HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst

Mr. McElvaine teaches history at Millsaps College. His latest book, Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America, has just been published by Crown.

Related Links Thomas Fleming: Was George W. Bush the Worst President? Lincoln ranked best US president by historians Robert S. McElvaine: Historians vs. George W. Bush Larry DeWitt: The Follies of Instant History: Another Meaningless Poll of Historians Ron Radosh: Bush’s Legacy in History and the Press Kathryn Moore: George W. Bush: As He Now Appears in a History Book Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes: The $10 trillion hangover ... Paying the price for eight years of Bush Nate Silver: History May -- or May Not -- Judge Bush More Kindly “As far as history goes and all of these quotes about people trying to guess what the history of the Bush administration is going to be, you know, I take great comfort in knowing that they don’t know what they are talking about, because history takes a long time for us to reach.”— George W. Bush, Fox News Sunday, Feb10, 2008 A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent. An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion. In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success. Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations. At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. “He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time and—if the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matter—then probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce,” wrote another historian. The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the “nearly the worst” group, was well expressed by another historian who said, “It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title. Without a doubt, it is among the worst.” In a similar survey of historians I conducted for HNN four years ago, Mr. Bush had fared somewhat better, with 19 percent rating his presidency a success and 81 percent classifying it as a failure. More striking is the dramatic increase in the percentage of historians who rate the Bush presidency the worst ever. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the respondents rated Bush’s presidency last. That conclusion is now reached by nearly six times as large a fraction of historians. There are at least two obvious criticisms of such a survey. It is in no sense a scientific sample of historians. The participants are self-selected, although participation was open to all historians. Among those who responded are several of the nation’s most respected historians, including Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winners. The second criticism that is often raised of historians making such assessments of a current president is that it is far too early. We do not yet know how the things that Mr. Bush has done will work out in the future. As the only respondent who classified the current presidency among the ten best noted, “Any judgment of his ‘success’ or lack thereof is premature in that the ultimate effects of his policies are not yet known.” True enough. But this historian went on to make his current evaluation, giving Bush “high marks for courage in his willingness to attack intractable problems in the Near East and to touch the Social Security ‘Third Rail.’ ”



Historians are in a better position than others to make judgments about how a current president’s policies and actions compare with those of his predecessors. Those judgments are always subject to change in light of future developments. But that is no reason not to make them now. The comments that many of the respondents included with their evaluations provide a clear sense of the reasons behind the overwhelming consensus that George W. Bush’s presidency is among the worst in American history. “No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.” “With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of area: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.” One historian indicated that his reason for rating Bush as worst is that the current president combines traits of some of his failed predecessors: “the paranoia of Nixon, the ethics of Harding and the good sense of Herbert Hoover. . . . . God willing, this will go down as the nadir of American politics.” Another classified Bush as “an ideologue who got the nation into a totally unnecessary war, and has broken the Constitution more often than even Nixon. He is not a conservative, nor a Christian, just an immoral man . . . .” Still another remarked that Bush’s “denial of any personal responsibility can only be described as silly.” “It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.” “George Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States,” wrote one of the historians, echoing the assessments of many of his professional colleagues. “Bush does only two things well,” said one of the most distinguished historians. “He knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches. His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.” Four years ago I rated George W. Bush’s presidency as the second worst, a bit above that of James Buchanan. Now, however, like so many other professional historians, I see the administration of the second Bush as clearly the worst in our history. My reasons are similar to those cited by other historians: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States enjoyed enormous support around the world. President Bush squandered that goodwill by taking the country into an unnecessary war of choice and misleading the American people to gain support for that war. And he failed utterly to have a plan to deal with Iraq after the invasion. He further undermined the international reputation of the United States by justifying torture. Mr. Bush inherited a sizable budget surplus and a thriving economy. By pushing through huge tax cuts for the rich while increasing federal spending at a rapid rate, Bush transformed the surplus into a massive deficit. The tax cuts and other policies accelerated the concentration of wealth and income among the very richest Americans. These policies combined with unwavering opposition to necessary government regulations have produced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Then there is the incredible shrinking dollar, the appointment of incompetent cronies, the totally inexcusable failure to react properly to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, the blatant disregard for the Constitution—and on and on. Like a majority of other historians who participated in this poll, my conclusion is that the preponderance of the evidence now indicates that, while this nation has had at least its share of failed presidencies, no previous presidency was as large a failure in so many areas as the current one.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Disqus

More Comments:

James A Madison - 11/28/2010 Re-poll these Historians and don't allow them to be anonymous. Hiding their credentials invalidates the results.

Lawrence Brooks Hughes - 2/17/2009 I regret my pessimism,Carl.



President Bush was right and I was wrong: Iraq HAS emerged now as a democracy, after all.

John Olerud - 2/2/2009 Without a doubt Jimmy Carter is the worst President in our history.

pete alan schnapp - 1/18/2009 Actually, the one TRUE measure of accuracy in history is who, behind the curtain, is paying the historian doing the "research".

Example;

Zionist/neocon "spin" calls Reagan a great president. He was a traitor as is "Ollie" North.

One whom, I heard with my own ears, Reagan called a "true American Hero".

Now, if running interference for a treasonous president can be construed as "heroic" I guess he was then?

pete alan schnapp - 1/18/2009 By your statement it would seem you take for granted that the elections were accurate and awarded to the rightful winner. Don't forget the complicity in the THEFT of those elections by DIEBOLD and a biased Supreme Court.

pete alan schnapp - 1/18/2009 Stuart Buck Wrote;



"....and fighting a foolish war isn't unique even if one limits oneself to the past 40 years)."



Foolish doesn't come close to what that swine and his minions perpetrated on the world. Foolish implies it was some sort of accident. such as "oops, sorry friend, I accidently slipped and put my penis in your wife's vagina".

he, along with his Zionist handlers manipulated intel from the cowards at the C.I.A. and LIED the sheeple into a slaughter comparable only to "Ike's" slaughter of German POWS AFTER the close of WW2.



bill nichols - 1/15/2009 The several U.S. history courses that I took as an undergraduate were taught by professors who were both Republicans, by admission. I consider myself a left-leaning Democrat. How did I go so wrong?

Marc K. Hoenig - 1/9/2009 I am new to this post and am not an historian. I don't have ready access to the literature, but I was wondering if anyone can direct me to articles, books, etc. showing how the Democratic Party was complicit in all of Bush's failures. As bad as Bush is, he could not have failed so miserably without help.

Robert Eoin Downey - 12/28/2008 Mr. Ullman, I take issue with most of your comments. Not all, but most. There seems debate as to when historians should be allowed to take aim at events and declare their opinion. I'm not a historian, just an observer of events.



I served a very successful term as mayor of my Town and contributed with leadership to bring my people back from a previous time of confusion and terrible division. My administration was during a period embedded in the Bush years. The strategies I used to make it happen were totally opposite to what I've seen from the Bush admistration. It has been painful to watch this example of the 'Peter Principle' take this nation in directions I never thought possible.



Without reservation, I believe right now is time to look at the years of GWB. Historians need to serve in the effort of determing how we got here so current leaders will have a base point from which to work forward to clean up a terrible mess. To me, an event becomes history the moment after the occurence. If I burn my hand on a hot stove, the pain I feel is the undeniable result of an event that has just occured. I don't need to wait to analyze the effect. I'll begin to live with that result immediately. I don't need to wait for someone else to tell me my hand hurts!



The 109 'historians' in the poll were not stated to represent a scientific selection, nor were their opinions expected to be the final call on the eight years of President Bush. Learned is that 109 educated people in April 2008, weighed in with their 'current view'.

These views will undoubtedly be tempered in the future as the domestic misery subsides and if Iraq become a success.



I agree there were plenty of events that were not 'caused' by George Bush but how he reacted is fair game for historians, right now. You cite several and I'm not going to debate each now, case by case.



If you like the way these past eight years have evolved and see GWB as an innocent player in a world of unpreventable events you have company. About 20% of our population will agee with you







Marcel Antonio - 12/22/2008 It does not take a collection of emminent scholars to deduce the fact that George W. Bush's presidency is an abject, complete failure. He single-handedly amassed the greatest debt in our entire history, is responsible for the deaths and disfigurement of countless Afghani, Iraqi and American peoples, failed to defend and protect the Constitution (by torturing and indefinitely detaining foreign nationals, denying legal rights to suspects, abrogating the Constitutional rights of Americans, etc, etc) waged an unjust war on false pretenses, failed to protect Americans from imminent danger from Al Qaeda, failed to help Americans affected by Katrina, and is currently overseeing the continued implosion of our economy. Were Mr. Bush and his many agents not the most immoral and delusional and incompetent group of public servents I do believe that the American people never would have considered--let alone elected--the first colored American to be our next President.



Thank you, thank you, thank you W.

Michael Wade - 11/30/2008 Let's see: runaway debt, a disastrously unnecessary war, the calculated erosion of the Bill of Rights, failure to deal with illegal immigration, and the collapse of the country's financial system. Amazing that someone could consider serious concerns over these follies, and others, merely evidence of bias by historians, people who generally deal in reasoned judgments based on evidence. There's a problem with judgment alright, but not in the survey.

Andrew Liu - 11/4/2008 Time Events



February 28, 2001 The 6.8 magnitude Nisqually earthquake near Seattle, WA.



2001 "9/11" – 3000 deaths; anthrax and snipers crises in Washington, DC.



2001-2002 Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur Anderson collapsed; Recession I.



February 1, 2003 Space shuttle Columbia disintegrated and crew lost.



2004 Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Alex pounded Florida – a worst hurricane season in years.



August, 2005 Hurricane Katrina – 2000 deaths.



2006 Republican Party lost control of both houses of congress in the midterm election.



2007-2008 Subprime mortgage crisis.



Early summer, 2008 Mississippi River flooding worst in 15 years.



Fall, 2008 Recession II unfolding.



william s cormeny - 11/3/2008 I doubt if historians would consider their anger toward Bush and his supporters.I can understand how this anger exists since many of Bush's supporters remain firmly in the Reagan Camp. Reagan had a great deal of success against academics who managed in their desire for freedom to help boost him into office.

This was just like Coolidge who was glad the policemen went on strike and decided against their better judgment to stay out

Similar actions by supporters have doomed presidents. Imagine FDR without the Bonus Army,Hoover,and MacArthur.Imagine Tricky Dick Nixon running on a platform called "Closing the Credibility Gap."

However, Bush condemned his party by sending not one, but two old white men to the Supreme Court confirmation hearings.Single handedly this destroyed any chance for the Republicans to reach out to Hispanics and Women.

Like LBJ,Nixon,Hoover,Buchanan,Van Buren,Wilson,who left their party in shambles,Bush will go down as a failure.

The numbers do not lie. He managed to help torpedo the House Republicans and went a long way toward wiping out a plausible majority in the Senate.

Above all he ignored a reasonable reform of the medical system and the present insurance industry which has lived off offshore accounts,and feeble non-profit accounting principles.If 75% of the people want these reforms,what good does it do to oppose the numbers?

P. VN - 10/14/2008 I think that the economic meltdown that accelerated in the third quarter and early fourth quarter of 2008 clinches the title of worst president since 1789 for George W. Bush. Anyone for a constitutional amendment requiring yearly neuropsychological testing of the president and VP?

Mike Moose - 9/8/2008 Isn't it a bit too early for historians to be rating Bush? Shouldn't we wait about 50 or so years to see how all the policies he enacted play out?

joseph ullman - 9/6/2008 had to look up a few things to continue my response to McElvaine.

At the time RMN (that's Richard Milhous Nixon) was resigning, I suspect there wouldn't be many people who would have rated his administration(s) highly. A detested crook, a brooding personality, alleged AntiSemite (always amazed at these anti semites who hire guys like Henry Kissinger), who resigned in shame.

So let's look at his legacy, and compare it, say, to GWB or Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton.

What did RMN accomplish?



The EPA was started during his administration.

He ended the Vietnam war, inherited from the Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson administrations. (BTW, how many kids were killed in Vietnam, compared, to say, Iraq? How many kids were killed in Iraq to date compared to the daily death toll WORLDWIDE in WWI? Answers below, historians).

Let's see, oh yes. He opened the way to China for international relations.

Let's see, oh yes. He actually outlined the strategy to defeat the USSR - (not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing in the eyes of the 109 historians here....) in his book The Real War, which was subsequently credited to Ronald Reagan.

He - oh yes, during his administration 18 year olds got the vote. Now the demographics of that one - millions of kids who can't find Iraq on a map - voting for Obama - that is sure to warm the hearts of the Bush haters.



So, 5 major accomplishments - huge accomplishments - for the most hated president in my lifetime.



And carter or clintons' legacy?

45,000 dead during Vietnam; what - 3500 so far in Iraq? Some quagmire.



3500 in Iraq. 6000-9000 people a DAY died worldwide from WWI. A day.



Consider the source, ladies and gentlemen. These 109 historians hate GWB. They are guilty of letting their opinions masquerade as history. Shame on all of them.

joseph ullman - 9/6/2008 this is amazing. This qualifies as a headline, as history? First of all, this is an informal "poll" of 109 people? Who are they? What are their qualifications? OK, Mr. McElvaine is from Milsaps college. Now, to paraphrase a liberal blogger commenting on Sarah Palin, is Milsaps a, uh, third tier college?



So just for an introduction, Mr. McElvaine categorizes all GWB's failings, which is nice, because when I hear assholes like James Carville proclaim that GWB is the worst president of all time, nobody can actually tell me why.



But any historian without bias and with intelligence certainly knows that the ramifications of a presidency take decades to play out, and likewise the successes and failures are often not immediately visible. Likewise, the successes can be on the coattails of prior administration's, and finally there are many things a President has nothing to do with, like economic cycles.

But as i was reading these screeds, which basically amount to stock liberal complaints - violation of the Constitution, a meaningless war, fall of the dollar, etc. one stood out. That is the line "And he failed utterly to have a plan to deal with Iraq after the invasion".

Well, what do you know. Just this morning, oh, about 8AM, I read this line in Ken Timmerman's book Shadow Warriors. "The detailed blueprint for the post war period became known as OPLAN Iraqi Reconstruction. Nearly 300 pages long, it was activated at the end of April 2003 by USCENTCOM OPORD 10-03. Postwar reconstruction was split up into seven broad areas.....the elite media continued to blast out their preagreed message. BUsh had launced the wrong war in the wrong place, with NO PLAN for after the shooting stopped. No one seemed to care that those accusations were untrue."



There are many other leaps of opinion in Mr. McElvaine's editorial. The usual clamor about making the rich richer, the acceleration of wealth among the richest Americans, incompetent cronies (name them. Compared to what? Clinton? Carter? you must be kidding.) Greatest economic crisis? Where are the breadlines, the strikes, the starvation, the 21% interest rates? Where's Ray Nagin and the idiocy of the populace in NOLA during Katrina, Mr. McElvaine? I was sitting in Maine watching the Weather Channel and I KNEW the storm was coming. Don't lay it all on Mr. Bush. And you should know you cannot judge a war's success during its campaigns. And it is downright silly to point to Bush as responsible for the loss of American dominance. That is a complex series of events that has developed over decades with the advent of the microchip, cross fertilization(and theft) of intellectual property by the Chinese, cost of doing business being cheaper in India, and American reconstruction of Europe after the second world war.

Mr. McElvaine, you shouldn't be allowed to teach, because you just aren't credible and haven't documented your points.

Regards

J. Ullman

Falmouth, ME

Rich DiSilvio - 9/5/2008 It seems that the comments by George Shirey and Jonathan Maskevich best sum up this biased attack on Bush by a barrage of leftist liberals.



I am no Bush fan anymore, I did vote for him, but rating him the worst of all time is not only wrong but also premature. I learned early on that you cannot truly judge a president that is currently in office. Far too many repercussions occur years or even a decade later and top secret information cannot be released until a comfortable amount of time transpires in order to preserve nation security.



However, my assessment was that we cannot fully judge Bush here and now, but his ratings and actions have indeed fallen short in many avenues. His ineptitude regarding border control is just one of those many deficits and condoning the economic domination by China and India are crucial problems that we must tackle.



However, as others here noted, Bush did have to confront a new foe that is nothing like what the military is accustomed to. Radical Islamic zealots that become suicide bombers are nothing like a legitimate nation that can be easily targeted and reproved.



Furthermore, those that overlook the concessions and ineptitude of Jimmy Carter, which caused tremendous repercussions for America, as the Soviets spread communism across the globe under his reign more than any other president, plus he gave away the Panama Canal, and the Iranians held American hostages until the day Reagan took office, must be placed along side Bush to realize that others might steal the dishonor of "Worst President" along with Buchanan.



On a final note, and as others here keenly noted, Saddam was indeed a brutal mass murderer, yet these pious historians on this Democratic panel clearly overlook that huge and heinous issue. Perhaps if they lived in Iraq under his bloody regime their opinions would be different. Never mind perhaps...MOST ASSUREDLY!





Jack Jerald Thomsen - 8/13/2008 Jews like him because he's a tool for Israel. Full disclosure is necessary when commenting on this president.



I'll go first.



I am not a Jew.



next?

Jack Jerald Thomsen - 8/13/2008 Jews like him because he's a tool for Israel. Full disclosure is necessary when commenting on this president.



I'll go first.



I am not a Jew.



next?

Cole Greenman - 8/9/2008 I know another poster mentioned it earlier already but it is worth noting again; the amount of information we have access to now, and the speed with which we are able to access it as compared to Truman's time.



A history teacher of mine in High School once said that it usually takes about 20 years before something can officially deemed 'history'. That being said, I think its fair to pass judgment on Bush now based on the things we know, while simultaneously recognizing that the later historical record may contradict our current findings.

Cole Greenman - 8/9/2008 Sorry I'm late to the party on this, I just signed up for this site but I find the articles and commentary interesting.



Reagan the best of the 20th century? So if the Iran-Contra scandal and the support of 'freedom fighters' (aka right wing paramilitary groups across South America trained to torture and murder peasants indiscriminately, the taliban and other islamofascist organizations) who would later be dubbed 'terrorists' earns him the moniker of best of the 20th century, surely you can't think Bush is that bad?



I agree with you on Bush and immigration however, I am generally probably considered 'liberal' on most issues but as soon as 9/11 happened my first thought was not Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere in the middle east, but rather our very own borders. It still baffles me how even the most hardcore of conservatives can't see this issue right in front of their eyes, Bush giving amnesty to millions of illegals, presumably to keep the flow of cheap labor coming for his buddies running transnational corporations. If national security and the safety of Americans at home were really his administrations concern, at least a quarter if not more of that money spent in Iraq should have been used on beefing up border security (not just Mexico, coast guard and northern borders as well).



As far as global warming is concerned, enough scientists from the international community without any particular political agenda have backed up the science that is there enough for me to be convinced. I know its oversimplifying things but if you put some people in a confined space filled with trees and start pumping it full of co2 and cutting down the trees faster than they can recirculate the oxygen, eventually there will be consequences as a result of this.



I know you didn't make this particular point but I just wanted to mention that I find the argument about "there hasn't been an attack in six years since 9/11 so he should be praised for that" to be nonsense. There wasn't an attack on our soil for the 6 years prior to 9/11, so who should get the credit for that?



Even though you are clearly much more conservative than I, it seems we could probably both agree that Ron Paul would have been the best candidate to serve the interests of the American people. I was beginning to believe there wasn't a conservative left on the internet that I could find common ground with, good to know you're not all as stubborn and arrogant as the Bush admin.

Robert M. Cerello - 8/6/2008 Instead of boring you with a lengthy disquisition on how very much I claim to know about constitutional marketplaces of citizens--constitutional theory of societal associations of categorically equal citizens--let me instead approach Mr. Bush's record in three brief ways not covered by the author here nor by the other commenters.

(I.) Unlike all other U.S. presidents before him, Mr. Bush admitted that he was NOT trying to be a president; that he would use Kantian false headlines, deceptively labeled acts and "proposed laws" and falsified science, data, facts and testimony to sway disinformed public opinion; and by floating a wildly radical hypothesis of secret imperial presidential powers--extending to all those who ever whispered in the caesarean ear even when he was not listening to their advice--Mr. Bush made it abundantly clear that:

1. He was not going to be president of the U.S. but rather benevolent tyrannos--sole "decider".

2. He was not willing to abide by constitutional regulations, permissions, duties and limitations placed upon the holder of the former office of elected "president".

3. His decisions were going to be made by means of mystical "religio"--whispered instructions given to him from white-bearded deities, these mystical insights handed him from another universe--and not as Abraham Lincoln put the case by means of decisions made "as God gives me to see 'the right"...

(II.) Mr. Bush and his cronies talk a lot about empowerment; but for eight years they continued the disempowerment--enslavement--of individual rights-holding citizens, who now have no rights at all in the 3 main marketplaces of the empire.

1. In the marketplace of goods and services Mr. Bush believes "he governs best who governs least"; so he has dismantled all regulatory defining, regulation applying and oversight agencies; his preference if carried out logically would exclude all regulations--that being the "best" regulations by his irrational standard.

2. In the marketplace of hiring and attainment of idea level leadership in jobs, Mr. Bush's court has recently refused to hear "sole petitioner complaints" meaning the individual citizen,s unless he belongs to an approved collective no longer has the rights to life, liberty and the prioritized pursuit of personally satisfying non-criminal individual aims.

3. In the marketplace of elective and appointive officer positions, he has refused to charter, reform or recognize a federal elections commission; perhaps his reluctance to do so stems from his having been handed two elections via irregularities and neo-fascist tactics against politically-opposed voters in Florida, Ohio and several other states.

(III.) Mr. Bush has nominated the public-interest lawmaking he pursues in the U.S. as "a nation of laws", one not bound by liberal ethics:

"Concern with the rights and freedoms of the individual as opposed to any collective" (dictionary definition). By means of this extraordinary assertion, Mr. Bush has placed "law" as he defines it--a presidential signing statement or enacted legislation, regulation etc.

into the category of "dictates: "orders announced by an infallible pseudo-religious annunciator as to what each man must say he believes or doesn't believe, must do or refrain from doing, must agree to pay or agree to receive in order to avoid punishment by authorities who act against criminals." This un-American attitude--the Declaration of Independence categorically states that ""governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed; and that when any government becomes destructive of these ends (securing individual liberty, selfish rights and pursuit of non-criminal happiness under regulated conduct" it shall be the right of the people (governed) to alter or abolish this constitution".

Clearly, Mr. Bush has precisely violated the American purpose of the Constitution, substituting "final decider totalitarian inerrability" in his presidency for "securing rights to individual citizens by legal use of executive branch powers".

For these reasons alone, along with pseudo--religious pretensions, moral pretensions, ethical pretensions, the failure of every statue, program and activity ever deliberately undertaken by his administration's officers, Mr. Bush stands accused of total failure, lying about his every intention, politicizing every department and function of government, seeking totalitarian powers for the presidency, blaming "government" for what was manifestly his and his illegal party's deliberate betrayal of and refusal to work within the existing system of constitutional government. When one adds Mr. Bush's party's use of swiftboating, the use of slander, false terminology, deliberate lies, character attacks, refusal to accept attested facts, refusal to deal through standards-based agreed-upon evaluations and a comprehensive war against category-level science, scientifically-gathered data and assembled facts, the reason for their failure as governors, moralists, ethicists and thinkers becomes self-evident: unrealism. Postmodernism refers, I claim, to the substitution of whims, god-playing lies, fantasies, preferred versions--anything and everything--for the prioritized definition of real space-time, its workings, nature and conditions. This is the unrealism Mr. \Bush has perpetrated on his victims, the former citizens of a destroyed republic.

And it is for these activities that he should be considered in a micro-controlling dictator class formerly only imagined by Presidents Pierce, Buchanan and Polk in a technologically simpler

era. And by these actions that he must be judged not merely "much the worst of all U.S. presidents" but indeed as "no president at all"--a radical, pseudo-theocratic postmodernist benevolent dictator only pretending to be president in order to seize more totalitarian power for himself and the office that he has so profoundly;y brought into question, denigrated and defiled. His reinvasion ofIraq--the onl;y dictatorship in the NearEast whose enemies to us lacked power to attack to us--was the worst and most chacarteristic blunder of his making. But he used the false identification of "terrorism" with out p.r. contest in that dangerous region against pseudo-religious mass-murdering extremists as a target for military operations--which it could never be, even though Iraq was the last place on planet we belonged at that time. So we must add a-strategic stupidity of an unpralleled historic level to every area Mr. Bush has addressed during his shocking and immensely destructive regime of anti-thisworldly farce leading to inevitanle tragedy.

R.R. Hamilton - 7/24/2008 I have to admit that while I predicted from the beginning that Obama would throw his pastor under the bus to get elected, I didn't expect him to throw the DailyKosers and other nutroots under the bus quite so pre-emptively. Plus he's push Michelle to the back of the bus -- like leaving her at home while he goes globe-trotting.



As Obama punks his nutroot supporters and moves nearly to the Right of McCain on many of the issues (admittedly easy to do), I think Obama's prospects improve. My old friend Bill Burton is doing quite a job.



David Holland - 7/21/2008 Kevin Kosar wrote: "Sure, one might point to his actions or inactions on hot button policies and issues (the Middle East, the environment, etc.) that one reads about in the newspapers, but what of less well-known activities, like recent reforms of the federal rule-making process, or improvements in government procurement, or increased appropriations for arts education programs?...Assessing him on a few but not the many others seems like cherry-picking. yes, some issues, like war and peace, might be weighed more heavily than others."



Kevin thank goodness you acknowledge that "some issues...might be weighed more heavily than others" so that we can avoid a philosophical argument. That said, which President has ever been evaluated for his "rule-making, procurement procedures, or arts funding?" I think that historians, like most people, focus on how a leader responded to the "weighty" issues of his own time.



Possibly "rules and procurement procedures" can be weighted heavily for some of the first presidents, such as Washington or Jefferson, because they were setting a precedent. However, even in those instances these things mattered--were "weighty"--because they were crucial for THEIR time.



Undoubtedly 9/11, America's falling place in the world economy, Katrina, energy policy, sub-prime mortgages, the dollar's rapid devaluation, and global warming are some of the most crucial issues this president has had to face. In each instance his response or lack thereof has had an immediate-and probably long lasting-negative impact.



If we delve into the other aspects of the large Executive Branch, as you suggest, then there is the Justice Dept. debacle, the anti-scientific stance at the EPA (remember Christie Todd Whitman?), torture by the military, extraordinary rendition by the CIA, no-bid cost-plus contracts for Haliburtion and KBR, an across-the-board lack of oversight by Inspector's General, unfunded mandates by Dept. of Education, "anti-UN" Bolton at the UN in a time of international crisis, lack of effective diplomacy from State Dept., Homeland Security still has not effectively secured our ports, the whole issue of an extra-legal Private Army in Blackwater, and so on.



Furthermore, at the Party level, all of the above has done more to harm the Republican Party coalition that was on the ascent since Reagan. Fiscal conservatives are jumping ship, "Reagan Democrats" are returning to the Dem. party, libertarians are grousing over the loss of civil liberties, pundits are now openly discussing what it will take to rebuild the GOP.



So tell me, do you really think that some day, decades from now, historians are going to find some obscure "rule" that Bush implemented, some "procurement" procedure, or "arts funding" that will turn the tide of consensus in his favor?



While you condemn focusing on the weighty issues as "cherry picking," that which you offer borders on irrelevance. It is akin to remaining with an adulterous spouse because he/she is really good about taking out the trash. It is infinitely minuscule by comparison.



At some level this whole issue of a Historians' poll and ranking presidents is superficial and silly. People writing in these blogs argue over how historians in the future will treat Bush. As a historian, about the only thing I can say with any certainty about the future is that we don't know what it will bring. I can venture a guess that it looks like the future belongs to Asia, therefore American presidents may be relegated to being merely historical footnotes.



As for Bush it is pointless to argue what the future will say of him. I suppose the "28%" find it reassuring to think that they will be vindicated someday, and conversely the other 72% think the same, but we have no way of knowing...we will be dead by then.



What concerns me is OUR TIME, and OUR PRESIDENT. We are the ones who have to live with him. I make my assessment as a citizen living NOW. He has failed miserably across the board, on issues both large and small. Furthermore, he has left members of his own Party worried whether the GOP will recover quickly or if it will take several election cycles.

David Holland - 7/21/2008 Kevin Kosar wrote: "Sure, one might point to his actions or inactions on hot button policies and issues (the Middle East, the environment, etc.) that one reads about in the newspapers, but what of less well-known activities, like recent reforms of the federal rule-making process, or improvements in government procurement, or increased appropriations for arts education programs?...Assessing him on a few but not the many others seems like cherry-picking. yes, some issues, like war and peace, might be weighed more heavily than others."



Kevin thank goodness you acknowledge that "some issues...might be weighed more heavily than others" so that we can avoid a philosophical argument. That said, which President has ever been evaluated for his "rule-making, procurement procedures, or arts funding?" I think that historians, like most people, focus on how a leader responded to the "weighty" issues of his own time.



Possibly "rules and procurement procedures" can be weighted heavily for some of the first presidents, such as Washington or Jefferson, because they were setting a precedent. However, even in those instances these things mattered--were "weighty"--because they were crucial for THEIR time.



Undoubtedly 9/11, America's falling place in the world economy, Katrina, energy policy, sub-prime mortgages, the dollar's rapid devaluation, and global warming are some of the most crucial issues this president has had to face. In each instance his response or lack thereof has had an immediate-and probably long lasting-negative impact.



If we delve into the other aspects of the large Executive Branch, as you suggest, then there is the Justice Dept. debacle, the anti-scientific stance at the EPA (remember Christie Todd Whitman?), torture by the military, extraordinary rendition by the CIA, no-bid cost-plus contracts for Haliburtion and KBR, an across-the-board lack of oversight by Inspector's General, unfunded mandates by Dept. of Education, "anti-UN" Bolton at the UN in a time of international crisis, lack of effective diplomacy from State Dept., Homeland Security still has not effectively secured our ports, the whole issue of an extra-legal Private Army in Blackwater, and so on.



Furthermore, at the Party level, all of the above has done more to harm the Republican Party coalition that was on the ascent since Reagan. Fiscal conservatives are jumping ship, "Reagan Democrats" are returning to the Dem. party, libertarians are grousing over the loss of civil liberties, pundits are now openly discussing what it will take to rebuild the GOP.



So tell me, do you really think that some day, decades from now, historians are going to find some obscure "rule" that Bush implemented, some "procurement" procedure, or "arts funding" that will turn the tide of consensus in his favor?



While you condemn focusing on the weighty issues as "cherry picking," that which you offer borders on irrelevance. It is akin to remaining with an adulterous spouse because he/she is really good about taking out the trash. It is infinitely minuscule by comparison.



At some level this whole issue of a Historians' poll and ranking presidents is superficial and silly. People writing in these blogs argue over how historians in the future will treat Bush. As a historian, about the only thing I can say with any certainty about the future is that we don't know what it will bring. I can venture a guess that it looks like the future belongs to Asia, therefore American presidents may be relegated to being merely historical footnotes.



As for Bush it is pointless to argue what the future will say of him. I suppose the "28%" find it reassuring to think that they will be vindicated someday, and conversely the other 72% think the same, but we have no way of knowing...we will be dead by then.



What concerns me is OUR TIME, and OUR PRESIDENT. We are the ones who have to live with him. I make my assessment as a citizen living NOW. He has failed miserably across the board, on issues both large and small. Furthermore, he has left members of his own Party worried whether the GOP will recover quickly or if it will take several election cycles.

Clyde Kenneth Clark - 7/15/2008 Too early? For what? How about all those lies George told us in order to justify the invasion of Iraq - a move that was condemned by the United Nations as being immoral and criminal!

Bush and LBJ are both from my state -

Texas and what that Dixie Chick said about Bush is nothing compared to what I have heard many Texans say about both Bush and LBJ for needlessly getting our country into no-win wars which kill millions. What we need is an intelligent president who has no ego-fixations (LBJ's main problem) or personal agendas (Bush's problem in re Iraq-Hussein).

Clyde Kenneth Clark - 7/15/2008 I thought Ronald Reagan was stupid but

George Bush has given stupidity a worse name than it previously had. He

made the pre-emptive attack on Iraq (fronted by that phoney Coalition that

he and his fellow conspirators cooked up) in retaliation for Saddam Hussein ordering the murder of George's daddy - Skip. George's lack of intelligence is equalled only by his absence of good character.

Jordan Galdo - 7/10/2008 A 9 trillion dollar debt, the failing American dollar (in the gas costs relatively the same in GOLD), such low popularity that McCain is attempting to distance himself from Bush's presidency in emphasizing his "Maverick" status, and of course Bush's low popularity polls nation wide is all attributed to political bias?



This is only the most obvious of the examples too, there is SO much one can pin on Bush that it's hard to not accidentally trip over it.



If you want to see a TRUE conservative look at Ron Paul. In Bush's presidency the government has GROWN: The patriot act is a good example of this. I do not see how anyone that is not blinded by his "Republican" title could call him conservative in regards to government policies based off of his actual actions.



America should have followed George Washington's advice and AVOIDED the travesty that is political parties, or at least followed the example of the majority of the world's democracies in proportional representation to weaken over-strong political parties. I swear that people are so blinded by partisanship that they would vote for a monkey if it were the Democratic/Republican nominee.

shrimp skewz - 6/16/2008 Please skew this story at http://www.skewz.com/link/link_details/7476?section=comments

Diane de Reynier - 6/12/2008 Everyone is entiteld to an opinion, even historians. Judging a car, every man has an opinion, though few really know how it works, but engeneers with university degrees. Historians have that knowledge about what has happened in former times, and that gives a better base for understanding what is happening now. They can better compare and have experience in that field. Next to that common sense is a good idea for judging the results of 8 years of politics.

I am no historian, no American, retired.

Before Bush: we had problems with terrorists all over the world Ceylon, Germany, etc. Osama bin Laden was unknown. Since Bush, with have WAR, WAR WAR on every thing, (poverty, terrorism, Iraq, ....)and thanks to Bush, Osama bin Laden became so famous that he could increase greatly his influence. And terrorists, no longer beeing treated as criminals, are now in the news all the time, getting a huge american publicity, that increases their power. They are so lucky to have Bush.

After a terrorist attack, the British emphasize "business as usual" "we are not afraid", but look at all the legislation to protect the Americans. They must be so terribly afraid, could they be such cowards? Ready to give up all their democratic rights... Such people are no leader of the world. And when you see day after day women and children killed by or because of the Americans, without proper water, kids without schooling, they will have no option and become terrorists..... Then Bush was reelected though the Americans knew he lied and will lie to them. So how about moral values?

I judge politics by the results I see after 8 years: Americans after Bush look coward, stupid, immoral. Before Bush they looked like friendly helpful successful people, fit to have a say in the world affairs.

It is such a waste and a pity. But do stop saying it is "Bush", in a democracy, all that happens in the name of every one American. And so does the world judge.

China as the next leader will not be better, but at least intelliget.

Diane

ronald j gaudier - 6/8/2008 Good points. However, I'm not a historian. Based soley on my own life experiences I can say without any doubt that GWB is the worst president of my lifetime. And there have been some real losers the last 48 years. Before Bush, I considered Carter to be the worst. As bad as Carter was, at least he did not do as much damage as Bush. LBJ was also pretty horrible, but at he had the honor to realize this and did not run a second term. Bush on the other hand, believes that he has done nothing wrong. This shows what a twisted personality he is. Hopefully the people will learn a lesson from this.

Kevin R Kosar - 6/6/2008 #1 A methodological question: How can historians, or anyone for that matter, come to an authoritative judgment of the competence of the sitting president? Sure, one might point to his actions or inactions on hot button policies and issues (the Middle East, the environment, etc.) that one reads about in the newspapers, but what of less well-known activities, like recent reforms of the federal rule-making process, or improvements in government procurement, or increased appropriations for arts education programs? The modern president heads the executive branch, a huge collection of agencies that pursues many, many policies on a bewildering range of issues. Assessing him on a few but not the many others seems like cherry-picking. yes, some issues, like war and peace, might be weighed more heavily than others. But, some attention must be given to the very broad range of policies pursued if oen is going to try to form a judgment.



#2 Related to this problem of comprehending and assessing the performance of a president, there is this challenge: How many historians have expertise in governance? How many are familiar with government management laws, the operations of OMB, the regulatory process, etc.? Probably few, in which case, who are they to assess the competence of a president?



#3 It is a fallacy to think that because one knows lots about one presidency (FDR's, Chester A. Arthur's, etc.) or American history generally that it makes one sufficiently expert to pass categorical pro/con judgments on the performance of other presidents, especially those who lived in very different times. (Obviously, the presidency and the entire American political and governance context has evolved rapidly and dramatically. Would George Washignton, a star in his time, have been a good President in the 1990s? It's difficult to say.)



In short, to those who sit in their tenured chairs and toss off quick and categorical judgments, I suggest this: do your profession honor and please display some humility.



Cheers,



Kevin R. Kosar

http://www.kevinrkosar.com











ronald j gaudier - 6/6/2008 "The President who made controversial decisions and stuck by them despite savage criticism"



And therein lies the problem. The "Hubris" of George W Bush who no doubt believes that he receives divine guidance with his decisions.



I have never been more scared in my life!

Ricardo Luis Rodriguez - 6/4/2008 So much for detached scholarship.

The worst sin of modern academia is the delusion that "being engaged" is compatible with being objective.



ronald j gaudier - 6/2/2008 Don't assume that all people who dislike George W Bush are "left wing member of the progressive blog sphere." I consider myself a Right leaning Libertarian (former right wing Republican). I believe that we wouldn't be facing the situation we are in politically (Democrat control of house and likely the exectutive branch soon) had not Bush been an unbelievably inept leader.

As I stated in my previous post, his positions on a number of issues including illegal immigration reform, are a major reason for my dislike of the man and a major reason why I consider him more like a Democrat than what the Republicans are supposed to be.

Daniel Ortner - 6/2/2008 While I dislike President Bush and his policies as much as the next left wing member of the progressive blog sphere, I think that this type of polling is a disgrace to the profession of history. Polling on a sitting president reveals how swayed by popular sentiment historians truly are. Indeed, I wonder how Truman would have ranked had this question been asked during the high point of the cold war. It takes years and the light of retrospect to more accurately gauge a presidents impact.

ronald j gaudier - 6/1/2008 Let me preface this post by first stating that I had been (until recently) a life-long republican. I still believe that Ronald Reagan was the best president of the 20th century (not ever, that honor goes to George Washington).



I had misgivings about George W. Bush when he began his campaign for the Repuclican nomination. When he described himself as a "compassionate conservative" that threw up a bunch of red flags. Unforutunately, as has been the case for every predidential candidate I have voted for since Reagan, I felt compelled to choose the lesser of two evils (or so I thought) in George Bush.



Clearly, there is plenty of evidence supporting the assertion that GWB is the worst president ever. And I agree with most of it...with the exception of the climate change theory as I belive there is not anything humans can do to stop it.



However, there is one major ommission from what is being said here, and that is Bush's position on ILLEGAL immigration. While it was no surprise that he took the pro amnesty position, it was still a major disappointment and was basically the final straw for me as far as he was concerned.



I now no longer consider myself a Republican, but a conservative leaning Libertarian, and have become a card-carrying member of the Libertarian party. I have found that many other conservatives feel the same way. All but a few die-hard stubborn types that figure it is their patriotic duty to stand by their president no matter what.

While I cannot say with certainty that George W Bush is the worst president in history, I can say that he is without a doubt the worst in my lifetime.

Jonathan Maskevich - 5/22/2008 The first thing I was taught, in the first class I took in college was that there will always be bias in history, that we have to take particular care when examining primary documents, or other sources.

I do not see how this can be considered anything other than a political survey of people, who nearly all sit on the left, who happen to be historians. This isn't History, and I am embarrassed to se it treated that way. We are the most biased on this topic right now, we have zero objectivity, whether we are on the left, or on the right. The historical study will come later. This is nothing but Politics.



Mark Dixon - 5/22/2008 Well, hey! The Man Made Global Warming "scientists" have been getting away with putting politics before science so, why not a handful of historians as well? Why worry about one's credibility when there's a Democrat to elect?



It is true that history will judge George W. Bush. But, it is also true that these "professional historians" will be judged as well. We'll see who comes out better in the end: The President who made controversial decisions and stuck by them despite savage criticism (both political and personal) or the "professional historians" who allowed their personal politics to lead them to condemn a President even though that particular period of history was not yet over, in direct contradiction of their profession's mandate of objectivity?



Time will tell, won't it?

Jonathan Reuel Seaver - 5/18/2008 You won't read it in reports from Associated Press or the national news media, but the impeachment of Bush and Cheney gained some momentum yesterday.

On a late afternoon vote of 110-88, the N.H. Democratic Party convention supported a resolution to demand Congress impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. House Bill 24 will come off the table next Wednesday for a N.H. House of Representatives vote.

It is not too late for impeachment. Congress could conduct a House impeachment investigation in November, conduct the U.S. Senate trial in December, and remove Bush and Cheney on the day before a new president and vice president are sworn into office.

George Shirey - 5/17/2008 If Bush is remembered as the worst president in history - it will only be because "historians" such as many of these posters have an incredibly biased view of what is good for America.



LBJ is admired and held on a pedestal by many "liberal historians" - but what are the results of his actions? Strong arguments can be made that though his intentions were good, the results of the "Great Society" have caused irrevocable damage to the American family.



The true legacy that Bush will be saddled with cannot be known. What we do know - he used all the American military might in a plan to create a forward battlefield in a war against an enemy that America has never faced before. Whether that was a good move or bad will be judged by time, not by a bunch of "historians" who are caught in the current political mindset.

Richard William Krueger - 5/17/2008 Nice stats. Make up some more.

harry paget flashman - 5/17/2008 Is that all?

Considering historians are about 98% orthodox liberal President Bush may consider 61% a triumph.

Richard William Krueger - 5/17/2008 R.R.,



You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The black vote alone puts North Carolina and Virgina in play for Obama. That's not even counting the youth vote, the hispanic vote, or the 70% of Hillary supporters who will vote for Obama in the fall. 72 million registered Democrats, 55 million registered Republicans, and 42 million registered independents who are breaking overwhelmingly for Obama. Good luck.

Richard William Krueger - 5/17/2008 Sorry, but looking at the messenger and not the message is a classic example of ad hominen reasoning, which is, in fact, a logical fallacy. You see moveon.org, not the sources that the sited. You don't like moveon.org? Guess what? I'm not particularly found of that "brand-name", either. But to discount FACTS because of the who's saying delivering them? Wow. Good, vote for McCain. I don't anything to do with you morons.

Richard William Krueger - 5/17/2008 Yes. End of discussion...you used at least three logical fallacies in two paragraphs. 1) False authority 2) emotional language and 3) confident manner. Not looking too good, slick.

Lori Rogers-Stokes - 5/16/2008 I always thought no one could dislodge Andrew Jackson from my number-one worst president ranking, but Bush has done it. He beat out a president who ordered a genocide on American people. When will the pendulum swing away from the destruction of our Constitution and complete disregard for our founding principles that characterize him and his administration?

Peter Gregory Wolfsehr - 5/9/2008 Just finished reading the HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst. The piece provides some excellent assessments of the G W Bush performance.



My opinion; Dubya is beyond merely rigidly ideological to the point of gross stupidity and profound incompetence. It is as if he was hand picked by Osama to do as much damage to the US as possible, a veritable stooge of the man who hit us on 9/11. Think for a moment. Hasn't George done just about everything Osama would want him to do? Put our military through a pointless meat grinder, ruin the nation's finances, destroy our reputation in the world, and on and on?



My question; why isn't the fraudulent use of the US military to perform a nation building/culture makeover experiment (rather than for the traditional purpose of national defense) an act of treason?

Paul Mocker - 4/29/2008 http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978519



That URL links to a UC Berkeley webcast of a lecture by Matt Gonzalez, Green Party Candidate for Vice President.





joel menkes - 4/24/2008 Bad point. In the case of judging a president you are gauging a unilateral program. When rating congress you are gauging a bilaterally based negotiating body.

Rob Zenden - 4/20/2008 We don’t know exactly yet how we will look to the Bush administration in the future. But we can give already a good indication. On international issues Bush will certainly be criticized for the way he treated terrorism and the war in Iraq. Although we don’t know how the future in Iraq will be, we now know already know that the war in Iraq is a complete failure. It cost billions of dollars, thousands of American soldiers lives and a hundred thousand of civilian lives through ethnic violence. When a war doesn’t goes as planned historians will go back to the cause of the war. Then they will see that the reasons to go to war were in the best sense incorrect or in the worst sense even real lies.

Then there is also the global warming issue. From a president of world’s must powerful nation a leading role may be expected. But in fact this president did almost nothing. The global warming challenge was (alongside terrorism) the largest challenge of the time of his presidency. This president failed completely for the challenge of his time.

In other foreign affairs he ruined the image of the United States. The way the world looks to the US has probably never been so bad as it is today.

On domestic affairs Bush will in the first place be judged on the economy. What we do know is that Bush made a gigantic financial deficit and this lead to a dramatic decrease of the value of the US dollar. We don’t know how bad the current US economy is going to be. In case the economic crisis is going to be really bad then he has failed both internationally and domestically completely.

Another important point is how low approval ratings among US population he receives. Bush is certainly becoming one of the must unpopular presidents in history. I think that Bush will certainly be considered as one of the worst presidents in US history. He potentially could become THE worst of all. Especially if the economic crisis is going to be a really bad one.



Rob Zenden - 4/20/2008 I think that George W. Bush will be remembered as one of the worst –if not the worst- US president in history. What matters on the long term are especially crucial decisions about foreign policies and economic issues that matter.

To start with his decision to go to war in Iraq. He went already to Iraq before having finished the job in Afghanistan. He went into a war with the idea to make Iraq an example for the entire region. This targets were completely unrealistic. Secondly the costs of the war in terms of tax dollars as well as human lives were much higher then was useful. And when a war goes not as planned, historians more then ever are going back to the question “why did we go to war?”. And the answer is that he went into a war without UN authoritization and based on arguments that later were proven simply false: weapons of mass destruction were never found and the direct link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 also remains unproven.

Also very important for history is the fact if a president (especially the president of world’s must powerful nation) meets the quests of his time. A major quest of his time was to stop global warming. From world’s must powerful nation a leading role would be expected. This president did almost nothing. He didn’t even try. So he simply failed for the quest of his time.

And then the economic issue. Under his presidency the state deficit rise and rise, weakening the dollar further and further. He can’t alone be blamed for the low value of the dollar, but he can be blamed for a great part because he allowed the state deficit to grow and grow. On the short period a low dollar may be good for export, but on the long run it’s very bad. No foreign investors are going to invest in the US if they lose already 10% a year on there exchange rates….

And then the current economic crisis. A lot of economists have warned already for years that both the state as well as civilians or companies were borrowing to much money. Well, we have to wait how worse this crisis will be. But some financial analysts (including top economists) have already argued that this might become the largest economic depression since the 1930’s. In that case he as a president has also as a president completely failed on economic issues, probably even worse then any other president in history (perhaps except Hoover).

Also the global warming issue and the Iraq war were both very bad for the image of the United States in the world. Making diplomatic efforts much more difficult in the coming years. The US is around the world not any more seen as the example of how a nation should be. Foreign nations will become much more critical while negotiating with the US, while making it much more difficult for US in diplomatic efforts to reach it’s goals.

My conclusion is that the next US president will not be able to start his own policy within the next years. It will take years to repair what the previous president did. The next president must repair the economy, the budget deficit, the crisis in Iraq, the global warming issue and the image of United States around the globe. It will become a very difficult 4 years for the next president….



R.R. Hamilton - 4/20/2008 Interesting contention. How did you deduce this? (I'm not disagreeing or agreeing -- just asking.)

Sara Marie Johnson - 4/19/2008 Clinton lied under oath about sexual harassment; a major political accomplishment of the far left in making heterosexual sex illegal. Bush, did not lie about Iraq. You will find when you can actually study the real intellegence of the current events that Iraq shipped it's weapons program to Syria. Israel resently bombed the area where Sadam's weapons were stored in Syria. Being stupid of the facts does not constitute a historian's judgement and you won't know the facts until they are declassified. Therefore, you are no more than a propagandist pretending to be a historian. Far Left political slogans are not history. Embarassing for you if you are really a historian.

Sara Marie Johnson - 4/17/2008 Hopefully, the unprofessional and rude comments above have not come from real historians rather politicial operatives pretending to be historians.

Fred Merts - 4/17/2008 I'm continually amazed that there are even a handful of supporters of George Bush. Apart from attacking the wrong country, running up massive debt ($3 trillion on his watch alone), outing a CIA agent (then pardoning a dork named Scooter after saying the person responsible would be brought to justice)....doing massive harm to the environment....Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court??....Rumsfeld....torture...alienation of our allies.......New Orleans is still in shambles almost three years later......Holy Cow, I've just scratched the surface!!! Oh, another grand idea: Massive tax cuts for the rich and Big Oil -- then start a war and put it on the credit card for the kids to pay for, with massive, massive interest. Nice job, Redneck. And Redneckublicans will vote for four more years of this by voting John McSame -- more war, lower taxes for the rich....and the dude is a fossil. Will Senator Hothead start a nuclear war, or just have a series of "senior moments" that impede his ability to make sound decisions. So, we dig our country out of George's mess....with a reallllly old version of the current brainless one? God help us if it comes to pass.



All you Bush supporters that are part of the redneck agenda: If you cannot at least answer to any of the above, here's an easy one for you: How can this yokel/buffoon even be taken seriously, let alone respected, if he doesn't even have command of the English language? Y'all must cringe every time George butchers the English language. Perhaps you do not notice, which would explain a lot.



This guy has been a failure at every turn of his life, and even Daddy Bush has been said to be privately distraught and embarrassed with what his mentally-challenged son has done to the once-great USA (the family wanted the smarter one, Jeb, to ascend to the presidency).



The only people dumber than George are the people who voted him in.

R.R. Hamilton - 4/16/2008 Germany, France, and Italy are, with Britain, the the biggest countries in Western Europe. That the voters there would rise up and oust the anti-Bush cabals shows as a lie the contention that "Bush has made America hated around the world". The only people in Europe who hate America in 2008 are the same ones (or their political descendants) who hated us in 1978, 1988, and 1998.

Paul Mocker - 4/16/2008 3 countries in Europe out of how many? 25 or so?





scott ryley - 4/16/2008 There is greater unity in Europe. There is still much more progress needed in the global war on terrorism.

The United Nations has done little in its capacity to address world issues of terrorism, poverty and genocide.

The U.S.A has filled the role of this world body. Security is a price to be paid by all, not some!

As a country, we should re-examine all of our relationships and make necessary changes

Old Sarg - 4/15/2008 What I find so outrageous about you "unscientific" polling is the one sided flavor. It seems more of a Cuban polling than a polling in a free country. Has the Government also taken away your right to be objective?

John C O'Connor - 4/15/2008 Pawl442,

"But worst of all are the 1 MILLION PLUS INNOCENT DEAD IRAQI'S. Does the number have to be 6 million before its called what it is, genocide, and to be compaired to Hitler?"



Where do you get your numbers? Iraqi's not Americans are doing the vast majority of the killing in Iraq.



You casually throw around the term genocide to simply sate your political bias just like "torture" was applied to the pictures of prisoners wearing underwear on their heads. What you're doing through your ignorance is cheapening the meaning and insulting those true victims of torture and genocide.



John C O'Connor - 4/15/2008 Ditto



Well done Maarja!

John C O'Connor - 4/15/2008 Me too, right after the French war crimes in Algeria, Russia's countless war crimes, China's Tibetan war crimes, Spains civil war crimes, etc...



Grow up!!!

John C O'Connor - 4/15/2008 Do you sell those crystal balls on eBay?

John C O'Connor - 4/15/2008 Peter perhaps you should take your own advice. The only reason the Iraqi people were injured by the sanctions was because Saddam "the rightful ruler of Iraq" was hording the "oil for cash" dollars and doling out projects to the Germans, French, Russians & Chinese. Who by the way were preparing to help lift the sanctions and support "the rightful ruler of Iraq" in his self admitted pursuit of WMD's. Take off your Hate Bush blinders and get the facts before you criticize!!

Evgueni Khanine - 4/15/2008 "There is no question in my mind, from years and years of this banter, that people are much more likely to be on the left who lose their temper and sputter personal insults than on the right. "



Hmm, let's see. Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly have never lost their temper, have never insulted anyone, have never yelled at anybody? Or are they at "the tavern level"?







Sara Marie Johnson - 4/15/2008 I am not so sure Bush "picked" the wrong country to attack. He needed to collect intellegence on the Islamic terrorist network and Sadam was a great target for the US, strategically. Sadam gassed his own people, was playing games with the UN arms inspectors and tried to kill the President's mom and dad in Kuwiat. Iraq is a good staging area to take on Iran in case the nuts carry through on their threat to nuke the US and Isreal.



In addition I would like to remind everyone that the "historians" are, in the majority, left wing political activists. Remember when they went to bat for Clinton claiming it is not unusual for Presidents in history to be sexual active outside their marriages; made a flase claim that George Washington fathered the children of slaves while totally ignoring the little fact that Clinton's impeachment was brought on by him committing perjury, not getting blow jobs from his intern. History is supposed to be based on facts, not political spin, but we know differently after the "historian's" Clinton fiasco.



Most American historians are nothing more than airburshers of history blessing one another's artistic talents. I am a fortune teller! I can see in the future that the next Republican president will be pronounced the worst president ever by America's "historians." If O'Bama or Hillary are elected, they will be pronounced the very best of the best Presidents in US hisory!

R.R. Hamilton - 4/15/2008 I forgot to mention: My 15-year-old did not, as I mistakenly reported earlier, get 2/3rds correct; she got only about 3/5ths correct. Still, under my suggested standard (minimum 1/2 correct), that would be enough for her to vote -- until we implement my property-owning requirements. :) I think if a 15-year-old kid can pass, the standard isn't too tough. Nevertheless, I will be agreeable to lowering the bar to 1/3 correct: That's right, you have to get 20 of 60 correct answers on what amounts to being a "good citizenship test". Is that too much to ask?

R.R. Hamilton - 4/15/2008 For many years I've said that I would support any voting restrictions -- based on some reasonable combination of scholastic and economic accomplishments -- that would disenfranchise me. Unfortunately, at this stage of my life that's probably impossible -- such restrictions now would leave only five- or ten-thousand people eligible to vote. Even I agree with William F. Buckley's sentiment that we would be better off governed by the first 200 names in the Boston phonebook than by the faculty of Harvard. (His remark echoes every time I visit the eggheads here at HNN.us)



As far as "political participation is an inalienable right", I think you go too far. On a purely practically level, I think most Americans would agree with me. If we asked them, Which would you rather have: the right to vote or the right to drive? I think 98% would choose the right to drive. On a theoretical level, I find it strange that people who have no problem acknowledging necessary restrictions on capitalism or on property development -- and even on democracy (so that it doesn't become a tyranny of the majority) -- have this sentimental attachment, which Obama might even call "clinging", to the notion of unfettered universal franchise.



Did you know that on Election Day, operatives from both parties will be combing the lunatic asylums of America fishing for votes? Those provisions in your state constitution or statutes barring voting by "insane persons" have been held to apply only to persons actually adjudicated as insane -- something that applies to only a tiny fraction of the asylum inmates. Are you comfortable knowing that your vote will be cancelled out by the half-nod of a guy in a strait-jacket? I'm not.



If I could, I would also revive the "King's Shilling" rule, which would prevent voting by government employees and contractors -- and wards. That's common sense, like the rule in most company lotteries and contests that bars participation by company employees.



I think voting is too important and -- especially given the scope of government today -- too potentially dangerous to be unprotected from the incompetent and the vested insiders.

R.R. Hamilton - 4/15/2008 This article has been highlighted by U.S. News and World Report: http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/04/11/the-first-draft-of-history-looks-a-bit-rough-on-bush.html



Read the comments to see how bad it is viewed.



On a lighter note, the article says that, "Among the reasons given for his low ratings: invading Iraq, 'tax breaks for the rich,' and alienating many nations around the world." Notice that Berlusconi was re-elected? Isn't that a clean sweep for Bush? France, Germany, Italy -- every anti-Bush candidate has been swept from office. So much for "alienating" anyone in foreign countries except the effete elites.

Jonathan Dresner - 4/15/2008 We don't even have literacy requirements for elected officials: it would be rather hypocritical to require higher qualifications for voters.



Seriously, though, political participation is an inalienable right: like speech, association, religion, etc., it should only be abridged for good cause. It's not earned, but is part and parcel of citizenship.



(p.s. I missed three, for a 95% score, all in the "market" category. One of the answers is debateable; one is technical, and one, while legitimate, requires more detail than basic civic literacy. If I was unsure, I just picked the answer most likely to make a hard-core conservative happy.... There's some decent questions there, and some deeply flawed ones.)

scott ryley - 4/15/2008 The reinvestment act of 1977 was the groundwork for further reform in 1989.

Your point has merit seeing oversight was deficient in leading up to this housing market crisis. It gives credence to the saying we don't need new laws just enforcement of the ones we have.

Note on the EIC is that both the President and Congress signed and approved these increases.

Paul Mocker - 4/15/2008 Has Bush been responsible for increased benefits of the EIC for the working poor?



Also, is he also responsible for audit rates of the working poor-EIC recipients being higher than audit rates for the rich?

R.R. Hamilton - 4/14/2008 My point wasn't that approval polls are particularly helpful in gauging effectiveness; it was quite the opposite.

R.R. Hamilton - 4/14/2008 Point taken: a handful (3 or 4, IIRC, out of 8 or 9 fired U.S. attorneys) of U.S. attorneys were fired last year at least in part for failing to pursue, vigorously enough for the administration and its friends in Congress, allegations of voter fraud.



As far as allegations of Republican or "voting machine companies (presumptively GOP!)" voter fraud, if you have strong circumstantial evidence of it, then you should forward it to the Democratic leaders in Congress so they can demand investigations. Don't be too disappointed if they take no action; Democrats don't have a history of being particularly wary of voter fraud. (There is an interesting give-and-take on this matter at http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/us-attorney-scandal-in-nutshell-upshot.html)



Btw, for the record, I prefer paper ballots, not punchcards, touch-screens or any similar system. And just as important is making sure the ballots remain undisturbed during their transfer from the polling stations, where they are marked, to the county clerk's offices, where they are counted. A lot of elections can be decided during the trip to the courthouse with the help of an icepick and a handful of punchcards.



Now, what did you think about my idea to return literacy requirements for voters? How about we use this test from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute: http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/ I think if one can't get at least half of the questions there correct, one has no business be honored with a voter's registration card (think of it like a driving test for a driver's license). My 15-year-old got 2/3rds correct.

Jonathan Dresner - 4/14/2008 Vigorous attempts by the Bush administration to prosecute Democrats for voter fraud generally failed, resulting in -- you may remember this -- the dismissal of otherwise competent and loyal Republican US Attorneys.



Voter fraud by Republican elected officials and voting machine companies has yet to be properly investigated, but there is strong circumstantial evidence.

Jonathan Dresner - 4/14/2008 There's a well-documented, though admittedly odd, tendency for people to rate institutions like Congress poorly in the abstract and collective, but to view their own representatives as exceptional and exceptions. Opinion polls of Congress as a collective are fundamentally meaningless, in terms of gauging political realities.

R.R. Hamilton - 4/14/2008 You say, "It actually seems quite likely that the 2000 and 2004 elections featured unprecedented levels of vote-rigging and fraud". This is probably true, but irrelevant as Bush won despite Democratic vote-rigging and fraud.



If you want "well-informed, competent, [and] interested in merit", bring back the literacy requirement for voting. But that would rob the Democratic Party of its strongest voting bloc.

R.R. Hamilton - 4/14/2008 Then with Congress' "lower than Bush" approval ratings, it's past time for mainstream historians to pronounce Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid "Worst Ever Congressional Leaders".

R.R. Hamilton - 4/14/2008 ... for providing the exact figures on the House vote on the Iraq War Resolution. I was trying to avoid the appearance of pedantry.

Will Riley - 4/14/2008 It seems as though there is a bias against all bias, but bias is not always bad.



Bias indicates a preference for one thing versus another. Bias indicates a value.



Many historians are for example are biased for citing their sources. Many people are biased against murder. We need to careful to distinguish between liberal bias and bias against certain kinds of political action. We need to be careful to not throw out the baby with the bath water.



Many of the historians are biased against many of the actions taken by the Bush administration. They are ranking the presidents based on the combination of all of their biases. The question is not whether they have liberal bias, but whether their liberal bias is compatible with many our most fundamental and shared biases. I think that many of these discussions devolve into a back-and-forth about how one side is basically correct, and the other is basically wrong. Usually, both sides are basically wrong, often on different points.



I think that bias, in general, is not the problem. Without bias, we would have no basis for dispute. What we must do to win an argument, is appeal to our most basic biases, those that every side of the issue is clearly committed to.



I often feel that liberal bias is present in academia. My reaction is not to immediately discount the bias, but to press it to account for its bias. There may be justification for that bias.



I would like to introduce one final thought:



Is it possible that both Clinton and Bush are terrible presidents, but in different ways? Yes. Is it possible that while both are terrible presidents, Bush is substantially worse than Clinton. Yes, that is possible. Why isn't this possibility vigorously discussed? Why are there only two opposing sides to this complex issue? There must be more perspectives out there.

Will Riley - 4/14/2008 As an American citizen, I too would like to see George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, and Dick Cheney stand before an international war crimes tribunal.

R.R. Hamilton - 4/14/2008 Only if by "the Iraqi people" you mean only "Saddam and his family". I read in last week's TIME magazine (not exactly a bastion of conservatism) that Iraqis are praying for a McCain victory.

mary ann wator - 4/14/2008 "Bush's reasons for invading Iraq were grounded in flimsy and fraudulent intelligence.... links to Al Quaeda, and so forth). This is beyond debate."



Apparently you, like the media, have not read the additonal transcribed Iraqi documents.....yes, proving again that the president WAS RIGHT!







mary ann wator - 4/14/2008 Exact

House vote count- 296 yea; 133 Nay.



Republicans: 215 yea; 6 nay.

Democrats: 81 yea; 126 nay.

mary ann wator - 4/14/2008 "Now Republicans don't want to vote for someone who might be smarter than them"?



It was the media that created the perception of Obama, an inexperienced nobody, a junior attorney, pulled from the backroom record room, with ONE appearance only defending a case in front of a judge, part-time college lecturer....why did a supposedly "so smart" high achiever in law school, settle for the unknown but simply a friend's law firm?



SIMPLE! His short life as an "organizer" (glorified Democrat vote getter) before law school, introduced him to his best buddy, indicted Tony Reszko, Allyson Davis (Obama's law firm boss), William Ayers, former terrorists, Rev. Wright,of the God D** America fame, and the Daley Machine...all taught him where the easy money is and always will be, who and how to get elected and fit into the guaranteed easy life of corrupt Democrat Chicago politics. Get a law decree and leave the rest to us and the Chicago media! Do what we say and he did...99% liberal voting record, constant paybacks to all friends!



It is the same media who now excuses Obama's questionable friends, miscues, lies, experience and lack of judgment and never questions Obama's fairy tale books of "poor" and victimization.



This is the same liberal media and elite educated close-minded snobs who created the Bush image from before he was elected...."stupid", "moron", etc. All are simply biased liberals, of "one mind" "group thinking" only (anti-conservatism)....never ever even considering an alternate view?



An education without common sense, without love of America, without leadership ability, without experience, does not make for presidential qualifications!



By the way, I lived through many generations of presidents...Johnson, foul-mouthed cowboy Texan and the Vietnam war...Truman, a simple man without oratory skills who atom-bombed the hell out of Japan ...JFK, a great speaker, but if he lived now, would be a Republican, and then Reagan, described by the liberal media as "stupid", "ignorant", "just another cowboy"......"education" never a question. The supposed "historians" at the time these presidents left office, declared all failures???



Who's "delusional"?











mary ann wator - 4/13/2008 800,000 Rwandan's massacred in a short 6 months while the Democrat administration sat back debating "is it genocide or not"???



The lack of a strong response from the Democrat administration after the attack on WTC in '92 and the numerous attacks on Americans throughout the 90s, only strengthened the al Queda's resolve to attack America on 9/11.???



With the huge Gorelick wall imposed on the various intelligent agencies resulting in an inability to talk to each other ... all involved agree it would have been impossible to stop any attack, as far as time, date, etc.



WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE????



Prior to America's attempt to liberate Iraq, there were decades of proven genocide in Iraq while America sat back and ignored it, but especially CNN who was in Iraq witnessing it but because of an agreement with Hussein did not report it...???



All international intelligent agencies agreed there were WMDs in Iraq and ongoing programs....



American soldiers were NEVER targeting civilians...the majority of Iraqi deaths were caused intentionally by al Queda and terrorists who used women and children as shields, schools, hospitals and mosques as bases, and till this day encourage their young to be suicide bombers while strapping the mentally challenged with bombs.



You're so concerned with Iraqi and American "numbers" now...where were you when 4000 Americans were killed in ONE battle during WWII or a final total of 400,000, or 54,000 Americans lost in the Vietnam war???



Freedom never comes cheap and victory and Democracies do not occur overnight.



Peace comes only through strength, but this generation of liberal historians (glorified overpaid professors) teach the exact opposite. Obviously, they'll also judge one of the most courageous and strong president "their" way...as you did with your simplistic liberal talking points that have been repeated for five years.

R.R. Hamilton - 4/13/2008 But since you say "the housing crisis is market related", the only thing I would ask you to consider is the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 on it.

R.R. Hamilton - 4/13/2008 You say, "You want to gripe about what a school newspaper ad says about strippers and drinking. I interpreted the ad's message correctly, but that's neither here nor there." First, I have already established, indisputibly, for the record that the ad said nothing about "strippers and drinking". Why do you keep raising this bullshit? Second, if you have an interpretation of the ad that makes if seem more benign than it seems to the rest of mankind, you should've informed Duke's lawyers before they sprayed tens of millions of dollars (my estimate) at the indicted players. It is clear that Duke would rather spend almost any amount of money rather than see the authors of the Ad up on the witness stand, under oath, in public, trying to defend their ... creation.



Now as for the "historians" who have already pronounced Bush "the worst ever": Have these "historians" never heard of Buchanan? Or Hoover? Apparently not -- or maybe they consider the failure to prevent an American Civil War or a Great Depression pretty small potatoes compared with whatever Bush has done. I could probably name 10-20 other Presidents who are at least debateably worst than Bush; but for Buchanan and Hoover, how can there be a debate? Ipso facto, Bush cannot be the "worst president ever" for anyone who can be seriously called a historian.

R.R. Hamilton - 4/13/2008 You say, "A majority of Democrats in Congress shared his views and voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, both in the House and Senate."



I believe this is incorrect with respect to the House. I think the House Democrats voted roughly 3:2 AGAINST the Iraq War Resolution. In the Senate, the vote (of Dems) was 29-21 in favor. What I find most interesting is that of the Dem Senators up for re-election that year, the vote was 16-1.

scott ryley - 4/12/2008 It is to soon to properly evaluate the outcome of various policies over the past 8 years. It can be said that Europe has changed its position regarding the fight against terrorism. Europe is beginning to realize the global stategy requires all free nations have this great responsibilty, not just the U.S.A.

Forign policy issues are very complex. Homeland security has its faults but has provided a greater security to the country since 9-11. Issues with the middle east, Russia, Europe and China have led to a greater polarization on very sensitive issues. This chapter still remains unwritten.

Domestic policies and there results are still inconclusive. There is improvement in the education standards of many schools, taxes for ALL brackets have been reduced; including increases in Earned Income Credit for the poor. The housing crises is market related and will correct itself both by the governments prodding of lenders to reach out to more troubled borrowers and tax incentives to lessen the real estate inventory. It must be said that the government has done a good job in guiding the markets through this difficult period.

Inflation and failure of the U.S.A. to develope a comprehensive energy policy over the past 40 years will be a problem for years to come. There has been a failure to control spending and therefore have added to the dollars global deprciation. The Iraq war is draining the budget much has the Vietnam war did 40 years ago.

In conclusion, we are many years away from writing the final summary of the Bush presidency.



John Williams - 4/12/2008 on this subject wherein he regurgitates liberal political talking points, I think it more fitting to consider him a political operative than a historian.



His observations offer little in the way of objective analysis of actual policies (as do the observations of his "poll respondents"). I see this as little more than a political hit job on President Bush with little to no historical value whatsoever (aside from the irrational, pathological hatred Bush has generated among liberals in academia).

William J. Stepp - 4/12/2008 Far from ending the Cold War, Truman actually began it with the Truman Doctrine, national security institutions, containment, and economic and military aid to Greece and Turkey. He wasn't the worst president in history, just the fourth or fifth worst.

R.R. Hamilton - 4/12/2008 If "Americans have become so complacent and inept when it comes to US history", what does that say about American historians? I ask this as someone who got a perfect score on a American history test linked from HNN a couple of months ago.

Alan Henessy - 4/12/2008 Mark Twain said: There are liars, there are damned liars, then there are statisticians. You spin those numbers in such a way that an amateur may actually buy into you cooky theory about Harry Truman winning th Cold War. By that acount I'd say that Taft won the World War II.



Your basic concern is about the distribution of income - which I grant, is important. However, your characterization of Bush presidency as a mini-dark age is nonsense. Were the last 8 years worse than LBJ or Carter presidency, or certain periods of Reagan and Bush Sr? The answer is patently "no". Thanks to Bush policies, the economy recovered from Sept 11, 2001 slide. The Dow went from 6,000 to 12,000. Come on, be a little fair to the facts.

Tim M Kane - 4/12/2008 As it is, Bush's reputation, for what it is, is being held up by the power of his office and the ability to cower journalist.



Once that power is gone, his reputation will collapse. Then as more information comes out, like the recent admission concerning torture, Bush's reputation will get worse and worse.



Then there is the prospect of Bush's term in office being bookended by Clinton's spectacular tenure, and perhaps and even more monumental Obama or Hillary presidency.



His could easily be seen as the crater presidency or 'mini dark-age' presidency.

Stephen Lang - 4/12/2008 Seriously, Bush is awful, but what kind of context are we talking about when Americans have become so complacent and inept when it comes to US history? Rating his the worst of the modern US presidents might be more appropriate.

Carl A Willis - 4/12/2008 >Many intellectuals do have poor judgment



All I was pointing out was that this provincial "Ad of 88" that you're fixated upon doesn't support a sweeping conclusion about historians or academics, their collective bad judgment, their "alternative universe" or whatever, and (more apropos to this thread) their supposed fallacy in ranking Bush's presidency poorly.



Look at the elements of your case: You need to show (A) that this Duke ad does in fact demonstrate bad judgment or a disconnect from reality on the part of its faculty authors; (B) that those particular 88 faculty are somehow representative of professional historians generally; and (C) that, given an instance of bad judgement in (A), ANY position taken by a group of historians will also be bad judgment.



You want to gripe about what a school newspaper ad says about strippers and drinking. I interpreted the ad's message correctly, but that's neither here nor there. I'd like you to try to make your case by arguing (A), (B), and (C) above. That would be entertaining for me, because it's a patently ludicrous trajectory of logic. Most folks wouldn't come up with that unless they'd imbibed a great deal of bongwater.



-Carl

Tim M Kane - 4/12/2008 Bush's economic performance is hardly laudable.



The economy grew, but only the top 10% got any benefit out of that growth. Median family income has consistently declined over every year he has been in office. And that growth would not have happened without Bush borrowing over a trillion dollars from China. I'm not sure borrowing money can truly be called growth.



Second, Bush will be the only president to have two recessions.



Third, under Clinton the economies growth, in % and in absolute terms, is unprecedented for eight years - 50%! You can't view Bush outside that.



The cold war was won by Harry Truman - he created the strategy and the institutions. Even Eisenhower, in 1954 predicted that the Soviet empire would fall apart in 4 or 5 decades. So give Eisenhower the credit for giving Truman the credit.



Reagan merely sped things up by a decade. Perhaps his most notable acheivement was the PATCO strike. This effectively undermined labor. This contributed to disproportionate distribution of wealth - the very condition that caused the collapse of: Ancient Egypts New Kingdom, Western Roman Empire, Pre-Islamic Mecca (Islam in fact is a reaction to wealth concentration there), Eastern Roman Empire, medieval Japan (causing a multi-centuried dark age), Hapsburg Spain, Bourbon France, Romanov Russia, Coolidge-Hoover America (contributing to the collapse of Wiemar Germany, the rise of Hitler, WWII, the Holocaust). The distribution of wealth has been a problem with this country eversince the creation of the limited liability corporation during the Civil War years. Collective bargaining was one solution. Reagan should go down in history for undermining those institutional arrangements, without replacing anything new. As a result, the economy has doubled its productivity since 1980, but median family income is roughly the same.



Arguably, then, if and when America collapses, as a result of concentrated wealth, as all great societies have in the past, it will be largely because of Reagan on the one hand and Bush II on the other. History is still out on this. We may find a new organizational arrangement to replace unions (as Japan has, giving them the broadest economic distribution among any large economy).



Iraq, a nation whose GNP in 2002 was only $52 billion has cost us over $1 trillion, and if we began packing up today, Stiglitz suggest the total bill will come to $2 trillion.



If we had dumped a half trillion of reasonably well managed aid into Afghanistan, we would be in much better shape and Bin Laden would be behind bars.



Bush's place in history will get worse if the country never recovers or if a Democrat comes along and restores a reasonable, rational distribution of wealth, causing demand to return and the economy sky rocket.



Stuck between Clinton and Clinton, or Clinton and Obama, the Bush years will be known as 'the crater' presidency or perhaps, the 'mini-dark age': given its looting, war and torture practices.



I can't think of any likely scenario that would make Bush look good.



It's not even a questionable call. Really. Tax cuts and wars are oxymorons that only a moron would pursue. This isn't rocket science, or ideology. It's just common sense and remedial level of civics. In fact, only ideology makes you blind to the facts.





Tim M Kane - 4/12/2008 Another point in the Buchanon v Bush as the worst president is the context of what they inherited. The slavery and succession issue was a problem bigger than any one presidency, that he had inhereted. In fact, the problem had been kicked down the road into his administration, where it came to a head. Perhaps a better man might have handled the situation better than Buchanan did, but the problems he faced would have baffled most pedestrian presidents. Regardless, Buchanan did not create the situation, he merely did not handle it well.



Also, succession was only one issue. In a sense, the climate issue is similar to Bush's situation. He inherited that, but his policies have ignored science. This is hard to believe.



Bush, also inherited a country at its peak. Not just any peak either, but history's peak, for any country, anywhere and any time. Second, he didn't have to be brilliant. Clinton warned him that Terrorism should be his top priori