As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
It's official: Bush sucked
GoodOmens
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
According to this story: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/16/presidential.survey/index.html, a group of 65 historians has ranked the US presidents on a variety of scales. No big surprise that Abraham Lincoln comes out on top, followed by Washington and FDR.
Also no big surprise that George W. Bush comes out near the bottom. Specifically, 36 out of 42, ahead of Fillmore, Harding, Harrison, Pierce, Johnson and Buchanan.
Of particular note,
So, the question is this: will history's view of Bush change over time? More specifically, what would need to happen for Bush's presidency to be viewed in a more positive light?
I think that if Obama's economic plans fail, Bush's legacy will appear more positive. He can then still make the argument that the conservative economic philosophy would eventually work, the market would self-correct, etc. Internationally, the only development that would improve his standing would be the growth of a true, vibrant democracy in Iraq and/or Afghanistan which allies with the US.
Also no big surprise that George W. Bush comes out near the bottom. Specifically, 36 out of 42, ahead of Fillmore, Harding, Harrison, Pierce, Johnson and Buchanan.
Of particular note,
The survey's participants ranked Bush 41st on international relations and 40th on economic management -- ahead of only Herbert Hoover.
So, the question is this: will history's view of Bush change over time? More specifically, what would need to happen for Bush's presidency to be viewed in a more positive light?
I think that if Obama's economic plans fail, Bush's legacy will appear more positive. He can then still make the argument that the conservative economic philosophy would eventually work, the market would self-correct, etc. Internationally, the only development that would improve his standing would be the growth of a true, vibrant democracy in Iraq and/or Afghanistan which allies with the US.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
GoodOmens on
0
Posts
edit: Though this isn't to give any credit to the Bush = Truman meme that has been making the rounds on the right. Truman was wildly unpopular as he left office among the general public, but pretty much all the informed observes had a much better opinion of him at the time that became the general consensus as tempers cooled and time p[ased; Bush will have no such luxury.
My point is more a matter of we need to see what the final damage is than to wait and see if Bush was right.
Plus, Buchanan and Warren G. Harding both hold a special place in my mind for the worst presidents.
Of course.
Events, dear boy, events. We aren't far enough afield to really objectively judge much in a historical context.
President Bush isn't getting any help on the economic front. Even if Obama were to fail dramatically and plunge America and the world into a Greater Depression, Bush would still not be viewed as a positive economic influence.
Where he might see some rehabilitation is on foreign policy. If Iraq is functional in the next twenty years, he'll probably get credit for that, which is no small thing. Second, if we start seeing more and more frequent terrorist attacks in America, he'll probably get credit for going seven and a half years or so without allowing one, fairly or not.
Movie Collection
Foody Things
Holy shit! Sony's new techno toy!
Wii Friend code: 1445 3205 3057 5295
We already had a really long thread about this a month or two ago, though.
This forum's opinion may be quite different in ten or twenty years, if it's still around, too. The simple fact that he was the (currently outgoing) worst president in most forumers' lifetimes would put him at the forefront of their minds.
We'd need to have more horrible presidents.
In seriousness, his only hope is that Iraq becomes a flower of progressive democracy, a shining example to the rest of the region of how the Middle East can move forward and get along with the west.
Which ain't happening. Sorry.
He may manage to shift upward, but he'll probably remain bottom third.....well, for as long as there's a US.
That seems historically accurate to the point where it's depressing and freaky.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
That was actually from SNL.
Obama recently apologized for [cabinet mistakes]. You're apologizing for THAT? I don't know if you remember, but the last guy in office broke the world!
Shit, he'll probably never leave his home/ranch ever again. Which is the worst part, that after all he's done he'll still have enough money to hide from the damage he caused, and like somebody else said, spend the rest of his life surrounded by people who worship him. Enough money to just, get away from everybody.
It may interest you to know that this forum's opinion on Polk was 'Presidential in the front, Mexican incursion in the back.' I don't know how that would flavour consideration of our objectivity.
Bush is a name future generations will remember alongside Caesar and Alexander.
Movie Collection
Foody Things
Holy shit! Sony's new techno toy!
Wii Friend code: 1445 3205 3057 5295
So when we think about how Bush performed from that angle within the Clinton/Bush/Obama era, how does that shake out?
That's the question. And it is going to have to wait a few years to answer.
Throw a Herbert in there and I'd agree with this statement.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
...Sarcasm?
Eh, even by that metric it doesn't seem likely to have much of a turnaround that can be traced to him. He largely strengthened (or emboldened, if you like) the non-state terrorist organizations, and I can't think of any major copyright or net-neutrality type legislation that occurred. Maybe the spectrum sales, but that'd give more credit to Google with it's requirement of open access. It's likely that he'll fade into irrelevance, we've had worse War Criminal Presidents than him, but stay in the bottom half/third. Unless PEPFAR cures AIDS or something.
The most glorious president.
I guess it depends on how things shake out, but any initiatives he made on preparation for a major contagious disease outbreak or his proposal for a guest worker program might end up seeming rather important to history than they do to us now.
*hi-5*
If the immigration bill actually passed I'd agree. That's the thing, almost all of his major domestic policy initiatives failed, sucked, or sucked before they ultimately failed. That's what helped redeem Nixon, all the good stuff he also did that gets overshadowed by Watergate and Cambodia. Bush doesn't have any of those aside from PEPFAR and maybe Medicare Part D assuming it turns out to be useful when we finally reform health care under a different administration.
If I were in Congress I would have proposed naming the crash barriers/basin at the end of runways or the control tower/radar arrays at Reagan National that help save the plane/lives when things go wrong the George H.W. Bush ___ when they renamed the airport. When something at Reagan fucks up, H.W. Bush ___ saves the day.
If the world as we know it ever ends up clawing its way out of the depths of hades that he pushed us into
Yeah, I think Speaker is pretty much dead on, and I think the narrative that'll arise out of that as far as Bush goes is that he sort of flailingly tried to exert the power of the nation-state, but had his efforts repeatedly thwarted by those same rising non-state actors. He didn't learn from those mistakes, and continued trying to lead using old strategies that no longer worked in the new power setting.
Basically I think he'll be remembered as a shining example of the decline of state power, as well as one of the people whose actions helped to weaken the state faster and hastened the rise of non-state actors across the board, and I think as a result the historical perspective on him is basically going to be as an incompetent leader who spent eight years commanding the tide not to come in.
(amongst republicans)
Probably more a cross between Nixon and Ford.
So secretive, authoritarian, incompetent and ineffectual?
Am I reading that right?
They'll have an overly rosy vision of the last president they managed to elect?
Hey, it could happen.
Ding!
I'll take a permanent democratic majority for 500, Alex
Even if Repubs keep running with people as awful as Bush, I find it hard to believe that Dems will hold a "permanent majority" post Obama. A lot of them are ass goblins and have been comically ineffectual over the last few decades.
Neo-Con Repubs may be insane, morally bankrupt and dangerous to the principles upon the nation was founded, but at least they can control the god damn message and run a campaign.
EDIT: See recent stimulus package antics. Repubs controlled the message almost entirely (dems were laughable in defending it), until Obama stepped in and sold it to the public.
Also, Bush's leadership in a crisis score should be higher imo. He didn't suck immediately post 9/11.
We're unlikely to know the extent of how good or bad a president Bush was for a few more years, at least.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Short of Bush attempting to surrender to Bin Laden it was physically impossible for him to not be viewed a solid leader after 9/11. When everyone is shitting flags and bald eagles the president is nigh on deified.