Posted on 10/29/2007 12:48:01 AM PDT by neverdem
This article appears in the "Geopolitics" section of the recent issue of The American.
By October, 15 months before his presidency would end, George Bush’s approval ratings still hovered around 30 percent.
His administration will go down, say historians such as Columbia’s Eric Foner and Princeton’s Sean Wilentz, as a disaster. As Wilentz put it, “Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.”
A new genre in American popular culture has arisen comparing Bush to Hitler — on the Internet, and in fiction, stand-up comedy, and drama. To the novelist Garrison Keillor, Bush’s Republicans are “brownshirts in pinstripes” — echoing Al Gore’s similar slur of “digital brownshirts.”
Even Bush’s supporters seem resigned to such abuse. They now talk not of a restoration in public esteem before the president leaves office, but rather of a Trumanesque turnaround: a once-despised president only years later becomes appreciated for his unpopular but necessary decisions.
But for now, Bush seems to have an orphaned presidency defended by very few. From the left, he is criticized for his tax cuts for the rich, his lack of concern for African-American victims of Katrina, his illiberal homeland-security measures — and always for Iraq, with shrill persistent choruses of “preemption” and “unilateralism.” Much of this anger against Bush is Pavlovian and superficial, deeply embedded within the president’s caricatured dead-or-alive, smoke-’em-out lingo.
As a result, the left gives the president no credit for policies that have irked his conservative base. In his first term, he increased federal spending at a faster rate than Bill Clinton. He extended the reach of federal education policy with his No Child Left Behind legislation, and he did not veto a single spending bill, instead sponsoring a major new prescription entitlement...
(Excerpt) Read more at victorhanson.com ...
Those who situate themselves on the far right and the far left have a difficult time distinguishing the difference between compassionate conservatism and the third way.
Those who situate themselves on the far right and the far left always base their argument/position on "the way things ought to be" rather the the way things actually are.
As did Lincoln.
“Those who situate themselves on the far right and the far left have a difficult time distinguishing the difference between compassionate conservatism and the third way.”
Conservatism is, by definition, compassionate. Always has been, always will be.
Sean Wilentz is Nina Burleigh with tenure. His opinion counts for zilch.
I think Bush will one day be considered one of the greatest if not the greatest American president.
Yep, first Regan then Bush.
Yep, first Regan then Bush.
With Washington and Lincoln far back in the pack?
I admire your optimism, but unfortunately, there’s a good chance that George W. Bush will be remembered as the second coming of Lyndon Johnson.
You, my friend, are absurd!
W, for all of his manifold faults/mistakes, will have no trouble ending up WAY ahead of Jimmah and the Clintoons.
There were blunders and some were fairly monumental. I hope future Republicans learn from them. I will not be sorry to see Bush's tenure end and hope never to see another Bush in the White House.
But probably not the WORST president in history.
William Henry Harrison — THE WORST PRESIDENT. Accomplished absolutely nothing!
____________________________________________________________Yeah...and all the spending...and the attempts to give our kids' future to Mexico...and three years of bad strategy in Iraq (finally corrected)....but, hey, who's paying attention?
Yes but so are conservative baby boomers.
I disagree. History honors those who win the wars, not those who start them. And other than the war the Bush legacy is one of betrayal of most core conservative principles. Bigger government, larger entitlements, more spending, globalist policies, and nothing on immigration.
Historians who happen to be "Marxists" are bad enough, but Marxists who happen to be "historians" are even worse. The local library is relentlessly removing and disposing of older history works (keeping, of course, at least one dusty, totally ignored tome by the anglocommunist Hobsbawm), replacing them with a distressingly large collection of recent crap written by Wilentz or gushingly reviewed by Foner.
Just seeing those two names this early in the day is the visual equivalent of getting out of bed and stepping directly on a fresh hairball.
Mr. niteowl77
"Compassionate Conservatism" and "third way". Is that anything like the wildly successful New ToneTM?
“Does conservatism seek to offer equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? And where does the third way and social democrats, or the Club for Growth and the ‘values voters’ stand?”
Yes and yes; ‘Third way’, ‘social democrats’ seek to legislate ‘equality’ through social engineering. Don’t know about the ‘Club for Growth’; ‘values voters’ (I once was one) are very focused on promoting one set of values through legislation or the courts, imho. The last has caused me to re-think my position; I support those values but not the effort to legislate them. The difference is in offering an opportunity, not stealing from one group to give to another, winning hearts and minds if you will. I am a conservative - maybe leaning towards libertarianism now. I would vote for a conservative Dem (if you could find one) before a liberal RINO. Somebody stole the Reagan Revolution and used it for purposes it wasn’t intended, imho.
Flame away.
Now that's my kind of President!
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.