Historians Write Off Bush's Presidency

Townhall.com ^ | May 22, 2008 | Larry Elder

[Kaslin]

One hundred nine historians already nearly unanimously agree. They call the presidency of George W. Bush a "failure." The History News Network (HNN), who polled the historians, failed to name them or where they work. Wonder why?

American Enterprise magazine, in 2002, examined voter registrations to determine the political affiliations of humanities professors at an assortment of colleges and universities, public and private, big and small, located in the North, South, East and West. Of those registered with a political party -- and most were -- historians overwhelmingly belong to a "party of the left" (Democratic, Green or Working Families parties) versus a "party of the right" (Republican or Libertarian parties). Take Brown University's history department. Seventeen professors belonged to parties on the left, zero on the right. Cornell University's history department? Twenty-nine on the left, zero on the right. Denver College: nine history professors left, zero right. San Diego State University: 19 left, four right. Stanford University: 22 left, two right. UCLA: 53 left, three right. University of Texas at Austin: 12 left, two right.

HNN's historians provided three principal reasons in labeling Bush's presidency a "failure":

1) Invading Iraq. Since the "surge" began, casualties have fallen dramatically. Five hundred thousand Iraqis, up from zero, now form the Iraqi military and police. Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead in their own security. The main Sunni bloc, who refused to participate in Parliament, recently returned to the government. According to American Enterprise Institute, of the 18 original benchmarks set for the Iraqi government, 12 have been met, with substantial progress being made on five, and only one -- the least important -- stalled. Fifty-three percent of Americans now consider victory in Iraq a possibility, with Americans almost evenly divided on whether to stay or withdraw by time certain. Oh, and just an aside, no attack on American soil since 9/11.

2) Tax breaks for the rich. By definition, any tax cuts go disproportionately to the rich because the rich disproportionately pay more taxes. The top 1 percent of income earners in 2005, those earning $364,657 or more, paid over 39 percent of all federal income taxes. On the other hand, they earned approximately 21 percent of taxpayers' income. The President John F. Kennedy tax cuts, by percentage, lowered taxes more than the Bush cuts. Does anyone call the Kennedy tax cuts a "failed policy"? Kennedy, pushing for his tax cut program, used the same Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush logic: "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." From 2003 to 2007, in constant dollars, total Treasury revenue increased 20 percent.

3) Alienation of nations around the world. Take a look at the globe. France's newly elected President Nicolas Sarkozy praises Bush, dismissed his country's opposition to the war as "French arrogance," and says his countrymen's anti-Americanism "reflects a certain envy of (America's) brilliant success." British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel and Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper all support Bush, and maintain close ties with America. Italy's enthusiastically pro-Bush prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who sent troops to Iraq, left office in 2006. His predecessor withdrew the troops. But guess who's now back, in a landslide victory? Berlusconi.

As a result of Bush's commitment to democracy and his initiatives combating HIV and AIDS, the President enjoys near rock-star status in many African countries. And NATO, thanks to Bush's prodding, swelled from 19 members to 26, admitting in 2004 Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

And what about Bush's war on Islamofascism, which allegedly provokes alienation and a backlash against America? Support for homicide bombing among Muslims in predominately Muslim countries worldwide shows a dramatic decline. Support for "suicide bombing" in Lebanon, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, dropped 50 percent or more in the past five years. Similarly, support for Islamist political parties -- linked or sympathetic to the Taliban or al-Qaida -- has dropped dramatically. In Pakistan, for example, Islamist parties garnered only 3 percent of the vote, down from 11 percent in the previous general election. "The Islamist defeat in Pakistani," writes Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri in The Wall Street Journal, "confirms a trend that's been under way (in Muslim countries) for years." Muslim support for Osama bin Laden in Pakistan fell in the six months before February '08 by as much as 50 percent -- to 24 percent -- with some former followers now renouncing him. In Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province, where many believe bin Laden hides, polls show support for him falling to single digits.

Maybe historians should wait for some, well, history, before rendering a verdict.

[Kaslin]

ping

[samtheman]

I actually think it is a failure, but not for any of the reasons the “historians” list.

It’s a failure because Bush caved on almost every issue outside of Iraq and did so in such a way as to totally demoralize and disorganize the conservative base which allowed (somehow, I still haven’t figured out exactly how) John Stupid McCain, the stupidest Republican live, to be the party’s nominee.

Bush won two elections as a “conservative” and handed us over to the wolves.

Bush is to the Republican Party (and to conservatives) what Jimmy Carter was to the United States of America.

[Mr. Mojo]

If Obama wins the Presidency the Bush admin. will be looked back upon with nostalgia in very short order.

[Brilliant]

You judge a President by how well his successor does.

[Future Snake Eater]

Maybe historians should wait for some, well, history, before rendering a verdict.

Exactly. Any historian that tries to describe how a current presidential administration will fit into historical context is just a clueless idiot.

There's a good reason they don't want their names attached to it--so their names won't be dragged through the mud by actual historians with some context for being stupid.

[henkster]

You beat me to it. Bush’s failure was presiding over the destruction of the Republican Party by turning it away from conservatism.

[Kaslin]

Here is an interesting part from the Anchoress

-- snip --

the zealots in the Middle East - who saw the “strong horse” in Bush - will test the new president to see whether he or she is a “strong” or “weak” horse. And then the real fun will begin.

-- snip --

Source

[CharacterCounts]

This is similar to the same crap “historians” published about Reagan in 1998.

[CharacterCounts]

1998 should have been 1988.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Bush won two elections as a “conservative” and handed us over to the wolves.

Bah, rubbish! Handed over to the wolves! Serious??

The GOP did this to themselves: Bush had nothing to do with the fact that the Republican Party was disorganized, and thereby discarded several credible Conservative candidates in favor of McCain. How was that Bush’s fault?

‘Twas a self-inflicted injury, and it will be punished as such.

Sorry, I’m not buying the “Blame Bush” bleat.

[Non-Sequitur]

It is way too early to call Bush’s presidency either a success or a failure.

[Non-Sequitur]

You judge a President by how well his successor does.

I guess Ronald Reagan was an abject failure then.

[econjack]

Tax breaks for the rich.

This is the one that really frosts me. The top 10% of income earners paid 66% of the federal income taxes in 2005. The lowest 40% paid no income taxes. Indeed, those making less than $20,000/year actually had negative tax rates. How does the Left get away with statements saying that the "rich don't pay their fair share"...the hallmark of both Hillary's and Obama's campaigns? The GOP has done a HORRIBLE job educating the public about who pays what.

In my mind, the biggest reason Bush is viewed as a failure is because he didn't use his veto power enough. He totally lost control of spending, even while he controlled both houses. The GOP is now the Left with a different shade of lipstick. If I don't see evidence of change before November, they will lose my support. No big deal, perhaps, but I know I'm not alone in my feeling about this...

[DieHard the Hunter]

> This is similar to the same crap “historians” published about Reagan in 1998.

Too right! I remember all kinds of horrible things said about Reagan by all kinds of people. His critics are rather thin-on-the-ground now, and Reagan is seen as a great US President (which he was).

It will be the same deal with GWB. He has been a fine wartime President and that is how posterity will remember him.

[Brilliant]

You’re saying that Bush I was greater than Reagan?

[GoldenPup]

Most of these A$$ wipes are closet communists, anyway without the cajones to be up front about it (not to mention limp-wrists)...so who gives a rat’s rearend what they think. Screw’em!!!!!!

[ilgipper]

That is absurd. He stood strong on Life (stem cells and abortion), on judges, set an historic foreign policy to respond to Islamic jihad, lowered taxes significantly leading to a period of growth that has lasted six years so far, tried to privatize social security, and denied the global warming hoax, amongst many other things.

He fell drastically short in leadership to control spending and government growth and he fought for an immigration bill that we do not like. I fault him greatly on the first of those, less so on the second because he ran on that issue twice. He has done great damage to the party in the past three years do to a sudden complete ineptness in the admin’s PR management, after successfully winning the election in ‘00 and ‘04 and winning the Senate back in ‘02. I can fault him for many things, but he has stood strong on most of the issues for almost eight full years.

I place a lot of blame on the scoundrels at the other end of Penn Avenue who spent the same period enjoying their power rather than fighting for any issues.

[Non-Sequitur]

Bush had nothing to do with the fact that the Republican Party was disorganized, and thereby discarded several credible Conservative candidates in favor of McCain. How was that Bush’s fault?

As president Bush is the leader of the party. His failure to demonstrate any sort of leadership in issues like spending or size of government is part of the reason why the GOP is in such sad shape. Not the only reason, mind. But a big one.

[Red Badger]

IOW, they don't have history, they have consensus..............(see tagline)...

[ryan71]

Set 10’s of millions of people free

Preventented numerous planned attacks on America since 9/11

Appointed excellent Justices

[Non-Sequitur]

You’re saying that Bush I was greater than Reagan?

No, you're saying we should judge Reagan by how well Bush I did. By any measure, Bush I was a mediocre president.

[Hardastarboard]

I’m not buying the “Blame Bush” bleat.

I blame Bush for everything, including every paper cut I get.

Seriously, as the putative leader of the Republican Party, with the most visibility, he sets the agenda and is the primary communicator of that agenda to the American people. In that regard, he has almost completely failed. He's been a pretty good President overall, and certainly better than he's polled, but leading the party is part of his responsibility as the highest elected official in the land. He completely ignored that facet of his leadership role.

[Brilliant]

Exactly my point. I judge Reagan to be a better President than Bush I. If Obama or McCain turns out to be a better President than GW, then we’ll “write off” the Bush Presidency. If not, he’s a genius.

[McGruff]

Yes the deck is stacked against us on the right. Yet President Bush tried to play nice with the left and the MSM. That was naive. I believe McCain knows he's against a stacked deck and will act accordingly. Can he beat them? We'll just have to wait and see.

[Skooz]

Larry Elder nails it.

Having some limited contact with the world of academia, I respect the results of these sorts of “polls” not one bit.

[bvw]

George W. Bush will be remembered as one of the top ten Presidents. Why?

• Firm, effective and calm response to the 9/11 attack.

• USA homeland not attacked by more than a handful of nutty solos since 9/11/2001.

• Got MANY nations to join in war efforts before, during and after the War in Iraq.

• Got MANY nations to join in war efforts against Afghanistan and the greater War on Terror.

• Got Libya (and possibly North Korea as well) to drop Nuclear Weapons programmes that were well along -- at or near to the point of device test.

• Inherited a recession and kept it from taking hold, instead the economy has improved -- even though many fundamentals he inherited *very* shaky, his team steered a safe course!

• Bush's economic team really played the US comparative advantages in global economics well. Many of his opponents' "solutions" (such as the Koyoto accord) would have left us at a comparative disadvantage.

• Bush will be honored in History for his honesty, his openness, his administration's high ethics, especially in comparison to the deceitful, lying, scandalous and unethical prior administration. Few administrations have had both the high performance caliber and the highest ethics as has had this one. It may in all fact, have been the most ethical.

The President did this in the face of a virulent, constantly mendacious, propagandizing mass media happy to slander him and his administration at any opportunity, and even viciously inventive of such opportunities. A media that is while in is death throes may be more potent in its constant vileness against him, than any seen since the times of the Aurora.

[SumProVita]

The Anchoress usually has terrific insight and I agree with her on this. Although I’ve had my own problems with some things President Bush has/has not done, I’ve come to the conclusion that the real basis for so much hate towards him from the left is his practice of Christianity.

[Skooz]

This is similar to the same crap “historians” published about Reagan in 1988

I remember it well.

I was a junior history major with an ambition to pursue a PhD. in history and become an historian. It puzzled me that so many academics thought they knew so much when in fact they had no clue.

[SMARTY]

“Sorry, I’m not buying the “Blame Bush” bleat.”

Ditto.

If you remember, the Liberals challenged Bush in his first Presidential campaign by saying (among other things) he had no foreign policy experience. And, for a guy with minimal foreign policy experience going into the WH, he was handed the absolute worst foreign policy nightmare that even an experienced political hand could deal with. In view of everything that he brought to the WH and everything he has had to deal with, I think this President has done a positively sterling job and gets nowhere near enough credit for what he has accomplished... and more importantly -the problems he has averted for the U.S.

[raygunfan]

i agree....quit blaming bush...bush didnt cause duncan hunter to get rejected, or even fred thompson....

the republican party caved to the liberal wing.

[Rummyfan]

I’m with you!

[Disturbin]

Referring to true Patriots as vigilantes?

[IncPen]

Groupthink at its worst. Bush will be remembered for many things; I rather suspect that Iraq has a good chance of success and that in itself makes the left insanely jealous of him.

Stories like this are nothing more than totems for the left, to convince the weak-kneed among them to join the followers class.

How many historians can anyone name on a moments’ notice? I think that drives *them* nuts— consigned to the very dustbins they so meticulously tend.

[Rummyfan]

Our primary process needs reforming. Another Freeper quoted the other day that McInsane got the nomination by getting only 30-some percent fo the primary votes! By the time of the Virginia primary where I was voting at the time, Thompson, Hunter, and Romney had dropped out. I almost crossed over and voted for Obama just for the pleasure of voting against Her Heinous but instead registered my displeasure by voting for Ron Paul.

[Christian4Bush]

“Sage” bump

[DrDeb]

GLAD BUSH IS STILL AROUND
By Paul Johnson (eminent British historian and author)

Looking back over the last few years, I find it hard to fault Mr. Bush on any major point. He has always been brave. He has never shown the slightest fear of unpopularity, putting the needs of the nation before his political fortunes. He has shown himself ready at all times to make big, risky and venturesome decisions, being persuaded they were in the U.S.’ (and the West’s) interests, and then sticking to them. Indeed, if there’s one thing that exceeds Mr. Bush’s courage, it’s his resolution, his pertinacity, his steadfast consistency.

He is a leader who will not give way to threats, criticisms and abuse, a man of valor when times are hard. In this election year, when the Constitution demands that he must give way to another President, I salute him and applaud his conduct of affairs.

Some may call President Bush obstinate; others may say, with some reason, that he is not skilled in explaining his policies. But I insist that beneath it all he has been a heroic leader in a time of testing, and I am glad that he will still be in charge for the rest of this year.

You can read the entire commentary here:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0505/027_print.html
-

HISTORY WILL BE KIND TO GEORGE W BUSH
By Ed Koch

. . . The reason I believe history will redeem President George W. Bush is that he is one of the few leaders on the planet today who understands the larger picture. He has not lost his courage and vision of the future. He knows what calamities await the world if it engages in appeasement and deserts an ally in order to buy an illusory peace. We will recognize his worth long after he is gone.

Read the entire article here:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/ss_politics0153_05_20.asp

[mtntop3]

Bush will be seen by history as one of the greatest U. S. Presidents.

Both he and Lincoln have had great Faith in the Lord. And they have carried out their Presidencies accordingly.

[Entrepreneur]

I actually think it is a failure, but not for any of the reasons the “historians” list.

It’s a failure because Bush caved on almost every issue outside of Iraq and did so in such a way as to totally demoralize and disorganize the conservative base which allowed (somehow, I still haven’t figured out exactly how) John Stupid McCain, the stupidest Republican live, to be the party’s nominee.

Bush won two elections as a “conservative” and handed us over to the wolves.

Bush is to the Republican Party (and to conservatives) what Jimmy Carter was to the United States of America.

Nailed it!

[Just A Nobody]

LS - Thought you may be interested in this article.

HNN's historians provided three principal reasons in labeling Bush's presidency a "failure":

[samtheman]

George W. Bush combined with the decadence of the GOP Congress to completely sever the bonds of Republican tradition. Neither the White House nor the Congress stood for anything whatsoever resembling Republicanism.

---GOP DEATH IS A SUICIDE

[Resolute Conservative]

My sentiment exactly. While I did not like his immigration position he is a good president.

[WVKayaker]

...Bush caved on almost every issue... George W. Bush will be remembered as one of the top ten Presidents. Why?

Pictures are slow loading, but speak thousands of words...

Leadership on energy?

Leadership in education...?

Did nothing to prosecute high crimes and misdemeanors... and now we have them in our face again!

Fiscal control?

At least we can agree that he is compassionate and loves people!

[Amos the Prophet]

Bush is to the Republican Party (and to conservatives) what Jimmy Carter was to the United States of America.

Agreed.

Unlike the Democrat party, however, the Republican party's members do not confuse the good of the country with the good of their party.

Bush's presidency has ben brilliant on a wide array of fronts. History will, indeed, appraise him as a seminal thinker with the ability to move the country in a profoundly positive direction regarding taxation and foreign policy.

His selection of substantial numbers of minorities in his administration, many filling top posts, will not go unnoticed as a profound change in direction from that of democrats who consistently favor the white boy's club with occasional gestures toward woman and blacks in the person of utter incompetents.

Overthrowing Hussein and the Taliban and providing support for the emergence of 2 democracies in the mideast is nothing if not audacious and brilliant.

Bush provided tax relief for all taxpayers to the chagrin of Democrats who are constitutionally unequipped to accept the proposition that lower taxation increases revenues in an environment where taxation is crippling the economy.

The contempt of Democrats for Bush is based entirely on his successes. The displeasure of Republicans for Bush is based on his singular failure to reduce the size and scope of government. This is a presidency that has cast the US in the role of protector of oppressed people everywhere. More could have been done. More will be done by successive presidencies to insure the march of democracy and freedom from government here and around the globe thanks to the deep seated principles of GW Bush.

[Amos the Prophet]

Bush is to the Republican Party (and to conservatives) what Jimmy Carter was to the United States of America.

Agreed.

Unlike the Democrat party, however, the Republican party's members do not confuse the good of the country with the good of their party.

Bush's presidency has ben brilliant on a wide array of fronts. History will, indeed, appraise him as a seminal thinker with the ability to move the country in a profoundly positive direction regarding social equality, foreign policy and taxation.

His selection of substantial numbers of minorities in his administration, many filling top posts, will not go unnoticed as a profound change in direction from that of Democrats who consistently favor the white boy's club with occasional gestures toward woman and blacks in the person of utter incompetents.

Overthrowing Hussein and the Taliban and providing support for the emergence of 2 democracies in the mideast is nothing if not audacious and brilliant.

Bush provided tax relief for all taxpayers to the chagrin of Democrats who are constitutionally unequipped to accept the proposition that lower taxation increases revenues in an environment where taxation is crippling the economy.

The contempt of Democrats for Bush is based entirely on his successes. The displeasure of Republicans for Bush is based on his singular failure to reduce the size and scope of government.

This is a presidency that has cast the US in the role of protector of oppressed people everywhere. More could have been done. More will be done by successive presidencies to insure the march of democracy and freedom from government here and around the globe thanks to the deep seated principles of GW Bush.

[ripley]

“historians write off bush’s presidency”

should read;

“historians judge bush’s presidency to be anti-revolutionary and dismissive of international-socialist goals for the 21st century-purification promised with U.S. elections of 2008”

[tsomer]

What Paul Johnson said. Koch too.

Here’s something else—to address the disappointments I share with many here:

W picked his battles— the important ones and left the others alone.

They would have distracted him.

It’s sometimes what you don’t do, more than what you do.

[Condor51]

I went to this History News Network and -- surprise --- it's not all left wing moonbats, really. I even bookmarked it for reference.

That being said there sure are lefty Moonbat 'historians' writing utter tripe. One such 'historian' is Mary L. Dudziak who penned this:

What Thurgood Marshall Would tell the Roberts Court

Just take a guess, I don't have to say anything - you'll be correct as to what it's about and its tone.

An aside, I quickly read a bit of it. Just enough to confirm that Thurgood Marshall was a moron and shouldn't have heard Traffic Court cases. His Bakke opinion re: slavery is nonsense (historically wrong).

[WVKayaker]

I almost forgot his (best/worst- choose one) legacy!

As if we needed another expansion of INTRUSIVE government, he gave us the DHS and it's pleasant friends at the TSA!

[Just A Nobody]

Sorry, I’m not buying the “Blame Bush” bleat.

Oh c'mon DH, BushBashing is all the rage. Jump in the water's fine here on FR.

the Republican Party was disorganized, and thereby discarded several credible Conservative candidates in favor of McCain.

McCain has been running a shadow party operation behind the scenes during the entire Bush presidency. His nomination has been in the works for 8 years and was the foregone conclusion, regardless what "we the people" may want. I agree, the "new" GOP organized this disaster.