The legacy of the Shrub

Remove all ads!

The Primary thread was going off the rails, and so I decided to open this one up.

Chandos, please bear in mind that I am NOT a 100% defender of Bush. I made it pretty clear earlier that I think a lot of his actions while in office were despicable. That said, I would argue that he DOES have more supporters than you believe, and they too will write history books, accurate or not, that will portray him in a better light than you or I see him.

That said, I think his dropping the ball on Katrina, his dishonesty with the public regarding Iraq, and his general arrogance will overshadow any policies that positively affected Americans. On that note, his legacy will be in the bottom 20% of presidents.

 

As I tried to allude to in the other thread, even the worst presidents have their die-hards and holdouts. I often hear how Nixon was a victim of his own success as a leader, and even a figure as reviled as Joe McCarthy is considered a hero in some conservative circles. I'm sure there will still be a few people 50 years from now who look back fondly on W. But really, very few of his policies were very effective at all, let alone positively so. Most of his policies were hand-designed to foster partisan sentiment and ensure a future (permanent) Republican majority, and he and his goons couldn't even get THAT right. Katrina, in my view, was one of the least of his failures.

The only way W can carve out even a neutral legacy is through copious amounts of spin lobbying and history re-writing by his die-hards. Judging the man purely on the facts will pretty well guarantee him a seat at the bottom. We're starting to see the dividends of his incompetent rule even now, and I think the disaster of the Bush presidency will become all the more obvious in the coming decade, when China, Russia, and other world powers defy us at every step and we'll be too impotent to do anything about it, we ultimately leave Iraq to erupt into civil war we ensured will now happen, the dollar and soft power of the US continue to slip, etc.

It's kind of depressing when you think about it, actually.

 

@LKD,

How on Earth do you expect to have a rational well thought out thread with a title as insulting as "The legacy of the Shrub" and assuming that "historians" will write inaccurate histories? I expect better.

In an attempt to salvage this thread, I'll give my thoughts.

Bush II will take many years and probably longer than most Presidents to figure out where he will be ranked and that is because of Afghanistan and Iraq. If over time his initiatives succeed and democracy and peace flourish in the middle east he may go down as one of the greatest Presidents ever. However, if it fails and the area turns into an even bigger ****hole then it was he will at best go down as a below average President if not a disaster.

In regards to Katrina, time will also prove that he did all he could as President. This one has never ceased to amaze me. I don't see anything in the Constitution that gives him powers to do anything different then what he did. It was and should have been a city and state issue that somehow became a federal issue. While I will agree that FEMA didn't even come close to being effective in Katrina, I'm not sure the President and the federal government was to blame. I have lots of family that lives in Florida, which gets hit by way more hurricanes then Louisiana ever does. Florida is always prepared and they have procedures in place for evacuation, damage control, repairs, etc. Within a couple of weeks you would never know they had a disaster.

It wouldn't surprise me if it takes 50 years for a clear and accurate assessment of his presidency. In addition we will probably need many of the "hotheads" that suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome to fade away before an impartial generation can truly make an honest assessment.

 

As the son of a FEMA employee and family friend to over half-a-dozen career FEMA people, I've got two words for you: Michael Brown. Bush appointed this incompetent boob, a "loyal Bushie," with absolutely no expertise in this field, to a delicate position where his idiotic policies weakened FEMA's internal infrastructure to the point where they were too ineffective to work quickly. FEMA operatives from all over the country protested and complained about his appointment, but Bush didn't listen. In the months after his appointment, the common sentiment within FEMA was "if something goes down and this guy's in charge, we're screwed." And after the Katrina disaster, the resounding sentiment throughout FEMA was - can you guess? - "we told you so." As for Bush himself, he received repeated warnings - directly, on camera, well documented - about the impending collapse of the levees, and how underprepared FEMA was to handle such a disaster should one - as predicted - occur. He didn't lift a damn finger. When the hurricane hit it took him over 5 DAYS to get to Louisiana, where he flew over in a helicopter, landed long enough for a photo op, and left again. Don't tell me he did all he could, because that's insane. A better example of a failure of leadership you'll be hard-pressed to find.

Don't get me wrong - the state of Louisiana is largely at fault for a lot of what happened, and Ray Naygin is a collossal douche. But you're giving Bush WAY too much of a free pass here. FEMA could have done a lot more, but couldn't, and if you ask any FEMA operative involved at the time they'll tell you it can largely be laid at the feet of Michael Brown and President Bush, because while the disaster itself was unavoidable, the scale of the aftermath was COMPLETELY avoidable.

 

I agree and disagree with you. Yes, FEMA was a complete failure and Brown should have never been put in charge. However, I firmly believe that way to much blame is heaped on the Feds. The fact that Nagin is still the mayor really reflects poorly on the intelligence of people from New Orleans. At least the state was smart enough to get rid of their Governor.

 

If this drags on too long it will be impossible to know if it was his wars, or a natural reaction against the wars that will cause people to long for peace. As for democracy, well, there is a natural inclination towards self-determination. IMO, GWB has set back both in the ME, but one day they will happen despite him.

His legacy will be much like Nixon's, only with almost none of RN's accomplishments. He's been fundamentaly dishonest with Americans on almost all levels; and like most liars, he loves secrecy and deception. He sees them as the necessary tools for "national security." His lying statements about the secret uses of torture are fine examples: He claims America does not torture, and yet he opposed legislation that would ban the use of waterboarding. Yeah, right.

Some of you may know that we fought a Revolution over the notion of individual rights; that there should be a Due Process of Law. Such belief prompted John Adams to defend the British soldiers who participated in the infamous Boston Massacre, shortly before the Revolution. Adams believed that even our enemies were entitled to individual rights and the due process of law. Yet, GWB has nothing but contempt for trial by jury and the Due Process of Law, attempting to suspend the Constitution's clear demand for a due process. I should not say "attempt," because in reality he has dismantled some parts of our Constitution that protect the individual from government oppression - the Constitution he swore an oath to "protect and defend."

 

My apologies, Snook. I've seen Shrub used as a nickname for Bush Jr. and thought it would be OK. The legacy aspect I see no problem with, the the fact that historians have slant is not a wild one. Now "slant" is a less offensive word than "accurate" but even so, I think there are some history books that play with the truth a little too much. It is possible, though I don't think all historians do this.

 

While I do not think that GWB is the worst president we have ever had, I would rank him as about the 5th (possibly as much as the 7th) worse ever, and without question the worst we've had in the last 90 years or so, since Warren Harding was president. The only others that I would rate definitely lower than Bush are Grant, Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson.

I'm willing to entertain arguements that place Pierce and Nixon below him as well, but that's about the end of the list.

 

From a foreign perspective Bush Jr appears to be a complete nutter even by the standards of American presidents and from where I stand all American presidents I have any knowledge of (basically Kennedy and forward) are quite nutty. Clinton for example didnt really have the best image around the world, he was seen as quite sleazy (not for the sex affairs but that it can be construed that he bombed other countries to take the attention away from his affairs) but compared to Bush Jr he seems like a rational resonable leader. It is uncommon for a politician nowadays to be so bound by idealogy as Bush has been, to act upon political theories more than on reality. Not even the cynical pragmatism that has usually such a big part of American foreign policy managed to break through his idealogical armour.

As for history, I think especially Americans give too much weight to "badness" of Bush Jr. Very few of the American politicians I am somewhat familiar with would have acted all that much different from him, reality is that congress approved the war for example, they approved the patriot act. Bush and his advisors did not act in a vacuum. Much of the things that is blamed him on were and are made possible by the political climate in the states. From an outside perspective the country seems to be mired in religious fundamentalism, strong conservatism and fierce nationalism that puts the entire political spectrum extremely far to the right.

We have currently a right wing government in Sweden and even though a few of the younger radical members in the parties that make up the government coalition might identify themselves with the Republican party they would if you actually looked at where they stand on issues place them selves in the middle to leftish parts of the Democratic party. So from my viewpoint Bush is rather one of the symptoms of a bigger problem than the problem itself.

 

What about Andrew Jackson? The architect of the trail of tears belongs somewhere at the bottom, too, I'd say.

 

His legacy would, imo, not be a very positive one. Certainly, he will have several die-hard supporters, history has no shortage of dissenting opinions. However, I personally see little that he could put on his resume afterwards. The stabilization - of the Near and Middle East is a process which he can not take sole credit for, if it occured. His tenure was not one of economic success either, and his diplomatic initiatives, by and large, are not a textbook case of success.

Still, these are my personal opinions, and I will try to be a little more objective in my judgement. There are, I think, three criteria to judge a leader by:
- what he does himself
- what kind of people he bring with him
- and what policies he stands for.

I think Bush Jr. does not have a very good track record on the first two points. A US president does not work alone, but s/he can do a lot through his personal influence and initiative to push for solutions or improve his country's standing. So far Bush's successes in diplomatic initiatives have been mostly lacking - if anything, he is known for gaffes and misstatements, and while some are mostly entertaining a few have had repercussions on the way the US policies have been perceived, and thus reacted to, abroad. The people he has brought to power have included no few controversial figures - even apart from Michael Brown's organizational skills, people like Alberto Gonzales and Dick Cheney will imo not be remembered fondly by the general public. As for the policies he stands for, these will be judged later - but imo he did not do much better there. I would be quite surprised - and almost amused - if he is remembered as a good president in times to come.

 

Yeah I'd like to underline his failure in economic policy. However well everything else might turn around there's no denying that his economic policy was not a very good one. Foreign debt and government debt have both increased under him and the balance of trade has worsened. The US economy is also more likely than not reach recession before his term ends, and the dollar is taking the dive. Of course the congress is very much responsible for the economy too but since most of his time he has had a republican majority he has basically been the leader of congress and therefore shares extra burden for this. In terms of economy his presidency has been bad and could even in history be calssified as disasterous depending on how bad it will get. There is however zero chance of it being ever classified as good, therefore I really can't see how Bush could be considered one of the best presidents ever even if the situation in Iraq took a dramatic turn around.

 

Actually, no. His initiatives have been abject failures in both cases. Well, okay, they were abject failures through 2007, at which point political reality forced him to adjust his Iraq policy to something resembling sanity (although the Afghan policy remains an abject failure). If fifty years from now, Afghan and Iraq are better off, that won't somehow rehabilitate Bush; rather, such a success would elevate those who came after him significantly.

That strikes me as a case of someone who was a 'bad'--that is, immoral, reprehensible, evil--president, but also an effective president.

Bush, on the other hand, is both reprehensible and ineffective. A wondrous combination, to be sure.

 

That's a crock. It was Clinton who knew that Bin Laden was trouble, and it was the Republicans in Congress who started the "sleazy" rumor that he bombed Al-Qaida because of the Monica Affair. When Clinton bombed Bin Laden's base in Afghanistan, one Republican idiot asked,"Why did we just use a million dollar cruise missle to blow-up a tent?" After 9/11 everyone knew the answer.

 

Be that as it may Chandos but during the end of the 90s the US wasnt mr popular all the time either, NATOs bombing of Serbia for example was not appreciated everywhere. The reaction then was similar to the one to Iraq but smaller. This thread isnt about Clinton though, my point was that Clinton wasnt exactly mr Popular everywhere outside of the US and the criticism against him was quite similar to the criticism against Bush Jr in that they both attacked other countries indiscrimately. The end point is that Bush Jr still manages to make Clinton look good when it comes to foreign policy despite those things.

 

I think that Bush's legacy already is disastrous. A few points:

• 
  He will hand over his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan like a poisoned chalice to this successor, and the need to be tough to be re-elected in the US and avoid political attacks will dictate a tougher course. He can and will take steps to turn up the heat to ensure the war will have to continue.
  
  I predict that the talks with Iran that are coming soon, will fail, or fail to materialise, because the Iranians will not surrender unconditionally, and so fail to meet US conditions. Should sanity prevail it would come to me as a welcome if highly unexpected surprise.
  .
• Bush has command responsibility. Bush's hands-off style doesn't exculpate him in any way. He is responsible. He is head of the executive branch and he is head of his staff, so whatever they do, and the more high-ranking they are, they are Bush, they represent him. Rove was Bush. Gonzales was Bush. Rumsfeld was Bush. Mukasey is Bush. Cheney is Bush. Rice is Bush - etc. pp. and period.
  .
• Bush has ****ed up the executive branch. That goes far beyond FEMA - just look at the attorney scandal and Rovian policy to place loyal Bushies as US attorneys that will prosecute political opponents, when directed to do so because political expedience suggest so.
  
  Bush and his goons (aparachiks) have purged (albeit without firing squads) the executive branch from those unruly (read: liberal, dissenting, whatever other) professionals and replaced their positions with job opportunities for more compliant hacks (read: commissars) who need 'stints' for their 'portfolio' (and connections for their future career). That inevitably means with all the fresh wind you get through such change, you also will get half-assed advice from inexperienced, ideological newbies, who agree which you anyway, and who are eager to please if they don't, because they want the next, better paid for job. Their dependence on those who placed them in their positions will ensure that they will obediently enforce policy on the underlings (read: give them ideological guidance). That is group-think guaranteed (by methodology Bush will go down in history as the first Stalinist to ever grace the Whitehouse - all hail Commander in Chief, Comrade Bushnev).
  
  The Dems will continue down the path of a politicised executive branch and simply fire all the R-hacks if they come to power and replace them with D-hacks. I doubt they will try restore a professional staff percentage back to pre-Bush levels. The loss of professional expertise and exodus of talent is a long term legacy that will be hard to roll back, and if steps are undertaken it will still take years to restore it.
  .
• He will go down in history as the (first ?!) president whose administration's principals discussed torture in high level meetings, and whose justice department engaged in a criminal conspiracy to torture through knowingly false and intentionally confusing legal advice.
  .
• EDIT: Some interesting legal trivia on that: Bush's advisors (lawyers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo, and also non-lawyer Doug 'f*cking stupidest guy on earth' Feith) are now free game for war crimes charges under universal jurisdiction. Condition for universal jurisdiction is a domestic refusal to prosecute war crimes. Ironically, Bush himself gave them domestic impunity. They now risk arrest and trial if they leave the US. I take grim delight in that./EDIT
  .
• Dana Perino voiced that the Bush's administration's view on accountability is that it happens every election, and that's about it. Has she ever read that US constitution thingie I wonder?
  .
• Two words: 'signing statements'. Bush's use of this tool is unprecedented.
  .
• Two more words: 'law breaking' (in context of violation of US code when spying domestically, torturing).
  .
• I could go on but spare you

As for:

This will not happen because it cannot happen. Now, of course, hope dies last, usually when it hits that brick wall named reality. Bush's Middle East policy was a neo-conservative pipe dream to begin with, and infeasible. And as for 'if the war takes too long': It already takes longer to subdue those ungrateful, unruly Iraqis than it took to put down Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. I guess it depends on perspective. The US are lucky they're that rich a nation, because such foolish adventures would have long wrecked any smaller nation.

 

This point cannot be emphasized enough.

It turns out that 'government sucks at everything!' can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

EDIT: On a related note, 98% of professional historians responding to an informal (and unscientific) poll say, um, Bush is a trainwreck.

 

Bush is hardly the first president to use signing statements. That distinction belongs to James Monroe. Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Clinton put out a total of 347 signing statements during their collective tenure. Bush has been by far the most prolific user of such statements, though.

 

If we start adding presidents to the list that caused (either directly or indirectly) the deaths of thousands of Indians, we have to add more than Jackson to the list. For starters, it was Congress that passed the legislation for forced relocation, and while it passed during Jackson's tenure, it wasn't enacted until Van Buren's tenure.

I will readily concede that the Trail of Tears is a black eye for the Jackson administration, and represents the most controversial aspect of his presidency. I will only offer two counterpoints to this: 1.) As the legislation passed Congress by the slimmest of majorities (one vote if I recall correctly) the action in the 1830s wasn't considered as bad then as it is through the 21st century lens we view it today. The prevailing view today that the Native American people were victims of genocide was neither prevailing or even particularly common 170 years ago. 2.) Jackson served two full terms in office, and aside from this debacle, was both effective and popular. "Jacksonian Democracy" is credited with laying the seeds of the modern Democratic Party we have today.

So no, I wouldn't place Jackson below Bush.