Historians on the Bush administration

[unixronin]

(A couple of months old, but excellent analysis found by rbos)

The History News Network surveyed 415 historians on the record of the Bush administration.  Their conclusion, by more than 4 to 1: the Bush presidency is an abject failure.  12% of the historians surveyed rate the current presidency as the worst in US history.  A few quotes:

• "His presidency has been remarkably successful in its pursuit of disastrous policies."
• "I think the Bush administration has been quite successful in achieving its political objectives, which makes it a disaster for us."
• "Bush is now in a position [...] to roll back the New Deal, guided by Tom DeLay."
• "Although previous presidents have led the nation into ill-advised wars, no predecessor managed to turn America into an unprovoked aggressor.  No predecessor so thoroughly managed to confirm the impressions of those who already hated America.  No predecessor so effectively convinced such a wide range of world opinion that America is an imperialist threat to world peace.  I don 't think that you can do much worse than that."
• "The idea that dividend income should not be taxed - what might accurately be termed the unearned income tax credit - can be stated succinctly:  If you had to work for your money, we'll tax it; if you didn't have to work for it, you can keep it all."
• "The Patriot Act [...] is the worst since the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams."

There's a few gems in the comments, too, although many of them are filled either with prototypical left-wing whining or with equally prototypical right-wing bombast in refutation of the former.  (I cite by example the nincompoop who makes it clear, in his smug, derisive dismissal of the Second Amendment as irrelevant in modern times, that its simple language is as far beyond his understanding as the concept that governments might not be trustworthy is evidently beyond his imagination.)  Nevertheless, there's (for instance) a good analysis of the way the Democrats have backed themselves into a corner via their own policies, and are now in a weak position to complain about those of the Republicans.

Comments

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

I think the author might want to rethink his position that historians are better at evaluating a presidency than the average voter and don't need to wait to evaluate presidencies until the archival records are in, seeing as only 2 months after he wrote some of his own criticisms of the Bush admin, they've been blown out of the water by the investigating committees.

It's ludicrous, from an historical POV, to even consider the success or failure of the Bush administration, since how his policies and such will hold up is completely unknown. It's probably too early to really examine Clinton's from an historical POV as well. After all, even at the end of the Clinton administration, that North Korean nuclear deal still seemed like a good idea. Now we know it was a disaster (in the end, I suspect we'll find that overall Clinton's presidency was quite successful). Bush I's probably been long enough ago that we can start making some serious assessments of the historical impact of his administration.

Making these historians far less credible is the list of reasons, most of which could've come straight from a DNC talking points memo. Since we haven't and can't see the long term affects of the policies they're railing against, to discuss the long term effects of them in historical terms is just stupid.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It's ludicrous, from an historical POV, to even consider the success or failure of the Bush administration, since how his policies and such will hold up is completely unknown.

I seem to recall the writer himself raised that point when discussing what weight should be placed on the survey. If memory serves, he ended up saying something to the effect of, "Remember, ultimately this is all just our opinions."

Nevertheless, I think a lot of very sound points are raised. (I'll reserve my own judgement about the competence and objectivity of the various investigating committees, thanks.)

Making these historians far less credible is the list of reasons, most of which could've come straight from a DNC talking points memo.

He also raised the point that the survery would inevitably be seen as reflecting a liberal bias. :) Besides, just the fact that the DNC likes to mention a particular issue does not automatically mean that issue is invalid. I'm sure Karl Rove wishes it did, or wishes that he could at least convince the voters it did, but I'm afraid the real world doesn't work that way.

(Actually, there's a good observation buried down there in the comments to the effect of "We historians are in a tough spot -- we're damned if we comment, and damned if we don't.")

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Of the comments you quoted, only #4 and #6 (wars and PATRIOT) aren't loaded to the gills with liberal bias.

I keep beating this drum too: Let's oust Bush, but let's do it for the right reasons, otherwise we lose just as badly to the socialists.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I think your "loaded to the gills" is at best overstating it.

You assert only the fourth and sixth quoted comments have merit. Are you suggesting, then, that those wealthy enough that they don't have to work at all and gain all their income from investment dividends should pay no tax? Are you suggesting that people who have to work for a living, such as yourself, are somehow more deserving of having that living raided to pay for government spending?

If eliminating the tax on dividends benefitted anyone with under a six-figure income, it was by accident.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

No, I don't believe in an income tax at all. I believe in a consumption tax on non-essentials: The first purchase of non-food, non-consumer-energy merchandise should have a sales tax on it. If you live frugally, you can live without paying tax at all. But those who have more money than what they need to get by will invariably spend it on Stuff. New books, new clothes, new kitchen cabinets... and that gets taxed.

As for them as "don't have to work", anybody with enough in investments to not have to work has a good accountant working for them to see that they don't pay taxes anyway... if you simply tax Stuff, they'll end up paying a lot more than they ever were...

You're gonna ask, what if they just chuck it all in the stock market or in a bank? That money doesn't just sit there. It either gets lent out to somebody who's going to spend it on Stuff, or given to a company as capital to buy Stuff and pay people (who buy Stuff), or if it's an equity trade, somebody sold that stock, and is using the proceeds for something.... it could get tied up thru a few iterations, but eventually you hit a corner case and it falls out somewhere to buy Stuff.

This way the tax system is more or less self-selecting. And requires a metric buttload less records. No IRS. And since we're not taxing food or energy, no stupid-pant rebate scheme what requires the gooberment to know where you are...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think government should be self-supporting without resorting to taxation. But that may be just me.

(Note: This entails both restricting what the goobermint gets it sticky little fingers into, and mandating that what it does, it should do efficiently and at a profit.)

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

OK, tell me just how exactly do you run the Marine Corps, whose mission is soley to kill people and break things, at a profit? You need a Marine Corps to go in and whoop ass on pirate bases and to be a boarding party for pirate ships. But the elimination of piracy does not directly profit one. It only enables its creation.

You can promote the general welfare at a profit if you do it right. But I do not think that you can provide for the common defense, nor secure the blessings of liberty, at a profit.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Well, first of all, recall that the Constitution bars the US from maintaining a standing army, on the grounds that a standing army encourages foreign military adventures. (Of course, like just about every other line and word in the Constitution, this is honored in the breach rather than in the observance.)

Secondly, consider that every business has departments which make money, and departments which lose money, but which are equally important to the business as a whole. Similarly, a hypothetical self-supporting government could lose money on its Marine Corps while still staying in the black overall.

Thirdly, Heinlein discussed exactly this problem in For Us, The Living (which was marketed as a novel, and failed as such because in 1939 it was far too radical, but should instead be considered a series of lectures with a storyline wrapped around them to tie them together). Go read it. It may change your thinking about a number of things. The short answer, which is going to sound insane right now but will make a lot more sense after you read the book and think about the economics of the system he proposes in it, is "The government prints enough extra money each year to pay for operating the USMC."

(Well, OK, the precise example cited in the book was paying for a new aircraft carrier. But the principle applies.)