The Worst President Ever?

Ross,
Perhaps. Then again, you neglected to mention horrific levels of corruption and cronyism; widespread torture authorized from the top; the administration’s neglect of pre-9/11 intimations of a forthcoming attack and pre-Iraq intelligence manipulation (marginalizing dissenting IC views and evidence and advancing claims with dubious sourcing); deliberate environmental mismanagement for corporate convenience despite scientific consensus on the climate crisis and on health dangers like mercury pollution; failed preparation for and reaction to Hurricane Katrina; inadequate financial regulation and a budget debt of unprecedented size; decreased international diplomatic leverage; terrorism rates that went up at least six of the years of the presidency; and two failing wars, one irreparably lost and the other in deep trouble—to name just a few of the items arguably on the minds of the historians who ventured this judgment. They may be wrong, but their opinion is not outlandish.

Posted by jason | April 7, 2008 3:04 PM

I think Bush Needs Obama to Save the Bush Legacy.

Posted by Mike | April 7, 2008 3:07 PM

Much depends on the outcome of the Iraq War, which won't be determined for quite a few years to come. He made excellent changes in tax policy and in general wasn't afraid to make tough, unpopular decisions. The Bush doctrine of standing up to terrorist enemies and their state supporters, including preemptive wars if necessary, will most likely be continued by future presidents.

His mistakes were adding prescription drugs to Medicare, vastly increasing its unfunded liability, not disciplining Delay, and going along with congressional spending excesses.

Bush is far brighter than given credit for, though marginally articulate. My guess is that he will end up similar to Truman, another unpopular president in his time who is now on balance well appreciated by historians.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | April 7, 2008 3:10 PM

I think it can be argued that Bush is worse because the results aren't as bad but Bush's problems are more self inflicted. You start from a premise of the baseline circumstances and then estimate how far the president's polcies caused reality to divert from that baseline.

Buchanan certainly made things worse (probably couldn't have doen worse if he tried) but you could argue that even an average or good president wouldn't have done that much better with the circumstances. In the case of Hoover this is an even more compelling case. His policies arguably made the depression worse than it would otherwise have been or at best did nothing to alleviate it, but the underlying causes of the depression were beyond his control.

In Bush's case he brought all the problems on himself. He had the country fully united after 9/11 and had widespread international support for the war in Afganistan. Hell, he even had Iran and Syria helping him against the Taliban. It was his decision to turn that into the fiasco that is Iraq. And the ethical and legal issues are entirely self inflicted.

Posted by Eric k | April 7, 2008 3:35 PM

New Democratic Ad Campaign: "Bush is a Tool--Vote Democrat"

Posted by Abe | April 7, 2008 3:43 PM

Perception of historical figures being driven primarily by whoever recently had a big biography or bioflick released about them, I presume a few years after his death we'll all be informed that George W. Bush was a higher being from beyond the boundaries of space and time. From his perch atop ethereal dimensions whose heights defied mortal comprehension, all of reality as you know it was laid out before him like so many ants at a summer picnic. To your limited perception, he appeared to be an ordinary president, neither especially good nor particularly bad. To your limited perception.

Posted by The Navigator | April 7, 2008 3:43 PM

I tend to the view that history will be kinder to Bush than many of his contemporaries have been, especially the hate filled ones on the left. Their gross unfairness made me defend him even in cases where maybe I wouldn't have otherwise. I am puzzled by one comment above by Jason. What "widespread" torture has there been. Emphasis on "widespread." A couple of possible cases of waterboarding or such but nothing widespread that I am aware of. That is to me one more example of the gross and sometimes vicious hyperbole that we have witnessed since the 2000 election.

Posted by Arnold | April 7, 2008 3:57 PM

I tend to the view that history will be kinder to Bush than many of his contemporaries have been, especially the hate filled ones on the left. Their gross unfairness made me defend him even in cases where maybe I wouldn't have otherwise. I am puzzled by one comment above by Jason. What "widespread" torture has there been. Emphasis on "widespread." A couple of possible cases of waterboarding or such but nothing widespread that I am aware of. That is to me one more example of the gross and sometimes vicious hyperbole that we have witnessed since the 2000 election.

Posted by Arnold | April 7, 2008 3:58 PM

Moving beyond the simple fact that the outcome of Iraq could be a global disaster that has yet to unfurl, let's look at what is happening now.

(1) He destroyed a surplus that stood at 2% after 9/11. Before this he was spending cash saved like Nero fiddled.

(2) He's been AWOL on this current economic crisis.

(3) He started a war that's drained our treasury, took away the cushion we had to survive a recession, and in which we lost 4,000 lives. HE started this war and that puts him in the top five of worst presidents for it alone.

(4) Given that he apparently willfully lied and misled the American public on the facts and the other "worst presidents" beyond Nixon don't fit this mold; I put him at number 1. Nixon didn't plan Watergate, he covered it up. Bush planned Iraq.

So yeah, I put him as the worst.

Posted by Rhoda | April 7, 2008 3:59 PM

Whereas you are sufficiently professional to spin out a conjecture whereby

Bush's policies are widely judged to have been vindicated by events.

Yeah... right.

But, remember banning gay marriage will bolster middle class wages... or something like that.

Posted by SavageView | April 7, 2008 4:06 PM

Everyone seems to blame the entire civil war on Buchanan. It was Lincoln's antagonistic view of slavery that meant a vote for Lincoln was a vote for civil war. Buchanan at least tried to compromise with the south. Further, blaming the entire civil war, something that had been fermenting since the Republic's founding on one man is factually wrong and unfair to Mr. Buchanan. And for the record, Herbert Hoover was a great man, a great American and fed millions of people in Europe after two world wars. It's really not his fault that the US economy was built on quick sand during the "roaring twenties".

Posted by Nathan | April 7, 2008 4:22 PM

conducted by the doubtless-unbiased author of Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion In America

Yes, and this is of course coming from the doubtless-unbiased author of Grand New Party, a blueprint for a return to Republican domination. I hate to keep harping on this, but I find it exceedingly tiresome that you spend so much time on your blog complaining about the bias of others and no time interrogating your own biases. It really seems just self-evident to you that everyone else's biases are ugly, incurious and unfair, but yours are, well, the way things are. It just never ends, around here.

Posted by Freddie | April 7, 2008 4:54 PM

It's really not his fault that the US economy was built on quick sand during the "roaring twenties".

Herbert Hoover was a good and extraordinarily accomplished man throughout the course of his life. However, he, the Governors of the Federal Reserve, and the Secretary of the Treasury had a perfectly otiose response to the liquidity crisis that hit the United States in 1931. The British economist Alan Walters put it thus: "They ignored Bagehot's rule: 'When there's a run on your currency, print notes, and stuff 'em down their throats'. Britain went off the gold standard in September 1931 and began its economic recovery in short order. The United States maintained a gold standard until the spring of 1933. Over a period of two years and change about 40% of the banks in the United States failed and the resultant contraction in the money supply was stewed through the real economy with the results you have seen in the photojournalism of the era. Industrial production in Britain in 1932 was ~6% below that of 1929. That in the United States was ~30%.

Posted by Art Deco | April 7, 2008 4:56 PM

I hate to keep harping on this, but I find it exceedingly tiresome that you spend so much time on your blog complaining about the bias of others and no time interrogating your own biases.

He is a professional journalist, not a history professor. His work product can be readily inspected and if you do not care for it, no one is compelling you to read it. The tuition per credit at Millsaps College is considerably dearer that the cost of a copy of The Atlantic or one of the moderator's books, and you do not have much of an opportunity to audit the courses before enrolling. The opinions of journalists carry considerably less weight in people's minds than the opinions of professors, and when a group of professors manifests a notable deficit of circumspection and perspective, it is worthy of note.

Posted by Art Deco | April 7, 2008 5:03 PM

(2) He's been AWOL on this current economic crisis.

Politicians are generalists. There is no need for him to take a direct hand in the Federal Reserve's efforts to ameliorate the liquidity problems of various sorts of financial service companies and unguarded and ill-judged public commentary on the situation may generate problems of confidence that would otherwise not be there.

(3) He started a war that's drained our treasury,

The United States has been in a state of belligerency with Iraq since 1990.

took away the cushion we had to survive a recession,

A national economy is not a household.

Nixon didn't plan Watergate, he covered it up..

An aspect of the Watergate caper was a search for incriminating material on Lawrence O'Brien, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. There was a standing instruction from Nixon to "hold O'Brien accountable" for his retainer from Howard Hughes. The Watergate caper was not a one-shot activity. It was superintended by the general-counsel of the Committee to Re-elect the President who upon his hiring had presented to John Mitchell an elaborate plan of espionage directed at the Democratic Party (which Mitchell and his deputy Jeb Magruder had him scale back). The White House Plumbers had been operating illegally for over a year at that point. Nixon knew these characters were operating on his behalf. That he was not micromanaging them is of scant importance.

Posted by Art Deco | April 7, 2008 5:18 PM

In other words, journalists can have opinions, but professors can't; unless, of course, they're conservatives, in which case they are bravely soldiering on in the face of terribly untoward pressure from librul faculty and administrators.

The idea that professors can't hold controversial opinions, or worse, should aspire to some impossible notion of "neutrality" is so antithetical to the mission of the university that I scarcely know where to begin to argue with you. And, of course, you aren't responding to my general point, which is that Ross is strictly against any bias in any field when he feels it is a liberal bias, but has no qualms whatever with expressing opinions against things he dislikes for political reasons.

Posted by Freddie | April 7, 2008 5:20 PM

Wow....real thoughtful analysis. You could imagine a future where Bush is a raging success, and you can imagine a future where Bush is an abject failure.

Well, I could imagine a future where up is down, and black is white.

In reality, none of the real futures will paint Bush as anything other than a venal, incompetent disaster who destroyed most everything he touched, and even some things he didn't.

Posted by Continuum | April 7, 2008 5:28 PM

"Axe-grinding fools,"..."nitwittery." Indeed. And the man who is hurling these epithets is defending? Whom, and what? I aqctually feel sorry for Douthat and cohort. Their once beloved champion revealed to all (save those of us who immediately spotted him as a zero with the edges rubbed off) as a murderously destructive, arrogant, idiot.

Posted by Mickey Finn | April 7, 2008 5:58 PM

This time I agree with Ross, but not cause I think Bush disastrous policies will be vindicated by history. Or cause I think there is a remote chance that Bush presidency was really disastrous (war in iraq led by lies and the further disaster, larger expansion of federal goverment, supresion of basic civil liberties, large increase in the debt, normalization of religious zealotry to the public square applauded, etc). I think Ross is right cause Bush administration is not the worst in history. Others clearly surpace it, and couriously, presidencies that profesional historians consider great, but wich were criminal and disastrous: FDR (largest grow of the federal goverment, teh US turned into a war economy, criminal war bombings of german and japanese cities), Truman (the red scare, nuclear attacks in Japan),Nixon (no need to specify) and Reagan (debt dramatically increased, first president closer to the religious zealots of the christian right, and genocides commited with its support in center America, specially Guatemala, Iran contras etc). Bush is not as bad as any of this presidents, not even in his worse day

Posted by Sergio Méndez | April 7, 2008 5:59 PM

What many historians know is that the historic "markers" of failed rulers and regimes include the deterioration of economic power and strength, especially when those factors are attributable to unsuccessful militarism abroad. The relative position of our nation vis a vis other world nations at the end of 2008 is vastly inferior to that existing at the end of 2000. Regardless of the "reasons" for this slippage-this administration must and will bear the brunt of the judgment of history.

The history of Byzantine civilization is often presented in seven cycles of economic rise and fall. Clearly this has been the greatest "fall" in the history of these yet young United States. We must all hope it is not a preview of future failures, or of a more permanent condition.

Posted by Bill Gardner | April 7, 2008 6:07 PM

What many historians know is that the historic "markers" of failed rulers and regimes include the deterioration of economic power and strength, especially when those factors are attributable to unsuccessful militarism abroad. The relative position of our nation vis a vis other world nations at the end of 2008 is vastly inferior to that existing at the end of 2000. Regardless of the "reasons" for this slippage-this administration must and will bear the brunt of the judgment of history.

The history of Byzantine civilization is often presented in seven cycles of economic rise and fall. Clearly this has been the greatest "fall" in the history of these yet young United States. We must all hope it is not a preview of future failures, or of a more permanent condition.

Posted by Bill Gardner | April 7, 2008 6:08 PM

Bush hasn't found a hen-house to which he didn't appoint a fox to guard.

Posted by libarbarian | April 7, 2008 6:09 PM

Freddie,

The moderator's point was a parenthetical remark the burden of which is that the professor who conducted this poll had written a book the title of which makes said professor look like a political partisan. His ultimate remark was a criticism of the judgment of the professors involved for making an evaluation of this sort at this time. Neither he nor I stated or implied that professors should not draw conclusions or have opinions. His complaint was that their stated opinion indicated that they were deficient in the sort of disposition they should have to be satisfactory historians.

To complain that a man paid (in part) to offer topical commentary (as the moderator is) offers topical commentary is a strange exercise. To complain that history professors make statements which would indicate that they find historical perspective an unecessary accessory is not.

Posted by Art Deco | April 7, 2008 6:41 PM

The relative position of our nation vis a vis other world nations at the end of 2008 is vastly inferior to that existing at the end of 2000.

Bill,

What is the ratio of the gross domestic product of the United States in 2008 to that of Japan, that of India, that of Egypt, that of France, and that of Brazil?

What were these ratios in 2000, 1992, and 1980?

Before peeking, state a rough idea of how much a decline in any of these ratios would render us as occupying a 'vastly inferior' position?

Posted by Art Deco | April 7, 2008 6:48 PM

To complain that history professors make statements which would indicate that they find historical perspective an unecessary accessory is not.

Baloney. There is no such thing as a "bias-free" statement, and no such thing as a historian who holds no opinions about his area of research. And the position that holds that there is history independent of opinion is itself loaded with bias/opinion. It's a common and tiresome trick: "everyone else is biased; I speak the truth." Ross says it constantly. The media is biased, Hollywood is biased, the professoriat is biased, these historians are biased-- but Ross Douthat is not. There is no such thing as academic neutrality, and no one is saying there is. Rendering any opinion about which Presidents are best or worse is a political act! How could it possibly not be?

Posted by Freddie | April 7, 2008 6:49 PM

Ross,
It also occurs to me, and I’ll be interested to read the forthcoming Atlantic piece, that you seem to be suggesting that any policy that produces significant positive results in the long term is thereby necessarily “vindicated,” i.e. shown to have been wise. But is this claim true? What if alternate means could have employed to effectuate or promote a similar outcome with far fewer interim costs? That is, I think one has the right to judge Iraq and some of the other items I referenced in my original comment without waiting for the arrival of a future moment in which all effects of Bush policies have manifested themselves (which is not to deny that future information ought to modify one’s opinion somewhat). What happens to lives, economies, and political systems in the short and medium term is not a less real outcome than what happens in the long term.

Posted by jason | April 7, 2008 7:47 PM

There is no such thing as a "bias-free" statement, and no such thing as a historian who holds no opinions about his area of research.

Before the comma you're wrong (2+2=4 is an unbiased statement, is, in fact, emblematic of a whole universe of unbiased statements), and after the comma you're whiffing at a pitch that was never thrown.

The only person talking about opinions full-stop (tout court, per se), and their inevitability, is you.

I say, "Look! The chef just licked the wedding cake before boxing it up!"

You say, "There's no such thing as an appetite-free man, and no such thing as a chef who holds no opinions about his food."

I say, "Yeah, okaaayyyyy..."

Posted by JA | April 7, 2008 8:06 PM

It's really too soon to judge. However I think taken as a whole he won't be considered the worst. Most of his first term, on balance, had many legitimate accomplishments. His second term has been a disaster, but I think traditionally they tend to judge overall. Matt is right that Presidents who do big grand things, or wars, usually do not get listed as the worst. Even McKinley is not ranked near the bottom in any study I found. Also Presidents who serve two full terms rarely get placed near the bottom. Ulysses S. Grant being an exception.

However his second-term might be the worst term any President has had, possibly exempting Nixon. His efforts on Social Security flopped, the Iraq war grew increasingly unpopular, he lost the Congress, and gained some of the most negative poll ratings in history.

Posted by Thomas R | April 7, 2008 8:13 PM

Rendering any opinion about which Presidents are best or worse is a political act!

No, it's not. It can be, as this survey shows. But it doesn't have to be. It can be instructive as gedankenexperiment, it can be a springboard for discussion, it can facilitate a deeper appreciation for the unknowability of the future by showing how personality markers, political orientation and background characteristics are unreliable indicators of success or failure, and so on. It has non-political value insofar as it can do these things, and it is precisely this that the above 61% cannot do.

Because Bush's legacy is in media res, it has yet to materialize as an object of historical, systematic scrutiny. To render judgment now is amateurish by definition.

It takes a minimum amount of time to braise brisket and boil grits. Doing history is no different.

Posted by JA | April 7, 2008 8:33 PM

I have to say, Freddie, that I am quite flummoxed to see a quotation from one of my comments followed by a remark of yours completely irrelevant to anything that had crossed my mind. Are you sure you meant to cut and paste that particular phrase?

Posted by Art Deco | April 7, 2008 8:37 PM

the worst bush-created disasters would have to still be ahead of us, since neither the occupation of iraq nor anything else our current potus has been involved in rivals the civil war or the great depression for sheer destructive impact.

i'll spot you the civil war, ross, but we're heading to an even greater depression, so even tho, yes, it's ahead of us, i think you're going to have to concede this one.

Posted by skippy | April 7, 2008 8:40 PM

Re: What "widespread" torture has there been.

Torture may not be widespread, but the fact that it is even tolerated or defended is appalling beyond belief. Yes, there's been American-authored torture in the past. But when brought to light it was stopped, denounced and punished, even if those ultimately behind it were being hypocritical by joining the fray. Don't forget the one Confederate officer executed after the Civil War was Captain Wirz of Andersonville prison ill-fame, one of whose major crimes was torturing his POWs, sometimes by temporary crucifixion. Americans do not torture, never, ever defend it, and if they are caught doing it, they take their punishment and the whole nation, of all ideological persuasions, joins in stoning the sinners. That the Bush administration refused to follow this tradition is indeed a major balck mark on them.

Re: The United States has been in a state of belligerency with Iraq since 1990.

Which was not eating up more than a fraction of the national treasury until 2003. A prudent leader would have kept it that way while focusing on foes that had proven themselves more dangerous to us.

Re: A national economy is not a household.

No, but neither it is exempt from the laws of arithmetic.

Re: Nixon knew these characters were operating on his behalf

Along with his crimes (and I do not diminish them) Nixon had significant postive accomplishments. I cannot point to a single worthwhile thing the Bush administration has done. At best, I can point to some good intentions which either inattention or incompetence failed to carry out.

Posted by JonF | April 7, 2008 8:54 PM

JonF,

I'm very much on the Left in general but even I can point to several good things the Bush administration has done.

1) Improved domestic security in the US.
2) The beginning of some very slight progress on chipping away at the unfettered abortion licence.
3) Ousting the Taliban government.
4) More funding for efforts to combat AIDS in Africa.
5) Faith based charities.

How can Bush crimes fairly be regarded as worse than what Nixon did? Or, hell, even Johnson killed more people in Viet Nam than Bush has in Iraq. It isn't diminishing the wrongness of the Iraq war to say that the war in Viet Nam was much worse.

Posted by Hector | April 7, 2008 9:13 PM

Ross says, "the fact that his legacy is only beginning its long unspooling ought to give anyone with even a glancing knowledge of history's cunning passages - let alone a so-called "professional" - pause before pronouncing his administration the worst in American history."

But isn't there a certain inevitability and usefulness in judging the man today? And isn't what-we-report-today part of what historians use down the road to revise history? It's true the jury is out on what effect some Bush policies will have on the future, but that aside, there is a long record to make a judgement call today.

And then there's the people's history. Am I supposed to suspend judgement until I die, or worse, just let historians 100 years from now make that call?

Of course not. So let him be judged today, tomorrow, and beyond.

Posted by AKBY | April 7, 2008 9:42 PM

You - and many of the commentators - seem to have mistaken the question of our evaluation of Bush's standing as a president for the question of our certainty in giving an answer. It is true that many things may happen in the future to derail any current assessments of his incompetence, but that is only to say that those current assessments are not highly reliable. They may still be perfectly rational in light of available evidence, notwithstanding that that evidence may be evaluated differently under different (future) circumstances. Or, in other words, it may be a perfectly correct to conclude that Bush is the worst president in history - he's surely close, no matter how you slice it - on the basis of evidence now available, while at the same time reserving judgment as to whether that assessment will hold good at all times in the future.

And as for the basis of that assessment, note that overt impact on the country on a grand scale is an obviously important criterion of assessment, but not the only reasonable one. Though the Iraq war has been relatively less destructive (to this country) than the Civil War, it was entered into with much less sincerity of purpose. The architects of the Civil War - including even those defending the unforgivable practice of slavery - were people of serious purpose who, legitimately, had issues of consequence at stake and fought to alter conditions that were incompatible with the lives they were committed to. Bush lied us into a juggernaut invasion and occupation dishonestly and for no defensible purpose. With that in mind, the Iraq war is arguably much worse - on the question of its moral footing and purpose, and the moral character of its instigators - than the Civil War.

Similarly, Bush's ineffectiveness is his only saving grace. Though he has been an incompetent executive, and in that sense less bad than others who failed on a grander scale, he is certainly a lousy president. On the scales of intellectual, temperamental, or moral fitness, he is likely the worst person ever to inhabit that office; the mind strains even to imagine candidates as contemptible in all three categories.

So, yes, though Bush has done incalculable damage to America's reputation, moral tone, and civil liberties under the law, it can be said that that others have done worse sheer physical damage to the country and its infrastructure. But there are still plenty of ways in which Bush falls below the worst of previous inhabitants of his office, who were at least, for the most part, serious men with a grasp of the issues of their times, who by and large did as much good as they could, along with much bad. If Bush were only a bad president, we might have much to be thankful for.

Posted by Kevin T. Keith | April 7, 2008 9:52 PM

No, it's not. It can be, as this survey shows. But it doesn't have to be.

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You can't render historical judgment on any person or event without introducing statements of debatability, and those statements are inherently political. Nothing is apolitical, because nothing is objective or timeless.

Posted by Freddie | April 7, 2008 10:09 PM

"Am I supposed to suspend judgement until I die, or worse, just let historians 100 years from now make that call?" by AKBY

TR: Suspending judgment on whether he's "the Worst President Ever" isn't the same as suspending judgment altogether.

If I suspended judgment on whether Kim Jong Il is "the world's worst dictator" it doesn't mean I've suspended all judgment on him. Maybe I'm saying that Kim Jong-il is very bad, but Sudan's Al-Bashir is arguably worse because his regime apparently kills more people. Or I could be saying something else entirely.

I think you're free to judge Bush as the worst President in your lifetime. Judging him as the "worst ever" is also something you can do, but you really shouldn't unless you are informed enough in history to make such a judgment.

Posted by Thomas R | April 7, 2008 10:32 PM

"Nothing is apolitical, because nothing is objective or timeless."

TR: What about gravity? Or hydrogen?

Posted by Thomas R | April 7, 2008 10:34 PM

It's not surprising that someone who admittedly only "judges the Bush Administration more or less a failure" would go on to write:

. . . the worst Bush-created disasters would have to still be ahead of us, since neither the occupation of Iraq nor anything else our current POTUS has been involved in rivals the Civil War or the Great Depression for sheer destructive impact.

and cap that with:

. . . sixty-one percent of the historians' sample are ax-grinding fools whose nitwittery dishonors their profession.

OK, in the fullness of time anything could happen. All the kin of all our dead soldiers could themselves croak before collecting insurance and other benefits. All our amputees and otherwise forever seriously damaged veterans could have "Taps" played for them much sooner rather than later, saving tens or hundreds of billions. And Baghdad, Mosul, Basra, etc., could all end up looking like Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, as grateful Iraqis ship most of their oil to the U.S. at low-low prices.

Maybe, but I strongly doubt it. What I don't doubt after reading the above post is where the real nitwittery lies.

Posted by S.W. Anderson | April 7, 2008 10:48 PM

Bush lied us into a juggernaut invasion and occupation dishonestly and for no defensible purpose. With that in mind, the Iraq war is arguably much worse - on the question of its moral footing and purpose, and the moral character of its instigators - than the Civil War.

You need to distinguish between agitprop and demonstrated assertions.

On the scales of intellectual, temperamental, or moral fitness, he is likely the worst person ever to inhabit that office; the mind strains even to imagine candidates as contemptible in all three categories.

And between rhetorical flourishes and informed assessments of character.

Posted by Art Deco | April 7, 2008 10:49 PM

JonF - Americans do not torture, never, ever defend it, and if they are caught doing it, they take their punishment and the whole nation, of all ideological persuasions, joins in stoning the sinners.

JonF was never in the military, never studied history, and believes in the ACLU Jew philosophy of treating unlawful enemy combatants found outside Israel.

The Americans in the Civil War beat the hell out of uniformed members captured to save lives on their own side. If prisoners lied under the relatively unsophisticated "beat them until they talk" rules, they were then bayoneted if lies were uncovered, or, if lucky, just shot. Unlawful enemy combatants - scouts in civvies, spies, civilian bushwackers were asked if they had any onfo that would save them from a "short drop hanging" that took 20-30 minutes to throttle the life out of a person. If they did have lifesaving info, they might be spared.

The Philippines insurrection was done with on the spot executions of enemy prisoners with bodies desacrated as the Islamoids did with our guys, and worse. Muslims were buried in pig entrails.

In WWII, unlawful enemy combatants were shot. No trial. Any American found in Jap or Nazi uniform was executed right on the battlefront. On certain islands were Japs gave no quarter, the US killed all Jap prisoners after the intel was clubbed or burned out of them.

In Korea, when we found the NORKs were taking no prisoners, we marched and Korean MPs marched jailed NORKs up to the site of a US/S. Korean prisoner massacre and the NORK jailees were dropped with machinegun fire or flamethrowers in an attempt to make the NORKs reconsider their animal ways - which they did in greater measure.

In Vietnam, we didn't do nearly as much, but civilian towns that fired on US troops were not treated as kindly as Fallujah or Hadiths. They were napalmed.

Generally, though, the pattern is that the US does not torture honorable combatants playing by the rules, but until the Islamoids, unlawful enemy combatants were fair game for hard life-saving interogations.

**************

Bush will be judged less on Iraq with it's tiny casualties than on his leadership, communication skills, vision, and what he failed to do domestically and internationally to thwart a multitude of crises he will leave to his successor. By those criteria, Bush will likely stay down at Jimmy Carter-level numbers.

Nixon, on the other hand, on realization the media covered for other Presidents that did far worse than Nixon but did not "persecute Jews who liked Stalin", looks like he is going up in estimation each year. Possibly to "near-great" status. We know that FDR, Clinton, LBJ routinely lied and obstrcted justice. JFL was involved in ordering several extrajudicial assassinations of foreign leaders.

Posted by chris ford | April 7, 2008 11:00 PM

The thing that makes comparing the Iraq War to the Civil War and the Great Depression, is that unlike Buchanan and Hoover, Bush is entirely responsible for the Iraq mess. Perhaps Buchanan and Hoover could have done more to prevent those disasters, but generally they just happened to be around at the wrong time. Bush, on the other hand, went out of his way to start the Iraq War, and then to compound the error, he has waged the war incompetently. I don't think there is much question but that Bush will be among the bottom of the barrel by the time history judges him.

Posted by Jim | April 7, 2008 11:00 PM

informed assessments of character.

Bush is a cowardly lying sack of shit.

And that is an informed assessment.

Posted by Don Quijote | April 7, 2008 11:02 PM

Don Quijote speaks for millions, probably hundreds of millions, the world over. That fact ought to have a substantial impact on historical judgments down the line.

Posted by S.W. Anderson | April 7, 2008 11:14 PM

I suppose my original point is more of a challenge to Ross' conclusion that "All of which is to say that sixty-one percent of the historians' sample are ax-grinding fools whose nitwittery dishonors their profession."

My point is there is value in what people (and historians) have to say about Presidents whom they actually bear witness to.

While it's true that the "lasting" legacy of the President is yet to be revealed; his policies yet to be fully "unspooled"; there is a record to be judged today, plenty in fact to make the determination he is the "worst ever," while still leaving room for historians to revise our story later, as I'm sure they will.

And yes, we may change our own minds as well. And perhaps what we think now may serve us well to remember then.

Posted by AKBY | April 7, 2008 11:28 PM

The bottom line is that one would have to be a complete fucking idiot to think Dumbya has been a successful president. With near-complete control of the government in his first six years he achieved his only true success, which was showing that the conservative movement was a charade run by moronic gangsters.

Good job, Dumbya! Now go back to the ranch and clear brush with your Saudi-loosened sphincter.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | April 8, 2008 12:20 AM

Sigh. As a professional historian myself, I agree in part and disagree in part with Ross' comments.

On principle, I agree with the argument that historians aren't supposed to engage in anachronistic thinking. But, to be fair, if you go read the actual HNN poll and article, it is clear that nobody polled thought it was "scientific" by any stretch. Maybe a waste of time really, just a needless provocation. Why even start this conversation?

On the other hand... I think it's safe to say that Bush already ranks pretty low no matter what happens next. On his watch alone we have 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, the subprime crisis, a massive ratcheting of deficit spending and debt, a radically polarized electorate, and more corruption scandals than you can shake a Teapot Dome at (how did nobody mention Harding here among worst of the worst).

I realize as a Republican you feel obligated to bail Bush out on the question of historical legacy, but you shouldn't sully yourself with it. (For the record, I'm a lifelong independent who has voted for pols from both major parties as well as third parties).

And while it may be premature for 107 historians to rank Bush against his predecessors, it's equally premature for you to defend him by saying that he hasn't done anything to measure up to the Civil War or the Depression. It's early yet. The worst may well be yet to come. Iraq could easily spiral into something much worse, as could the economic situation. New Orleans has languished in poverty and abandonment for years now.

Either Bush's ideas were right but his execution was incompetent (charitably speaking), or both his ideas and execution were dead wrong. I bet on number two. Take that as my non-historical opinion.

Posted by BillB | April 8, 2008 12:30 AM

"believes in the ACLU Jew philosophy of treating unlawful enemy combatants found outside Israel." Chris ford

TR: Maybe you accidentally strung words together in an unfortunate way, but this is pretty ugly.

Still I do doubt that torture never occurred in the World Wars or Korea. Although I think it was always wrong and technically speaking I think there's less excuse for it now then than.

We don't have a draft these days. Hence we shouldn't have the same amount of ticked off people who don't want to be there and take it out on others. We also don't have the same level of racial prejudices we once did.

Posted by Thomas R | April 8, 2008 12:33 AM

By the way, if you really want to see a "historian gone wild," take a look at anything Sean Wilentz has written about the Democratic primary recently. Now there's an "ax-grinding fool" practicing "nitwittery."

Posted by BillB | April 8, 2008 1:22 AM

Rhoda (above) says:
"Nixon didn't plan Watergate, he covered it up. Bush planned Iraq."

Of course he didn't "plan" it. Nobody "planned" anything. It was just "done" (and badly, at that.

Posted by Terry Ott | April 8, 2008 1:40 AM

Hector:

Of these achievements by the Bush administration:

"1) Improved domestic security in the US.
2) The beginning of some very slight progress on chipping away at the unfettered abortion licence.
3) Ousting the Taliban government.
4) More funding for efforts to combat AIDS in Africa.
5) Faith based charities."

1) Is doubtfoull
2 and 5) are not achievements but greater evils
3) Is an achuevement but only a half one. Bush supported another bunch of corrupt people to rule the country, and its situation has not improved most.
4) Seems misguised...

Posted by Sergio Méndez | April 8, 2008 5:33 AM

When comparing Bush to Buchanan and Hoover, you have to take into account the different levels of danger to America. Buchanan presided over a period of incredible internal strife -- nobody could have managed that situation well. Hoover's situation, although not as extreme, was likewise a very difficult one. Bush contrast, was and is President during a period in which there was no serious military or economic threat to America as a whole, and you have to handicap the contest accordingly.

A better comparison might be Harding, another bad President in good times; Harding is usually rated as worse than Buchanan because, although he didn't fail as badly, he failed at a much easier job.

Posted by zzedar | April 8, 2008 5:56 AM

Re: JonF was never in the military, never studied history, and believes in the ACLU Jew philosophy of treating unlawful enemy combatants found outside Israel.

Read the rest of what I wrote. I am perfectly aware that "stuff" happen in the heat of battle or its bitter aftermath. I am also aware that occasionally "stuff" happens in the stygian depths of Spook-ville. The fact remains that these things were always, always, always publicly disavowed and condemned when they came to light and measurse taken to punish those responsible. This was a bipartisan and included both the Left and Right. No one ever defended such practices.

Re: The Americans in the Civil War beat the hell out of uniformed members captured to save lives on their own side.

And Henry Wirz met his end on a gallows, the first war criminal so tried and convicted in American history.

Re: In WWII, unlawful enemy combatants were shot.

We're talking torture, not killing. No one imagines war is free of deaths. Good grief.

Posted by JonF | April 8, 2008 6:39 AM

Something I haven't seen mentioned is the idea that future historians may have access to a greater amount of information on this administration than is now available. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that much of the incompetence of the Bushies is still being covered up. When some of that is allowed to see the light of day, it's going to leave a mark.

Posted by fauxmaxbaer | April 8, 2008 8:37 AM

At this point - 5 years after the original invasion - it's hard to see why Bush should get any credit for Iraq even if it turns into a blooming paradise 20 year from now. It's clear enough that Saddam was an old man presiding over a decaying regime in 2002. His day was already done - maybe he had 5-10 years left. It's hard to see how things could have gone any worse for Iraq than the way they did - tens of thousands dead, millions in exile (including most of the cream of the engineering, medical and other professional classes), Iranian influence at a level unseen probably since the days when Baghdad was a Persian city, etc. Iraq is a total disaster and the invasion was a horrible mistake. Any good that comes out of it now belongs to fortuitous unintended consequences.

Posted by vanya | April 8, 2008 9:57 AM

"It's clear enough that Saddam was an old man presiding over a decaying regime in 2002. His day was already done - maybe he had 5-10 years left."

Well, this is not even remotely "clear" to me. Sanctions had strengthened his grip on the populace and increased the influence of his police state. He had become adept at circumventing the economic sanctions and was slipping out of the international sanctions.

I don’t know anyone who claims that some what? (Shiite rebellion) would have overthrown that regime. It was rather clear that we were in store for Udai Hussein at the best.

Posted by Fitz | April 8, 2008 2:21 PM

Guys- anyone interested in politics/presidential race should definitely check out http://www.savagepolitics.com
Their articles are like nothing I have read in any of the current media outlets. It is brilliant writing plus it offers a great community in which to discuss. The editor actually takes time to answer and the political humor section is awesome!!!

Check out the article “We are the puppets”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://savagepolitics.com/?p=271

Posted by peter acevedo | April 8, 2008 3:00 PM

In any metrics for "worst President ever" Bush is not going to be even close. He will serve two full terms. No two term President has been deemed a complete failure. Economic growth and employment compare favorably on his watch to most of his predecessors. He appointed two Supreme Court Justices who have altered the Court's composition and direction. He has expanded NATO and guarded free trade strengthening the world system. He has done more than any President to fight AIDS. On his watch America has done better on greenhouse gas emission than either the Europeans or the other signatories to Kyoto. He created a whole new federal department (I don't like this but historians usually do). He has raised the federal profile in education and health care (I dont' like this but historians generally do). The first great use of anti-ballistic missile technology (shooting a satellite out of the sky) was a success. He had coatails as to twice get a Congress to his liking and in defying historical averages in keeping Congress in 2002. He was instrumental in creating the first free, multiparty election in the Arab world outside Lebanon. He appointed the first and second African American Secretary's of State.

Try as they may these accomplishments will keep GWB in at least the mid-tier of Presidents and he will rate higher than Nixon, Ford, Carter, his father, and likely Johnson or Clinton. Clinton was impeached and Johnson's problems are well known. Thus, far from being the worst, other than Reagan he may rank as the greatest President of my life time.

Posted by JJV | April 8, 2008 3:13 PM

Nathan:

Everyone seems to blame the entire civil war on Buchanan. It was Lincoln's antagonistic view of slavery that meant a vote for Lincoln was a vote for civil war. Buchanan at least tried to compromise with the south. Further, blaming the entire civil war, something that had been fermenting since the Republic's founding on one man is factually wrong and unfair to Mr. Buchanan.

We blame Buchanan because he didn't do anything to prevent war.

If he had been able to effect a peaceful separation of North and South, people might think differently about him today.

But instead he dithered and dawdled, passed up opportunities, and surrendered to iniative to the secessionists.

That Buchanan was willing to compromise or negotiate with the rebels doesn't mitigate his faults.

First of all, Buchanan himself didn't believe that secession was constitutional, yet he did nothing to clarify or resolve the situation.

If secession was unconstitutional and Buchanan swore to defend the Constitution, then his actions appear at best highly suspect.

Secondly, Buchanan appointees like John Floyd, the Secretary of War, were doing what they could to benefit secessionist elements.

Imagine if Bush or Clinton had people in their cabinet who were actively trying to tear the country apart, wouldn't we think ill of their managerial skills?

I'm not aware that anyone "blames the entire Civil War" on Buchanan. There's enough blame to go around. Pierce and Douglas get their share, as do the secessionist leaders. You can give Lincoln some if you like as well. But Buchanan comes in for a very large share of the responsibility for what happened, because he didn't resolve the crisis and did nothing to clarify the constitutional situation.

20th century liberal historians often rated the presidents they saw as the most liberal as the best. Those who increased the power of the federal government were seen as the great presidents.

Some libertarians and conservatives try to reverse this verdict, and elevate Cleveland or Coolidge or Arthur or Van Buren to the top places on the basis of ideology. The "do nothing" presidents become the best, not the worst.

Neither set of verdicts is very illuminating. It would be worthwhile to come up with more objective standards of what "greatness" or "success" really mean.

Posted by Michael | April 8, 2008 3:49 PM

Fitz:

Well, discusing the war in Iraq we should be reminded that it was started on lies. So every soldier that has died, every irqi civilian, died for Bush lies. That is what we must remeber about the war, and about Bush and his administration role in creating it.

Posted by Sergio Méndez | April 8, 2008 3:53 PM

Sergio Mendez parrots the "lies" argument that has been so well exploded in so many areas it barely is worth opposing at this date. But as I know how the Left loves to repeat something untrue until the casual reader can not know what is truth I will respond briefly to Sergio Mendacious. Neither Bush's speach to the U.N. nor to the country nor the Senate or House resolution authorizing war have any "lies" in them. The WMD situation was not what we thought, apparently. But he had not accounted for the destruction of those weapons as he had been required to do. All other aspects of the cause belli were not only believed but found to be true after the war.

Posted by jjv | April 8, 2008 4:03 PM

jjv says: "All other aspects of the cause belli were not only believed but found to be true after the war."

Believed and "found to be true" by Bush-slurping idiots, you mean. Those of us who knew the "cause belli" (you'd use "casus belli" if you weren't an idiot) was pure bullshit all along know better.

Cheney and Bush strapped 9/11 and Iraq together at every opportunity and lied this country into a foolish war. That's a fact, jack, and all of your excuses for their malignant behavior won't change it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 8, 2008 4:15 PM

Neither Bush's speach to the U.N. nor to the country nor the Senate or House resolution authorizing war have any "lies" in them.

It's truly amazing how absolutely full of shit "conservatives" are.

And why aren't you in the military, coward?

Posted by dave™© | April 8, 2008 4:21 PM

"The WMD situation was not what we thought, apparently. But he had not accounted for the destruction of those weapons as he had been required to do."

"Aparently"...LOL

And yes, Bush and his cronies LIED. Bush admnistration assured us Saddam had those weapons, that they KNEW where they were, that he was on the verge of adquiring nuclear weapons, etc...Those are lies, at least you redifine the term,like, Bush administration did with "torture"

Posted by Sergio Méndez | April 8, 2008 5:09 PM

Hector, unless you are living in an alternate reality, "Faith based charities" was a slogan not a program. This is something which even those who were involved the that Potemkin effort (genuinely deceived into thinking it was meant to be something substantial) now admit openly.
Increased domestic security and ousting the Talibam is something any conceivable administration would have accomplished after 9-11. Yes, Bush did it so deserves some credit. But only some. The jury is still out on how Afghanistan will play out. And domestically there's been too much overkill (RealID, passports for Canada, etc.) which don't make us any more secure, just increase the government's control of its own citizens.

Posted by JonF | April 8, 2008 7:38 PM

JonF writes: "And domestically there's been too much overkill (RealID, passports for Canada, etc.) which don't make us any more secure, just increase the government's control of its own citizens."

That's for sure. Add in the charming airport stories about women being forced to drink their own breast milk or remove nipple rings with pliers, and it makes me wonder if we've become a nation of gutless morons for putting up with it.

Of course Hector probably thinks the nipple ring removal story is okay because nipple rings don't meet his "ideal" standards for women. Yeesh.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 8, 2008 9:37 PM

On the Civil War I think I know of some who blame Pierce more. Pierce did several things to make slavers think they were going to get more of what they wanted than they ultimately would. The situation was not as out of control during his term. He was also a drunk with a tragic personal life.

On Bush he is a two-term President who presided over wars. As I mentioned above it's rare for a President like that to be listed as worst. In Growth Competitiveness the World Economic Forum shows us ranking slightly better than in 2001.

http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Gcr/GCR_01_02_Executive_Summary.pdf
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2007/gcr2007_rankings.pdf

The rate of poverty, and "near poverty", grew but in the years 2001-2006 it was below what it was in any year of the 1980-1997 period. (Or the 1959-1968 period)

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov6.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

He has damaged our relationship overseas, been hypocritical on human rights, endangered hundreds of thousands of Mideast Christians, presided over ballooning deficits, and been ineffective in entitlement reforms. Still he hasn't been quite the disaster some want him to be or as worthy of hatred. I will be relieved when he's gone, but part of that is because I hope the next guy doesn't get treated so hysterically.

Posted by Thomas R | April 8, 2008 10:04 PM

Thomas R writes: "He has damaged our relationship overseas, been hypocritical on human rights, endangered hundreds of thousands of Mideast Christians, presided over ballooning deficits, and been ineffective in entitlement reforms."

He made torture an OFFICIAL instrument of US policy, got rid of habeas corpus, instituted illegal wiretapping, abandoned New Orleans, waged an aggressive war based on manufactured reasons, appointed worthless fools like Gonzo and Brownie and gave Medals of Freedom out to failures.

Osama bin Laden is still free, and Dumbya actually announced that it doesn't matter.

He has ignored global warming entirely while doing exactly nothing to develop new energy sources. He has sat by while the oil companies make massive, record profits during a time when we're fighting two wars - both of which are going badly. Sacrifice is always for other people with this clown - it's never for him or the people who matter to him. That's the story of his life. I could list more failures. I couldn't come up with much in the way of "success."

But the most repugnant part of your comment is "endangered hundreds of thousands of Mideast Christians." Apparently the mere pointless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis aren't worth mentioning, since you feel they had it coming. But the Christians! Them you care about!

Disgusting. Typical of today's Republicans, but still disgusting.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 8, 2008 10:51 PM

I thank MLAJ for correcting my Latin. I stand by my statements however because they are, in fact, accurate. Being wrong is different from being a liar. There is zero evidence that anyone in the administration lied about their belief about Saddam's desires or capabilities. The CIA and our intelligence gathering agencies are woefully inadequate, but you Leftists keep trying to reduce, not enhance their abilities.

Was Saddam a tyrant who attacked his neighbors as Bush said, yes. Did he slaughter not thousands but tens of thousands and through war even millions? yes. Did he violate the peace conditions imposed on him after Gulf War I, yes. All of these were legal grounds for war. There were more but these were sufficient.

As to whether I have ever been in a war or in the military I will let it go. What I will suggest to our vocal leftists so quick with the slur is that we let only serving military vote on our Iraq policy. How do you think it will go? I think it will go my way and not the way of Mendacious or the great Latin scholar MLAJ. Never forget it was the Vietnam vet Gore, not the National Guard bomber interceptor pilot Bush who tried to throw out the ballots of servicemen in 2000. You leftists only care about the military to the extent their suffering can advance your agenda of defeat of the West. Other than that wherever you reign supreme, whether on college campuses or San Francisco you exclude and debase the military.

Finally to dave who calls me a coward, my views are congruent with those of John McCain. I am happy to place the relative physical bravery of supporters of fighting Islamo-fascism v. those who wish to appease it. To us you seem both effiminate and cowardly. The fact that neither soldiers or many real men vote for your agenda and you must amass your votes with women and homosexuals pretty much settles the coward question.

The political impulse that gave us Bill Clinton is ill-suited to call anyone cowardly or a liar.

Posted by jjv | April 9, 2008 1:06 AM

jjv lies like a Bush: "Was Saddam a tyrant who attacked his neighbors as Bush said, yes. Did he slaughter not thousands but tens of thousands and through war even millions? yes."

No, he did not "slaughter millions," silly man. Nor will you provide any evidence of such, because it's a worthless, stupid lie. Where exactly were these "millions" killed?

And when he was killing his neighbors Bush's pappy was standing right behind him, of course. You moronic Bush-slurping goobers fail to recall that Hussein was viewed as one of "our guys" while he was at war with Iran. We sold him weapons. Donny "War Criminal" Rumsfeld went over and played kissy face with him.

You're not just an idiot, you're a proven idiot.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 9, 2008 2:34 AM

"Was Saddam a tyrant who attacked his neighbors as Bush said, yes. Did he slaughter not thousands but tens of thousands and through war even millions? yes. Did he violate the peace conditions imposed on him after Gulf War I, yes. All of these were legal grounds for war. There were more but these were sufficient."

Yes, Hussein was a tyrant who attacked his neighbours, and yes Bush said it? So what? I am not claiming everything Bush said was a lie, I am saying his reasons for going to war, HIS MAIN AND ALMOST ONLY REASON, the supposed existence of WMD was a lie. And no, the conditions imposed after the defeat of the Gulf War were not essentially violated. And the war was illegal on international grouns, and the US knew it, to the point they didnt´even bring it to the consideration to the security council, cause they knew they were going to lose the vote.

Posted by Sergio Méndez | April 9, 2008 4:23 AM

The Worst President Ever?

Comments (84)