Posted on 09/21/2004 6:27:17 AM PDT by elenchus
Just How Bad Is Bush?
By Robert S. McElvaine Mr. McElvaine is Professor of History at Millsaps College in Jackson, Miss. mcelvrs@millsaps.edu
The recent Republican National Convention presented George W. Bush's presidency as a triumphant success. Most professional historians take a radically different view. A significant number of historians, in fact, rank the Bush presidency as the most disastrous in American history. They're wrong.
An informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by HNN found that eight in ten historians responding rated the current presidency an overall failure. Of 415 academic historians who expressed a view of President Bush's administration so far as a success or failure, 338 (81 percent) classified it as a failure and 77 (19 percent) as a success. Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rated the current presidency the worst in all of American history.
Such a low grade for the incumbent by historians may not be surprising. But the low rating is not just because most historians are hopelessly liberal. Today 70 percent of the historians who see the Bush presidency as a failure rate the current administration as worse than the two presidencies that liberals have most loved to hate, those of Nixon and Reagan.
The truth is that the current administration is not the most disastrous in our history. George W. Bush's record on running up debt to burden our children is only the worst since Ronald Reagan. His record on government surveillance of citizens is only the worst since Richard Nixon. His record on foreign-military policy has gotten us into only our worst foreign mess since Lyndon Johnson sank us into Vietnam. His economic record on job creation is only the worst since Herbert Hoover. His record of tax favoritism for the rich is only the worst since Calvin Coolidge. His record of trampling on civil liberties is only the worst since Woodrow Wilson or perhaps John Adams.
There was, however, a presidency that was altogether worse than all or any of these: that of James Buchanan, who warmed the president's chair while the Union disintegrated in his term (1857-61). The Civil War was the most calamitous event in our history, and neither George W. Bush nor any other president besides Buchanan has overseen a calamity on that scale.
Here's why Bush's presidency has been a disaster, although not quite the worst in our history. This president has:
Taken, in the wake of the terrorist attacks three years ago, the greatest worldwide outpouring of goodwill the United States has enjoyed at least since World War II and squandered it by insisting on pursuing a foolish go-it-almost-alone invasion of Iraq, thereby transforming almost universal support for the United States into worldwide condemnation.
Promoted the extraordinarily dangerous doctrine of preemptive war.
Presided over the loss of more than a million American jobs, the worst record since Herbert Hoover. Misled the American public about weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Al-Qaida in Iraq and so led us into a war that has plainly and predictably made us less secure, caused a boom in the recruitment of terrorists, is killing American military personnel needlessly and is threatening to suck up all our available military forces and be a bottomless pit for the money of American taxpayers for years to come.
Failed to follow through in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al-Qaida are regrouping, once more increasing the threat to our people.
Insulted and ridiculed other nations and international organizations and then found it necessary to go, hat in hand, to those nations and organizations begging for their assistance.
Inherited an annual federal budget surplus of $230 billion and transformed it into a $400-plus billion deficit in less than three years.
This negative turnaround of nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars is without precedent in our history.
Perhaps worst of all, wrapped himself in the flag and used the horrors of 9/11 to divert the voters' attention from the disasters that his policies have produced.
It must be admitted, though, that in terms of what it sought to do, the Bush presidency has been successful. His presidency has been remarkably successful, as one historian declared, in its pursuit of disastrous policies. Viewed from this perspective, President Bush's own description in a Time interview (Sept. 6 issue) of his war in Iraq is the best assessment of his presidency as a whole: a catastrophic success. It has been all-too-successful in producing catastrophe.
"History is written by men who have hanged heroes..."
McIlvane is an intellectually dishonest, partisan liberal. Our local fish-wrap gives him column inches about once a month. Nobody pays any attention to him.
Great, now the study of history is being taken over by moonbats.
Why exactly would an historian's opinion be more valuable than the opinion of any other guy off the street?
Just evidence of liberalism in academia. I am an historian myself, and I think President Bush is one of the greatest presidents in history . . . he spends a little too much, but he has tackled tough questions like Social Security and Medicare when no one else would, he has tried to do something about education, and he has had to deal with worldwide terrorism and an attack upon the United states. Who was the last president to have to do that?
And how, do you suppose, would historians have ranked Lincoln in the middle of the War Between the States? And Reagan before he ended the Soviet Union's iron grip on eastern Europe? Historians have historically been short-sighted and uncomprehending while in the midst of revolutionary times. I have full confidence that the gaggle of girlie-men surveyed for this piece will look equally foolish in hind-sight.
Just evidence of liberalism in academia. I am an historian myself, and I think President Bush is one of the greatest presidents in history . . . he spends a little too much, but he has tackled tough questions like Social Security and Medicare when no one else would, he has tried to do something about education, and he has had to deal with worldwide terrorism and an attack upon the United states. Who was the last president to have to do that?
What kind of historians are these to judge something that has only just started? As Zhou Enlai said of the effect of the French Revolution -- "It's too early to tell."
Professors... there is no class of professionals who trumpets themselves louder with less merit on the face of the earth. They teach inexperienced youngsters and begin to see themselves as brighter than everyone one else, too. Being experts in a chosen, narrow field in a collegiate greenhouse leads them to the delusion of being great thinkers. As experts they learn more and more about less and less until they reach the pinnacle of liberal academic thought,that is, knowing absolutely everything about nothing at all.
The author wasn't a historian. His arguments are basically excerpts from the fake Presidential resumé.
Academic Historians come in two flavors... Those who served in the military and are conservative, and those who avoided military service and are liberal. There aren't too many former military academic historians.
And the school books all say that Vietnam was a corrupt, wrong, illegal war, where American soldiers died for nothing.
That's what the kids are taught. And those kids grow up to become The Sheep.
From where? Patrice Lumumba Poly Technik?
Mc Elvaine presented a longer version of his thesis, four months ago, at 5-17-04: Historians vs. George W. Bush
(There are comments by readers on that web page.)
My feeling is that McElvaine will continue to trot out his informal, unscientific findings as long as Bush is president.
A significant number of historians are graduates of Berkeley.
I, for one, will no longer take the rantings of "professional historians" at face value.
I consider this to be the end of history in this country.
I am a history professor; I post regularly on HNN; and I don't recall being polled or surveyed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.