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

[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.)