Bush: Worst Ever or Just Misunderstood?

Telegraph has an article up that serves as a wrap-up analysis of the Bush presidency on the eve of his departure. There was one paragraph that really stood out:

Peter Feaver, who served as special adviser for strategic planning on Bush’s White House National Security Council, agrees: “He’s had a once-in-a-century natural disaster, Hurricane Katrina, a once in a history of the Republic terrorist attack and he’s had a once-in-a-century financial crisis. Any one of those would be a pivotal moment. To have three is extraordinary.”

Exactly. Of course, when you combine that unprecedented level of crisis with a lack of diplomacy, aggressive rhetoric (which calmed down and was even apologized for in the second term but wasn’t forgotten by critics), a lack of charisma, questionable levels of intellectual vigor and a lack of any real communication between the president and the American people outside of State of the Union addresses and presidential campaigns, the historically low approval ratings and negative assessments of the Bush presidency are very unsurprising.

Telegraph contacted John Bolton, who said this:

“In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he was strong and decisive and that was critical for both the country and for the Western world,” believes John Bolton. “In 100 years people aren’t going to remember Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib, they’re going to remember 9/11 and Bush’s reaction to it.”

Bolton is probably right that Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo will be largely forgotten, but only because they are not monumental events in comparison with economic crisis and buildings falling down in Manhattan, not because media spotlights on Bush’s legacy will be gushing about how great Bush’s megaphone speech was.

Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib do serve, however, as important testimonies to the evolving attitude toward presidential prerogative.

There’s a passage towards the end of Gene Healy’s book The Cult of the Presidency in which Healy points out that when Woodrow Wilson jailed citizens for political speech or Franklin D. Roosevelt put Japanese Americans into internment camps, they were cheered on by the media and the populace. Comparable government actions during the Bush era have led to unanimous condemnation, from Amnesty International to the Supreme Court of the United States. This, of course, isn’t an excuse for Bush’s assaults on civil liberties but a highlighting of how attitudes have changed.

However, it seems we are uncertain of how political leadership should respond in times of threatened security. By echoing the behavior of past presidents in times of crisis, the president is behaving in a way that doesn’t match our modern sensibilities. (The fact that detainees in Guantánamo are hooded, refused trial and possibly tortured but also given untouched copies of the Koran and food that meets their religious requirements encapsulates our confused attitudes.) Terrorism and natural disasters aren’t going to go away in the face of President-elect Obama’s saintliness and we will still be figuring out what it is we find acceptable and unacceptable long after President Bush has resigned himself to midland Texas.

While this doesn’t excuse some of the policies Bush has pursued, it certainly puts it into perspective. Thanks Michael.

“In this free nation we do not choose to be ruled, we elect to be governed.”
— Barry Goldwater

lbrady's picture

Thanks.

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson

mpowell's picture

I think we should also look beyond the good things that former President Bush had done for us. Lets not be bias.
What it will take to get the economy to where it was before George Bush’s presidency is beyond the capacity of any payday loan. The growth in jobs was only 2% - the lowest in living memory – and the budget went from surplus to deficit in record time. Less people needed a payday loan with Clinton around, too – the job growth under him was 21%. All that said, Obama has a hard job ahead of him. The few of us that still have jobs will probably need to take out a payday loan to keep up with our bills at some point.

Kurtis K.'s picture

I agree with you Kurtis, let’s not be biased.

Clinton’s job growth came mainly from technological innovation - the massive, almost unheard-of Internet boom. This innovation germinated in the 1970s and blossomed in the 1990s, creating an entirely new and incredibly prosperous sector of the economy. The Clinton administration had nothing to do with it. If fusion energy, artificial intelligence, or superconduction had come to fruition in US during the early 2000s, we would have seen similar economic growth. Instead, the Bush administration ran into crisis after crisis, with no great external stroke of fortune, and the Internet boom spread around the world, stifling American job growth.

All of this proves that scientists and engineers do more to determine economic growth than any government official ever could.

Anonymous's picture

Currently many historians rank bush around 40 out of 44 presidents. I think he will drop to the bottom before not too long.

To be fair, he did have a lot of stuff land on his watch. The problem was that he responded with ham-fisted incompetence. Other leaders in history have been handed great and monumental problems. Think of Neville Chamberlain in 1939.

What I fear is even worse is that Bush has created the model for the ultimate unravelling of our system of government. Not that we’ll necessarily see it for 50 years or more, but at some point, the precedent set by the Bush administration will be the path that some young Caesar follows to put the nail in the coffin of the American experiment.

Oh, and all those tech innovations during the Clinton years? Yeah, built on the back of federal government programs and spending to create the networks and standards that the internet runs on. Your tax dollars at work.

Griefer667's picture

One could also argue that the internet was a positive result of the military industrial complex and the global American empire, as an expanded American military needed greater networking capabilities.

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson

mpowell's picture

Isn’t the military industrial complex the post child of massive federal government? I don’t see a meaningful distinction.

Griefer667's picture

Yes, it is, but I was playing devil’s advocate there. The internet came about as the result of a massive governmental apparatus needing better networking capabilities.

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson

mpowell's picture
 

Twitter


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.