of State.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My best guess is that he presided over the official beginning of the end for the U.S. as a clear dominant force in the world.

Spot on.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Sir Isaac Newton predicted that the end of the world will occur in 2060, thus there won't be anyone around in 2108 to analyze the Bush presidency.

The end of the world will happen when the Lions win the Superbowl. That will never happen, so the world will never end. Hallelujah!!!

[mckerney]

He will be viewed largely as a failure for putting a vast amount of resources towards the War on Terror while failing to prepare every day citizens for the zombie and robot wars that followed shortly after the end of his term.

[Dunleavy]

[Dunleavy]

can't help myself

[chesapeake]

Bush ultimately will be measured by how deeply this recession goes and whether our expeditions into Iraq and Afghanistan are ultimately successful. There is still a chance he could be redeemed if his foreign adventures actually work out.

Academics will note that the Bush's presidency is also known for how much power he sought to consolidate in the Presidency; but I don't know if that will be more than a line in a high school textbook.

[TwinCitiesFan]

If he is not the worst president ever then who do you consider worse?

[MIJB#19]

Irrelevant.

As much as a president can do in eight years, I think Bush jr's reign will be forever linked with how he had to react to what happened on 11th of September 2001. The Iraq invasion will be tied together too, as people will forever discuss wheter the administration lied or not about it being related.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by TwinCitiesFan

If he is not the worst president ever then who do you consider worse?

Presidents Buchanan and Harding instantly come to mind.

[albionmoonlight]

My bro-in-law who is a historian says that Clinton's presidency will be forgotten. Basically, he thinks that the typical high-school history education, once enough time has passed, will move from the fall of the Berlin Wall (symbolic end to Cold War) to 9/11 with nothing to really say in-between.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

My bro-in-law who is a historian says that Clinton's presidency will be forgotten. Basically, he thinks that the typical high-school history education, once enough time has passed, will move from the fall of the Berlin Wall (symbolic end to Cold War) to 9/11 with nothing to really say in-between.

Sounds about right. May talk about a time of economic prosperity but that's about it.

SI

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by TwinCitiesFan

If he is not the worst president ever then who do you consider worse?

Harding, Jackson, or Nixon? (I'd say W is safely in the bottom five though)

[sabotai]

Grant was a pretty bad president as well.

[larrymcg421]

Herbert Hoover?

[ISiddiqui]

There were huge factors beyond Hoover's control though. He tried (the Reconstruction Finance Corporation), but there was no conception of how to deal with something like this.

[SteveMax58]

Jimmy Carter?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

There were huge factors beyond Hoover's control though. He tried (the Reconstruction Finance Corporation), but there was no conception of how to deal with something like this.

I actually agree with that. He did warn about the stock market (although perhaps a little too late), but his biggest failure IMO was the poor leadership he exhibited during the crisis. Roosevelt's policies didn't do much to help the crisis either, but he was a much better leader.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

My bro-in-law who is a historian says that Clinton's presidency will be forgotten. Basically, he thinks that the typical high-school history education, once enough time has passed, will move from the fall of the Berlin Wall (symbolic end to Cold War) to 9/11 with nothing to really say in-between.

That's probably about right...but I think there would have to be significant mention of the internet. Though, I dont think Clinton gets mentioned as being responsible for enabling it, just as I dont think Bush gets the blame for the economic collapse here.

As JiMGa said earlier...just mentioned as the President who happened to be in office at the time.

[Butter]

I would think the main thing Bush will be remembered for, is either his successful (or ultimately unsuccessful) attempt at expanding the powers of the executive branch, mainly masterminded by those who helped bring him to power. He was a puppet on a large scale, but horribly unpopular by the end of his 2 terms, which will kill him in the history books.

[Galaril]

Sarah Palin (after McCain passes)?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I would think the main thing Bush will be remembered for, is either his successful (or ultimately unsuccessful) attempt at expanding the powers of the executive branch, mainly masterminded by those who helped bring him to power. He was a puppet on a large scale, but horribly unpopular by the end of his 2 terms, which will kill him in the history books.

That may be true, but it's not automatic. After all, Harry Truman had extremely low approval ratings at the end of his term.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by mckerney

He will be viewed largely as a failure for putting a vast amount of resources towards the War on Terror while failing to prepare every day citizens for the zombie and robot wars that followed shortly after the end of his term.

I lol'd

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The problem with looking at it 100 years hence, is that what will stick will be the BIG things and some of the smaller stuff (not to us, but maybe to future generations) like USA PATRIOT and whatnot won't matter.

What will matter will be things like how Iraq actually turns out. I think with the surge, it may actually end up to be a fairly decent democracy for a number of years. However, how we got in will be remembered (wars are always very explored in detail). So I go "mostly bad, but did have some good ideas". The good ideas will be the massive increased funding for AIDS in Africa, his ideas on illegal immigrants (which will be picked up by either a President Obama or President McCain, because they both agree with him on that), and Medicare Part B, which will be seen as a step to eventual universal health care, whenever it comes.

Thanks for that. I voted worst president but when reading the questions I realized that surely he had to have some good ideas but even though I tried, I sincerely could not off the top of my head name any.

I think it's what's been touched on about history viewing the bigger events and not really getting into detail that was going on with me so that line of thought is probably a pretty valid one.

Anyway, thanks for pointing those out. I'm not necessarily ready to change my vote or anything but at least I can say that yeah, he had some good ideas. Not many, but you know, a blind squirrel and all that.

I gotta say though, in a tangent of sorts, I really would love to follow the 'what if' game and say what if 9/11 had never happened.

It would have given him time to actually find a cause he could affect and maybe he could have actually had a decent presidency. Of course, it could have been a worse disaster too. It would have been pretty interesting to see either way though and I think our world status would be higher.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I gotta say though, in a tangent of sorts, I really would love to follow the 'what if' game and say what if 9/11 had never happened.

It would have given him time to actually find a cause he could affect and maybe he could have actually had a decent presidency. Of course, it could have been a worse disaster too. It would have been pretty interesting to see either way though and I think our world status would be higher.

He had causes. They ended up being "finishing daddy's war", "taking advantage of a national tragedy to grossly expand executive power", and "lining the pocket of my vice president and all of his cronys". Aren't those enough causes for a lifetime

SI

[Buccaneer]

I've been coming to the conclusion that when many people said that they "hate Bush", that was a catch-all phrase for his administration. I still believe that Cheney was and is the true evil. Bush was weak and needed someone big to standup next to and Cheney filled that role perfectly. In looking at the meeting between Bush and Obama, I can picture Cheney down in the situation room keeping a close eye on the Obama people making sure they don't sabotage anything. And when Bush talks about regrets, you can hear Cheney muttering under his breath, "but I meant all those things and more, you chickenshit". Bush main failure was that he put loyalty above all else, including keeping around both incompetent and evil staff.