Over at Framing Science, Matt notes that the WaPo is running a series of pieces by historians putting Bush's presidency in historical context. Back in May 2004, History News Network reported that "eight in ten historians [...] rate the current presidency an overall failure." In particular, the George W. Bush presidency was seen as being the worst since:
In terms of economic damage, Reagan.
In terms of imperialism, T Roosevelt.
In terms of dishonesty in government, Nixon.
In terms of affable incompetence, Harding.
In terms of corruption, Grant.
In terms of general lassitude and cluelessness, Coolidge.
In terms of personal dishonesty, Clinton.
In terms of religious arrogance, Wilson.
This was nearly two and a half years ago - before Abramoff, Katrina, and much more. Last April, Sean Wilentz (Dayton-Stockton Professor of History at Princeton) offered an update on a presidency that "appears headed for colossal historical disgrace," but prior to that, in November 2005, Juan Cole (also an historian) had this to say:
As for your legacy two decades from now, George, let me clue you in on something--as a historian. In 20 years no Iraqis will have you on their minds one way or another. Do you think anyone in Egypt or Israel is still grateful to Jimmy Carter for helping bring to an end the cycle of Egyptian-Israeli wars? Jimmy Carter powerfully affected the destinies of all Egyptians and Israelis in that key way. Most people in both countries have probably never heard of him, and certainly no one talks about the first Camp David Accords anymore except as a dry historical subject. The US pro-Israel lobby is so ungrateful that they curse Carter roundly for all the help he gave Israel. Human beings don't have good memories for these things, which is why we have to have professional historians, a handful of people who are obsessed with the subject. And I guarantee you, George, that historians are going to be unkind to you. You went into a major war over a non-existent nuclear weapons program. Presidents' reputations don't survive things like that. Historians are creatures of documents and precision. A wild exaggeration with serious consequences is against everything they stand for as a profession. So forget about history and destiny and the divine will. You are at the helm of the Exxon Valdez and it is headed for the shoals. You can't afford to daydream about future decades.
One year later and there is clear evidence that the administration is still daydreaming.
- Log in to post comments
Erm, it's kinda hard for Bush to be any better than the worst since Clinton.
I think they were being too easy on the guy. I say worst president ever and even Foner's worst president ever piece fails to take into account his inaction on the environment and reforming our oil-dependent infrastructure. The argument that his legacy is prematurely judged is correct. These mistakes of inaction will ensure his legacy continues to decline with time.
I do not think a historian is qualified to address this particular point.