Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The more I read about Bush II and his term in office the less I like him or his policies. He really should have downsized government and federal spending, power after 9-11. Use the 9-11 attack as an excuse to get rid of what does not work, outdated or too expensive and just focus on what the federal government is suppose to do vice trying to be the welfare queen for the country.
The Iraq War is a toss up. Clinton's "Iraq Liberation Act" and many in the media and around the world we demanding something be done about Iraq and Bush II did it. If Iraq turns out to be a better country at some point in the future or just another failed Islamic nation has yet to be seen.
I don't think there is a set period of time that elapses before a President is judged historically. Many of our Presidents governed during times when there were relatively few high historical points, especially when it came to the Administrative Branch. Fewer Presidents have governed during more notable terms, and fewer still have governed during terms when there was deep crisis of some kind.
And some Presidents didn't stick around for very long. Gerald Ford is an example. His term was a short one, and very little is remembered of what he accomplished because of the hubbub that still surrounded Nixon, his predecessor.
It's hard to say when the Bush presidency will become studied. Since there were so many important members of his cabinet- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Rice, et. al. who contributed so much to his terms in office, it may be quite a while before a definitive history is complied. I can't see Dick Cheney talking to any historian, ever, about his Vice Presidency.
What will be interesting is to see if Bush, a real fan of history, will write his memoirs sometime over the next 4 years. Former Presidents often do, while everything is still relatively fresh. And there is a historical advantage in a former President getting his account of things out before the historians.
Obama is a writer. I think he could well write his memoirs within a few years after he leaves office.
But then, neither could ever have their memoirs published at all. Many former Presidents did not write memoirs.
I think that for better or for worse 100 years from now the opening paragraph on Bush will 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq and the opening sentence for Obama will be "The first African American president" no matter what his successes or failures which will only get a serious look in advance college level courses.
As time goes on George H.W. Bush starts to look better. Reagan, the charismatic leader who enjoyed an improving economy, was a tough act to follow. He had to deal with the Federal Savings and Loan excesses and Saddam Hussein. He was a responsible moderate who signed some good legislation, such as Americans with Disabilities Act, into law. Reduced bloated military, though it was painful to many.
I think Bush II will go down as the biggest douche to ever hold the office. He was pretty disastrous. I don't see historians having too many kind things to say about a man who started a costly, protracted, unnecessary war. I'm not sure if he will get the blame for the economy. He probably shouldn't -- that was caused by forces mostly beyond his scope and control, but he owns Iraq. What a s-bomb that was. As time goes by, even the war's most enthusiastic supporters are acknowledging what a wasteful exercise in futility it was.
I think Bush II will go down as the biggest douche to ever hold the office. He was pretty disastrous. I don't see historians having too many kind things to say about a man who started a costly, protracted, unnecessary war. I'm not sure if he will get the blame for the economy. He probably shouldn't -- that was caused by forces mostly beyond his scope and control, but he owns Iraq. What a s-bomb that was. As time goes by, even the war's most enthusiastic supporters are acknowledging what a wasteful exercise in futility it was.
I'm curious as to just how much weight the Iraq war will be given by historians. I mean just where does it rank interms of historical importance? It's pretty important now, but in historical terms where will it rank in importance. Only time will tell. It could be as important as Vietnam (which I think is receding) or will it become as obscure as the war with Mexico? Hell when you consider the body of literature even the Revolutionary War pales to the Civil War or World War 2.
I think that for better or for worse 100 years from now the opening paragraph on Bush will 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq and the opening sentence for Obama will be "The first African American president" no matter what his successes or failures which will only get a serious look in advance college level courses.
Not saying this to stir anything up but Clinton's entry will likely be "Only the second US President to be impeached".
It's really too soon to evaluate any President since maybe Nixon, and even now it's too soon for him. Too many people are blinded by Watergate to really evaluate the importance and results of detente and the opening to China.
Not saying this to stir anything up but Clinton's entry will likely be "Only the second US President to be impeached".
In the grand sceme of things I think that you are absolutely correct. Nothing else particularly earth shattering took place during his term of office.
Quote:
It's really too soon to evaluate any President since maybe Nixon, and even now it's too soon for him. Too many people are blinded by Watergate to really evaluate the importance and results of detente and the opening to China.
Oh, I disagree you can tie a box on any dead president in my opinion so I would move the historical clock up at least to Reagan, but here too depending on the time frame, Reagan's legacy won't be all that important outside of the a study on political parties and electoral politics. To me, there wasn't that much of a revolution in the Reagan Revolution. The raging debate of the future will be about how much or how little he actually contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Obama's bestseller was ghost-written by Bill Ayers, who's now angry at not getting royalties. Nevertheless, I think he's ready to be located within the panapoly of presidents as follows:
Top Worst Presidents Ever
Carter, George W. Bush, Obama.
History is anything in the past, so of course they can be judged, and it appears they are in this thread. Far too much emphasis is place on party politics though. If one considers 100 years ago the Republicans were the liberal party, and Democrats were the conservative then we've seen a paradigm shift. It also seems a president takes far too much blame, or credit for what occurs during their term when cooperation plays a very important role.
When I think of our president as our leader of the free world (this would be something to possible consider giving up) he deserves respect for his position no matter what political party he aligns himself with. No president that runs for office is out to ruin America, so we must believe that in their heart they act upon what they perceive is in our best interest. George Bush's reaction to 911 was awe inspiring, and he worked to bring us together as a nation. When Barack Obama announced that we had gotten Bin Laden we were all proud of the job "OUR" boys did.
I've always considered that the last greatest single thing carried out by a president in modern times was the Interstate Highway system brought to us by Eisenhower. Sure, we've seen a lot of smaller accomplishments since then, but nothing on that scale. We really can't judge the Affordable Care Act yet until it takes effect, and see if it can truly provide for all Americans. This is not to say that what FDR did in the 30's wasn't anything special, but rather that Eisenhower was the last.
Both parties had a hand in Vietnam, and what we should have learned is that not all cultures can have democracy forced upon them. The Middle East is another example, and will always lean toward Theocracy. We planted the Shah of Iran, and then acted surprised when he was overthrown. Really, wake up America.
Kennedy did alright, and avoided the Cuban missile crisis. Johnson blew it by escalating the war, and stuck us with swamp land near Houston. Nixon was a good moderate wanting to get us out of Vietnam, but kind of blew it when he broke the Gold standard agreement which irritated OPEC nations and caused the oil embargo. Ford didn't do much except release the Nixon prices freeze, and was probably too honest. Carter screwed up the Iran hostage issue, and was way too honest to battle Reagan's personality. He also suffered from an over heated economy created in part by Nixon's price freeze actions being lifted. Reagan in my opinion gets way to much credit for the end of the Cold war, and the economy in the 80's was okay, but not spectacular. He did work well with Congress and got things done though. HW Bush is very similar to Carter in being honest. Ross Perot didn't help him either, but his message sure was right. Clinton was a lot like Reagan, the Computer industry, and a cooperative Congress was really responsible for the expansion. Bush handled a major US crisis in a good way, and while hindsight has proven Iraq was a mistake I don't think they made it all up.
The United States was the leader in the industrial revolution that stated in the 19th century. After the great depression we saw an economic expansion and growth of one of the largest middle class in modern times. Since the 80's that middle class has been dwindling in the private sector. In the 60's public sector jobs paid less, but brought stability. Today, public sector jobs are the majority left left that provide a living wage. Law enforcement, Teachers, and Firefighters have wages and benefits that far exceed new jobs being created in the private sector. Our society cannot sustain this shift of bringing the American standard down to the rest of the world unless public sector pay comes down too. If we do not create new industry to revive our economy we will continue to see a dwindling middle class and lowering of the great American standard. Therefore, the current, and future presidents will not be judged well.
Side note: NAFTA had to occur as we all know protectionism would eventually fail. To try and blame today's economic environment on a single occurrence or individual is a mistake. There have been numerous events that have lead to where we are today. We need to stand together more than ever as Americans, and work together to leave this great nation a better place for our children.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
