W's Postscript: How Will History Regard Bush?
Adios G-dub
It's tempting right now to say President Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents ever to dis-grace the White House. But is that fair, or even accurate?
Historian renderings of a legacy are often at odds with fluctuating public opinion polls that gauge the heat of the moment. Take Truman. The man had a 22 percent approval rating toward the end of his presidency--due in large part to a highly unpopular Korean War--yet he's among the most popular presidents in history.
I'm going to play the devil's advocate and argue that it is at least in the realm of possibility that history will not lambaste Bush as the fool he's so widely assumed to be. I'll do this because it's useful, because W's reign is nearly at end, and because it might be kinda fun.
Look at what he walked into: 9/11. A presidency in its infancy presided over the most devastating foreign attack on domestic soil in this country's history and suddenly became a war-time presidency. In the wake of the attacks, Bush enjoyed a 90 percent approval rating. An ABC News/Washington Post poll showed 62 percent of Americans cheerleading the invasion into Iraq. The Senate and the House both approved resolutions for the invasion with wide margins.
It proved a costly blunder. But besides the fact that occupations are costly and often doomed to failure, we have learned that the American people rode a wave of emotion into Baghdad, but had neither the tolerance nor the fortitude for the prolonged conflict it would require.
If nothing else, Bush has shown massive cajones in pushing through a hugely unpopular surge that's proven incredibly successful. Whether by blind luck or through the vigilance of the Homeland Security Administration and reorganized intelligence services, we haven't seen another terrorist attack even as they continue to erupt across the globe. In that regard, it's not a huge stretch to say he's not unlike Truman, who developed the NSA, CIA and Department of Defense.
So that's my devil's advocation. Will Bush remain the punchline in history-book perpetuity, or will our collective derision soften as hindsight brings into clearer focus the narrative of his dual-term presidency?
Comments
I guess you're right, Brantley. If you preclude his abject failure on pretty much every major issue of the day -- jobs, the economy, global warming, energy, health care, education, foreign affairs, the two wars, the stock market, U.S. manufacturing, international trade, the strength of the dollar, housing, and the lists goes on -- he was probably a really good president.
Posted 11/06/2008 at 12:04:34 PMhey kotz, dont forget that bush caused hurricane katrina as well.. oh, and before you work yourself into a lather crediting the new president for everything good that happens in america (have you noticed all the pretty leaves since tuesday?) don't neglect to continue blaming everything bad that happens over the next four years on the bush administration. twouldnt be prudent you know
Posted 11/06/2008 at 04:10:12 PMI'm of the opinion that history has been way too kind to Truman.
Posted 11/06/2008 at 09:01:31 PMVery insightful thoughts. Where is Cheney? How can an oil man let oil get to $147 a barrel and now it is at $50 3 months later. Those are questions for now and later.
Posted 11/28/2008 at 08:05:31 PM