George W. Bush vs Richard Nixon

[ElectionsGuy]

I'm going to do some polls from the presidential series and match up US presidents who got similar results. Both Bush and Nixon got a massive 83% disapproval.

Nixon.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Nixon was at least competent in his evil, Bush just shat on everything and got away with it until 2006 because 9/11 and the FNC propaganda cry of "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA AND OUR TROOPS?!?!?!?!"

[BaconBacon96]

Nixon was at least competent in his evil, Bush just shat on everything and got away with it until 2006 because 9/11 and the FNC propaganda cry of "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA AND OUR TROOPS?!?!?!?!"

[IceSpear]

Nixon was at least competent in his evil, Bush just shat on everything and got away with it until 2006 because 9/11 and the FNC propaganda cry of "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA AND OUR TROOPS?!?!?!?!"

[Rockefeller GOP]

Bush was more genuine.  Him.

[Maxwell]

I guess Bush. They're about equal levels of destructive.

[SWE]

Write-in: AIDS

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Nixon was a foreign policy great with Detente with the Soviets and a reopening of relations with the PRC. He was also the last Liberal president of the post war Keynesian consensus. He supported things like Wage and Price controls , healthcare reform and the EPA.

[Mr. Smith]

Nixon...Reagan, Dubya, and Cheney are probably the only three  worse than him.

Zyzz already explained why Nixon.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Nixon was a foreign policy great with Detente with the Soviets and a reopening of relations with the PRC. He was also the last Liberal president of the post war Keynesian consensus. He supported things like Wage and Price controls , healthcare reform and the EPA.

Me. Reading this post:

[Sol]

Nixon was a foreign policy great

[Lambsbread]

Tricky Dick.

[Supersonic]

Bush.

[Sol]

Anyway, I'm voting for the president who didn't support Genocide in East Timor or Bangladesh, thanks.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Bush, if only because of Watergate.

[Indy Texas]

Anyway, I'm voting for the president who didn't support Genocide in East Timor or Bangladesh, thanks.

Bush's foreign policy aims were less sinister and very idealistic, but very costly for the US and very destabilizing to the world thus far.

Nixon's foreign policy aims were ruthless, cold and calculating Realpolitik, but arguably helped stabilize the Cold War chessboard in the West's favor.

Nixon supported genocide in East Timor and Bangladesh. Bush pursued policies that are allowing genocide to happen in the Middle East as we speak. Does intent really matter?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Nixon was at least competent in his evil, Bush just shat on everything and got away with it until 2006 because 9/11 and the FNC propaganda cry of "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA AND OUR TROOPS?!?!?!?!"

[H. Ross Peron]

Nixon was at least competent in his evil, Bush just shat on everything and got away with it until 2006 because 9/11 and the FNC propaganda cry of "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA AND OUR TROOPS?!?!?!?!"

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Nixon was a foreign policy great with Detente with the Soviets and a reopening of relations with the PRC. He was also the last Liberal president of the post war Keynesian consensus. He supported things like Wage and Price controls , healthcare reform and the EPA.

Me. Reading this post:

I would agree there were some constructive elements of Nixon's presidency, namely Detente (which was a big deal for my country, as decreased tensions helped to emerge various dissident movements in the Soviet Bloc, such as KOR) and opening with the PRC. But to call him a liberal is moronic.

After all, Nixon was a key figure in conservative shift in the U.S. policy after 1968.

(BTW, decreasing of West-East relations in the 1970s was hardly Nixon's exclusive policy. There was Willy Brandt, among other architects of that process).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Both were disgusting abominations of mankind, but Dubya is the proof that extreme stupidity can do more damage than extreme amorality.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'd say Dubya did more damage.

[Del Tachi]

GWB

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The striking problem with Bush (well there's like a million things wrong with him) is that he had an awkward tendency to keep clearly failed people around him festering and promoted people way beyond their abilities. From the numerous military figures, DoD officials and diplomats who allowed both Iraq and Afghanistan to become quagmires to the time he appointed literally some guy to run FEMA. I can admit everybody hires some loons on occasion, but a good executive knows when to let them go.

(Of course Nixon had some nasty people embedded in his administration, but he couldn't let them go for ... different reasons)

[Sol]

Anyway, I'm voting for the president who didn't support Genocide in East Timor or Bangladesh, thanks.

Bush's foreign policy aims were less sinister and very idealistic, but very costly for the US and very destabilizing to the world thus far.

Nixon's foreign policy aims were ruthless, cold and calculating Realpolitik, but arguably helped stabilize the Cold War chessboard in the West's favor.

Nixon supported genocide in East Timor and Bangladesh. Bush pursued policies that are allowing genocide to happen in the Middle East as we speak. Does intent really matter?

It pretty clearly does in this case, since Nixon was basically supporting the mass killing of Bengalis whereas Bush pretty clearly was not trying to kill Yezidis and Assyrians. That's like arguing Pol Pot and Kennedy are equally responsible for the Cambodian Genocide.*

*Obviously Nixon isn't as responsible as say, Yahya Khan, but still.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Nixon was actually a fairly decent President besides Vietnam, Watergate, Cambodia, etc....well, ok, Nixon was not a great President but he was better than Bush .