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.
Some times things like this have to be said: I have an earned doctoral degree. I totally support George Bush and I believe voting for John Kerry would be a dangerous mistake. I question the patriotism of these academics.
Anybody who doesn't like what I have said will just have to live with it.
Unimpeachable source.
Maybe Burkett ran the "poll" (liberal journalist's quotation marks added in lieu of snide comment"
It happened about 35 years ago, my friend. Outside of the hard sciences, nothing from academia can be trusted.
Excuse me! That's simply not true. There are some good people in the universities---a distinct minority, but some excellent people nonetheless.
Of course there are good people in academia - my husband is one! My point is that virtually all publications from academics reflect the current "understanding" that morality is relative, all cultures are equally deserving of respect and that nothing good has come from Western civilization.
You have to hit these buttons to get published. This bias comes out in the classroom and before the thesis committees. So from an objective point of view, you can't trust anything coming out of the arts or soft sciences.
Good people, yes - but a lot of bad theories.
I agree: 99.9999999% of the professors give the rest a bad name.
And just what was Buchanan supposed to do? Wave a magic liberal fairy wand and eliminate slavery? Those wands also do a great job at making folks hold hands, sing Kumbayah and agree about whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free.
Sometimes war does solve things. The Civil War resolved two issues: slavery and union. I would love to hear how Buchanan could have resolved them without war.
What the author really seems to resent is Presidents who expose that holding hands and singing Kumbayah only works when folks want to hold hands in the first place.
Academia decided this?
Next...
It's actually about 10% good. Most surveys show that there are about 10-12% of the faculties in the ARTS AND SCIENCES are "conservatives." I think if you get into the B-school and engineering, that percentage goes up to about 50/50. But the problem is that all students don't have to take engineering or business, but all of them have to take English and most have to take history or philosophy.
"Historians are like deaf people who answer questions no one asked." Tolstoy
I posted in #19 that "A significant number of historians are graduates of Berkeley". I made the post in a flash of anger, without bothering to examine McElvaine's bonafides.
Check out moonbat McElvaine's resume:
B.A. Rutgers University (1968)
M.A. SUNY-Binghamton (1971)
Ph.D. SUNY-Binghamton (1974)
Post-Doctoral Work:
University of California at Berkeley (1978)
Brown University (1980-81)
ROTFLMPO!!!
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.