There isn't as much. I'm no fan of Clinton, but he wasn't a disaster on the scale of Carter. Once he abandoned the idea of universal health care, he basically let the economy trundle on on its own. While he let a lot of things slide foreign policy-wise, he didn't actively court disaster like Carter did.
I've a feeling Clinton will go down in history like Calvin Coolidge: Admired by the history-minded within his party, but otherwise dismissed, far from a national icon. Carter is going down like Harding: An embarrassment best forgotten.
The result is even if Bush were as great as Reagan -- which he's not -- the contrast between Bush and Clinton would be less than that between Reagan and Carter.
I fully agree. And he's just grown worse with age. Carter's ineptitude just made it easier for Regan once in office.
The result is even if Bush were as great as Reagan -- which he's not -- the contrast between Bush and Clinton would be less than that between Reagan and Carter.
I think you are making this judgement WAY TOO SOON and perhaps even and apples to oranges comparison since they both faced exremely different challenges. As you point out, Reagan had an easier row to hoe due to Carter being worse than Clinton. The advantage Bush had over Reagan is the rise of a more diversified media to help get the message out. Reagan's advantage as an actor served him well against the traditional media that was aligned against him. But a silver tongue alone does not greatness make. For now and the next 2 years Bush is our guy. Let our children's children worry about greatness provided they're not wearing Burkas.