61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency...

[exopolitician]

..the worst.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

link: http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

[Keystone Phil]

Leave it up to the historians 50 years from now to say whether it was the worst or not.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Historians do tend to be lefties

[SPC]

>61% of historians are morons. How is Bush the worst when the predecessors of him who've taken similar actions (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson), are the best?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Those are historians making decisions on passion.  Now, I'm not saying that he was the best - I'm not saying ANYTHING close to that, but who knows the consequences of this administration to decide if his presidency was the worst.  I think anybody even rating Clinton's presidency the worst is a moron because enough time hasn't passed.

EDIT: and Clinton's presidency wasn't the worst anyway.  I've always said Harding's was the worst.

[jokerman]

I think anybody even rating Clinton's presidency the worst is a moron because enough time hasn't passed.

No, they would be morons because Clinton presided over unprecedented peace and prosperity.

[Verily]

I think anybody even rating Clinton's presidency the worst is a moron because enough time hasn't passed.

No, they would be morons because Clinton presided over unprecedented peace and prosperity.

I wouldn't call it unprecedented. The country was very peaceful and prosperous during Coolidge's presidency, too, but he rarely gets high marks.

[dead0man]

Any Historian that would make that judgement today isn't much of a Historian.

[memphis]

>61% of historians are morons. How is Bush the worst when the predecessors of him who've taken similar actions (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson), are the best?

Because they were all more effective than Bush. They're not ranking him poorly on expansion of powers alone.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

As much as I hate to say it, I agree with Phil.  We should wait at least 20 years to rank a Presidency.  In 1952, Harry Truman was a failure, but look at him now.  It's far too early to judge him, or Clinton, or Bush 41.

[J. J.]

I think anybody even rating Clinton's presidency the worst is a moron because enough time hasn't passed.

No, they would be morons because Clinton presided over unprecedented peace and prosperity.

They why isn't his choice candidate cleaning up?

[Person Man]

Then again, some presidents are bad and stay bad. Only time will tell. What would Bush be remembered for anyway? The war? I wonder how that will go.

[MODU]

Leave it up to the historians 50 years from now to say whether it was the worst or not.

^^^

I always get a kick out of "historians" commenting on the present.  Even they don't know what's going to happen in the near future, let alone the long term, based on current events.  They were wrong with Reagan taking on the USSR, they were wrong with the tech bubble, they were wrong with the near-term 9/11 after math, and they'll probably be wrong here.  If I were a historian, I would say that the current historians are the worst ever.

[jokerman]

I think anybody even rating Clinton's presidency the worst is a moron because enough time hasn't passed.

No, they would be morons because Clinton presided over unprecedented peace and prosperity.

They why isn't his choice candidate cleaning up?

Forgetfullness is a principle vice of voters.

[Keystone Phil]

Then again, some presidents are bad and stay bad.

Well, that's true but as you go on to say, only time will tell. This isn't even about the Bush Presidency being "bad." They're claiming it is the worst. That's really jumping the gun.

[SPC]

I think anybody even rating Clinton's presidency the worst is a moron because enough time hasn't passed.

No, they would be morons because Clinton presided over unprecedented peace and prosperity.

I'm sure Vince Foster, the Branch Davidians, and 500,000 dead Iraqis love the "peace" Bill Clinton gave us.  

>61% of historians are morons. How is Bush the worst when the predecessors of him who've taken similar actions (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson), are the best?

Because they were all more effective than Bush. They're not ranking him poorly on expansion of powers alone.

Effective in what? Reducing liberty?

[War on Want]

I think anybody even rating Clinton's presidency the worst is a moron because enough time hasn't passed.

No, they would be morons because Clinton presided over unprecedented peace and prosperity.

I'm sure Vince Foster, the Branch Davidians, and 500,000 dead Iraqis love the "peace" Bill Clinton gave us.  

>61% of historians are morons. How is Bush the worst when the predecessors of him who've taken similar actions (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson), are the best?

Because they were all more effective than Bush. They're not ranking him poorly on expansion of powers alone.

Effective in what? Reducing liberty?

If you consider Social Security, Social Reform, the Abolishment of Slavery, the Equal Rights Amendment and the League of Nations to be reductions in freedoms then yes. Not that they are and if they were then those reductions in freedom should have happened.

[SPC]

I think anybody even rating Clinton's presidency the worst is a moron because enough time hasn't passed.

No, they would be morons because Clinton presided over unprecedented peace and prosperity.

I'm sure Vince Foster, the Branch Davidians, and 500,000 dead Iraqis love the "peace" Bill Clinton gave us.  

>61% of historians are morons. How is Bush the worst when the predecessors of him who've taken similar actions (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson), are the best?

Because they were all more effective than Bush. They're not ranking him poorly on expansion of powers alone.

Effective in what? Reducing liberty?

If you consider Social Security, Social Reform, the Abolishment of Slavery, the Equal Rights Amendment and the League of Nations to be reductions in freedoms then yes. Not that they are and if they were then those reductions in freedom should have happened.

Of all of those, only the third one could be considered an advancement for liberty. Social security is based on the principle that you don't control your own retirement, and the government must protect you from yourself. Social reform is too vague to consider either way. Slavery was abolished at the expense of the right to self-government, and took 600,000 unnecessary deaths to accomplish. The Equal Rights Amendment was based on the idea that the government knows how to hire employees better than you do. The League of Nations was another step toward world governance and inspired the anti-American United Nations.

[Tonberry]

I've always said Harding's was the worst.

Haha. Topping Harding would be pretty hard, one might say.

Wasn't he the one who said the following?:

"I am not fit for this office and never should have been here."

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Leave it up to the historians 50 years from now to say whether it was the worst or not.

^^^

I always get a kick out of "historians" commenting on the present.  Even they don't know what's going to happen in the near future, let alone the long term, based on current events.  They were wrong with Reagan taking on the USSR, they were wrong with the tech bubble, they were wrong with the near-term 9/11 after math, and they'll probably be wrong here.  If I were a historian, I would say that the current historians are the worst ever.

I don't see much 'mistakes' here. (The Economic Historians I know of saw the tech bubble coming miles off..) And anyway what is the point of history is not to understand the present?

In saying that I think I agree that this is way to early fully judge. But to be honest, I expect Bush to be judged as worse than he is already.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Historians also put JFK in the top 10 presidencies. I hardly think he was that great.

[Michael Z]

Historians do tend to be lefties

That's because reality has a left-wing bias.

Seriously though, it depends on how you judge Bush. Did he succeed in what he set out to do? Let's take this one by one.

That massive tax cut he basically ran on in 2000? Achieved, but not without difficult consequences for the economy, the results of which we are starting to see now. The historical comparisons to Harding's- and Coolidge's lassez-faire approach and how it lead to a build-up to the economic crisis of the late 1920s is almost too eerie to bear (though I don't necessarily want to jump into the boat a lot of journalists have gotten into and melodramatically scream "Another Great Depression", because that really remains to be seen, and I remain skeptical as to whether it'll be AS severe as a lot of people say). It does bear mentioning that Harding and Coolidge themselves aren't exactly viewed as top-raking Presidents either.

Iraq? You need to wear blinkers the size of Siberia not to view it as a complete and utter disaster.

Privatising social security? Never achieved, while Karl Rove's dream of a Republican hegemony that will last for decades looks to be in tatters.

The world is arguably less safe now than it was immediately after 9/11. Iran is now the biggest regional power in the Middle East, partly because of Iraq.

Bin Laden has not been captured and is likely to be still at large.

Politically, America is probably more divided along partisan lines than since the days of the Lincoln Presidency.

I could go on, but the signs aren't looking good for Bubba. All that said, it'd be too hasty to judge right now how Bush's long-term standing will be. I personally suspect that it won't be pretty for him and that he will join the likes of Harding and Buchanan as the all-time worst Presidents, but that's me and I have an admittedly biased view as things stand.

[SPC]

I've always said Harding's was the worst.

Haha. Topping Harding would be pretty hard, one might say.

Wasn't he the one who said the following?:

"I am not fit for this office and never should have been here."

At least he was honest.

[specific_name]

61% of historians are jumping the gun. Seriously.

[JohnFKennedy]

I think anybody even rating Clinton's presidency the worst is a moron because enough time hasn't passed.

No, they would be morons because Clinton presided over unprecedented peace and prosperity.

I'm sure Vince Foster, the Branch Davidians, and 500,000 dead Iraqis love the "peace" Bill Clinton gave us. 

>61% of historians are morons. How is Bush the worst when the predecessors of him who've taken similar actions (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson), are the best?

Because they were all more effective than Bush. They're not ranking him poorly on expansion of powers alone.

Effective in what? Reducing liberty?

If you consider Social Security, Social Reform, the Abolishment of Slavery, the Equal Rights Amendment and the League of Nations to be reductions in freedoms then yes. Not that they are and if they were then those reductions in freedom should have happened.

Of all of those, only the third one could be considered an advancement for liberty. Social security is based on the principle that you don't control your own retirement, and the government must protect you from yourself. Social reform is too vague to consider either way. Slavery was abolished at the expense of the right to self-government, and took 600,000 unnecessary deaths to accomplish. The Equal Rights Amendment was based on the idea that the government knows how to hire employees better than you do. The League of Nations was another step toward world governance and inspired the anti-American United Nations.

Ever heard of 'positive liberty' as opposed to 'negative liberty'?