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.")