Future approval

[Platypus]

What will people think of the Presidents of our times? Will they think of them as we do, or completely differently?

Also, how do we think of the Presidents of the 1950s? How different was it from then?

[dunn]

Clinton will be adore by democrats and ind, hated by reps.
Bush, well if he doesn't get elected they will just treat him as a one term president , if he wins it will come down to GWOT and economics. but the dems will never like hime

[minionofmidas]

Fifty years on, those two certainly won't be hated.
You have to have some really great achievements to your name to inspire hatred that much after...the only American president that does is Franklin D Roosevelt.
I guess they'll be considered as more or less unimportant, but it's just a guess.

[Gustaf]

Clinton won't be hated when the current genreation of Clinton-hating Republicans hsa passed away, I think. Bush is hard to judge, he could become a Reagan and be universally approved of, or pass into oblivion and disapproval. Of course, the extremists on both sides will hate/love him just as much as they do now.

[zachman]

Clinton will be remembered as Grover Cleveland and Bush will be remembered negatively like McKinley.

[dazzleman]

Political alignments change, and I don't assume that the "Republicans" of the future will automatically love George Bush, while the "Democrats" of the future will automatically love Bill Clinton.  Issues change and loyalties shift.  I would bet the Franklin Roosevelt is more highly thought of among today's Republican's than Herbert Hoover is.

Having said that, I think that in the long run, Bill Clinton will be forgotten and irrelevant, while vaguely held responsible for not dealing with serious issues during his term.  His big claim to fame - the economy - is not something really considered in the long run.  Nobody knows or cares how the economy was doing while Lincoln was president, and the economy does not really play a factor in how any great president is judged.  One thing for sure is that nobody became a great president by presiding over a strong economy alone.  Clinton will be looked at as an unserious president for an unserious time, and his various escapades, and the American public's tolerance for them, as a form of escapism.

Bush's legacy depends on the outcome of his effort to defeat the scourge of militant Islam and the threat it poses to decent, peace-loving people around the world.  Bush is somewhat in the position of Winston Churchill before World War II, telling people a lot of things they really didn't want to hear.  Many Europeans favor peace at any price, and seek only to deflect the terrorist threat onto other people, namely their American "allies."  Some big-name liberals have publicly said that terrorists should only attack areas of the country that vote Republican.  There is an unwillingness among those on the left to face up to this issue.  They would rather blame the president for it.

But if Bush is successful ultimately, as I believe he will be, then he will have earned an honored place in world history.

[Gustaf]

Political alignments change, and I don't assume that the "Republicans" of the future will automatically love George Bush, while the "Democrats" of the future will automatically love Bill Clinton.  Issues change and loyalties shift.  I would bet the Franklin Roosevelt is more highly thought of among today's Republican's than Herbert Hoover is.

Having said that, I think that in the long run, Bill Clinton will be forgotten and irrelevant, while vaguely held responsible for not dealing with serious issues during his term.  His big claim to fame - the economy - is not something really considered in the long run.  Nobody knows or cares how the economy was doing while Lincoln was president, and the economy does not really play a factor in how any great president is judged.  One thing for sure is that nobody became a great president by presiding over a strong economy alone.  Clinton will be looked at as an unserious president for an unserious time, and his various escapades, and the American public's tolerance for them, as a form of escapism.

Bush's legacy depends on the outcome of his effort to defeat the scourge of militant Islam and the threat it poses to decent, peace-loving people around the world.  Bush is somewhat in the position of Winston Churchill before World War II, telling people a lot of things they really didn't want to hear.  Many Europeans favor peace at any price, and seek only to deflect the terrorist threat onto other people, namely their American "allies."  Some big-name liberals have publicly said that terrorists should only attack areas of the country that vote Republican.  There is an unwillingness among those on the left to face up to this issue.  They would rather blame the president for it.

But if Bush is successful ultimately, as I believe he will be, then he will have earned an honored place in world history.

You make some good points, but I think Clinton might be connected with a time of innocence and good times, strange as it may sound. During his presidency the threat of the Soviet Union had been removed and the threat of Musli fundamentalism had not yet emerged (well, it had, but few people bothered about it...) and the US beat back the economic challenges of Japan and Europe. It was a golden age, when the worse thing a president could do was being unfaithful, etc. I see that as a possible way it'll be remembered. I'm not talking about historians though, but more of the general mood.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Kind of like the "era/age of good feeling"

[TheWildCard]

I think Bush will be respected he'll be up there with FDR Reagan and Truman as men who stood up to evil.

Bill Clinton will be remembered as somewhat of a Richard Nixon type figure, only less disliked.

[zachman]

I think Bush I, Clinton, and W. will be remembered like the string of Presidents after the Civil War ended. No one will remember all of the strings of economic booms and recessions, and I think terrorism will most likely fade as an issue, and Bush's claim to fame will be that he was president during 9/11.

[ilikeverin]

I think they'll be forgotten... plain and simple.  Well, maybe not forgotten, but just another name in a textbook.

I'm afraid you overestimate my generation

[MarkDel]

This is a fairly easy question. Clinton will be neither hated nor loved. His legacy of economic success, inadvertent though it may have been, will be overshadowed by Lewinsky/Impeachment.

Bush...well...it all depends on how the War on Terror plays out and whether or not Iraq continues its positive drive towards the first true Arab Democracy. If Bush wins a second term and his policies continue to be successful, he will be treated VERY KINDLY by historians. His Bush Doctrine will be one of the defining policies of American international relations, plus his Axis of Evil speech will go down as a defining moment like Reagan's Tear Down This Wall speech. If Bush has problems in his second term, he will still be treated relatively well because history tends to look favorably upon Presidents who take decisive action. Obviously the only way Bush receives bad grades historically is if Terrorism grows into a massive problem and you see continued terrorist acts on US soil for more than a decade, including nuclear and/or biological attack. Also, even if Bush is voted out of office and fails to earn a second term, he will likely be treated well by historians. Remember that Winston Churchill was voted out at the end of World War II, but that did not prevent him from taking his rightful place among the greatest men of the 20th Century, and arguably the finest Prime Minister in England's glorious history.

[Platypus]

The circumstances in Britian in world war two are very different from circumstances here at the moment.


I find it mildly insulting that the two should be compared.

[Gustaf]

This is a fairly easy question. Clinton will be neither hated nor loved. His legacy of economic success, inadvertent though it may have been, will be overshadowed by Lewinsky/Impeachment.

Bush...well...it all depends on how the War on Terror plays out and whether or not Iraq continues its positive drive towards the first true Arab Democracy. If Bush wins a second term and his policies continue to be successful, he will be treated VERY KINDLY by historians. His Bush Doctrine will be one of the defining policies of American international relations, plus his Axis of Evil speech will go down as a defining moment like Reagan's Tear Down This Wall speech. If Bush has problems in his second term, he will still be treated relatively well because history tends to look favorably upon Presidents who take decisive action. Obviously the only way Bush receives bad grades historically is if Terrorism grows into a massive problem and you see continued terrorist acts on US soil for more than a decade, including nuclear and/or biological attack. Also, even if Bush is voted out of office and fails to earn a second term, he will likely be treated well by historians. Remember that Winston Churchill was voted out at the end of World War II, but that did not prevent him from taking his rightful place among the greatest men of the 20th Century, and arguably the finest Prime Minister in England's glorious history.

I agree with Hughento that if Bush is voted out now he and Churchill will not be comparable.

[dazzleman]

This is a fairly easy question. Clinton will be neither hated nor loved. His legacy of economic success, inadvertent though it may have been, will be overshadowed by Lewinsky/Impeachment.

Bush...well...it all depends on how the War on Terror plays out and whether or not Iraq continues its positive drive towards the first true Arab Democracy. If Bush wins a second term and his policies continue to be successful, he will be treated VERY KINDLY by historians. His Bush Doctrine will be one of the defining policies of American international relations, plus his Axis of Evil speech will go down as a defining moment like Reagan's Tear Down This Wall speech. If Bush has problems in his second term, he will still be treated relatively well because history tends to look favorably upon Presidents who take decisive action. Obviously the only way Bush receives bad grades historically is if Terrorism grows into a massive problem and you see continued terrorist acts on US soil for more than a decade, including nuclear and/or biological attack. Also, even if Bush is voted out of office and fails to earn a second term, he will likely be treated well by historians. Remember that Winston Churchill was voted out at the end of World War II, but that did not prevent him from taking his rightful place among the greatest men of the 20th Century, and arguably the finest Prime Minister in England's glorious history.

I agree with Hughento that if Bush is voted out now he and Churchill will not be comparable.

Churchill was voted out after a dramatic win in World War II, during which the British suffered greatly.

As far as Bush and the War on Militant Islam go, many have not even woken up to the fact that there is a war.  Many Europeans hope to deflect the consequences of the war onto their "allies" while some Americans [mainly liberals] simply wish for attacks to happen in parts of the country other than where they live.

If we were to use the World War II analogy, we are probably more in the 1938 period, during which the war had really begun (with Hitler's attacks on Austria, Czechoslovakia, etc.) but many had not yet really faced up to the need to fight it.

Whatever the outcome of this war, it will probably not be as dramatic as the surrender of Germany, but there could be very dramatic attacks.

Bush is like Churchill in that he has been a voice telling Europeans and liberal Americans things they don't want to hear, so rather than hating those who want to attack them, they hate him.  This similar treatment of Churchill by the British people before the war ended up costing them dearly, leading to a very difficult war that they could have won easily if they had woken up sooner.

[Platypus]

there has been one attack that has killed a few thousand people.

YUes, it was tragic, BUT it in no way compares to world war two.

Nowhere NEAR.

[Gustaf]

This is a fairly easy question. Clinton will be neither hated nor loved. His legacy of economic success, inadvertent though it may have been, will be overshadowed by Lewinsky/Impeachment.

Bush...well...it all depends on how the War on Terror plays out and whether or not Iraq continues its positive drive towards the first true Arab Democracy. If Bush wins a second term and his policies continue to be successful, he will be treated VERY KINDLY by historians. His Bush Doctrine will be one of the defining policies of American international relations, plus his Axis of Evil speech will go down as a defining moment like Reagan's Tear Down This Wall speech. If Bush has problems in his second term, he will still be treated relatively well because history tends to look favorably upon Presidents who take decisive action. Obviously the only way Bush receives bad grades historically is if Terrorism grows into a massive problem and you see continued terrorist acts on US soil for more than a decade, including nuclear and/or biological attack. Also, even if Bush is voted out of office and fails to earn a second term, he will likely be treated well by historians. Remember that Winston Churchill was voted out at the end of World War II, but that did not prevent him from taking his rightful place among the greatest men of the 20th Century, and arguably the finest Prime Minister in England's glorious history.

I agree with Hughento that if Bush is voted out now he and Churchill will not be comparable.

Churchill was voted out after a dramatic win in World War II, during which the British suffered greatly.

As far as Bush and the War on Militant Islam go, many have not even woken up to the fact that there is a war.  Many Europeans hope to deflect the consequences of the war onto their "allies" while some Americans [mainly liberals] simply wish for attacks to happen in parts of the country other than where they live.

If we were to use the World War II analogy, we are probably more in the 1938 period, during which the war had really begun (with Hitler's attacks on Austria, Czechoslovakia, etc.) but many had not yet really faced up to the need to fight it.

Whatever the outcome of this war, it will probably not be as dramatic as the surrender of Germany, but there could be very dramatic attacks.

Bush is like Churchill in that he has been a voice telling Europeans and liberal Americans things they don't want to hear, so rather than hating those who want to attack them, they hate him.  This similar treatment of Churchill by the British people before the war ended up costing them dearly, leading to a very difficult war that they could have won easily if they had woken up sooner.

The big difference is that the terrorists do not pose a threat even close to that of the Nazis. Hitler COULD actually have won, at some point at least, but the terrorists have no chance of winning. I think terrorist organizations, like all ORGANIZATIONS, are having their powers very exggerated. There's a difference between a bunch of scum-bags living in caves in Afghanistan and one of Europe-s biggest and most powerful coutnries.  

[dazzleman]

The big difference is that the terrorists do not pose a threat even close to that of the Nazis. Hitler COULD actually have won, at some point at least, but the terrorists have no chance of winning. I think terrorist organizations, like all ORGANIZATIONS, are having their powers very exggerated. There's a difference between a bunch of scum-bags living in caves in Afghanistan and one of Europe-s biggest and most powerful coutnries.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The terrorists pose a different type of threat than the Nazis did.  They don't need to "win" in the same sense as the Nazis in order to damage us severely.  With a strongly global and highly sophistocated economy, they can inflict severe economic damage with a few well-placed attacks.  If they were to take control of countries that produce oil, or effectively sabotage the oil production, they could destroy our economies.

There is also the threat that they could smuggle nuclear weapons into the country and kill large numbers of people.  So they don't need to win in the conventional sense to have a huge negative impact on the lives of millions of people.

[Gustaf]

The big difference is that the terrorists do not pose a threat even close to that of the Nazis. Hitler COULD actually have won, at some point at least, but the terrorists have no chance of winning. I think terrorist organizations, like all ORGANIZATIONS, are having their powers very exggerated. There's a difference between a bunch of scum-bags living in caves in Afghanistan and one of Europe-s biggest and most powerful coutnries.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The terrorists pose a different type of threat than the Nazis did.  They don't need to "win" in the same sense as the Nazis in order to damage us severely.  With a strongly global and highly sophistocated economy, they can inflict severe economic damage with a few well-placed attacks.  If they were to take control of countries that produce oil, or effectively sabotage the oil production, they could destroy our economies.

There is also the threat that they could smuggle nuclear weapons into the country and kill large numbers of people.  So they don't need to win in the conventional sense to have a huge negative impact on the lives of millions of people.

I don't think the terrorist networks ahve that sot of power, genreally speaking. 9/11 was the exception rather than the rule, and despite the hatred and the war on terror, the terrorists haven't come close to repeating 9/11. Bin Laden is hiding in a cave somewhere or is dead, the Afghanistan War basically wiped out the only terrorist group with real potential.

[dazzleman]

I don't think the terrorist networks ahve that sot of power, genreally speaking. 9/11 was the exception rather than the rule, and despite the hatred and the war on terror, the terrorists haven't come close to repeating 9/11. Bin Laden is hiding in a cave somewhere or is dead, the Afghanistan War basically wiped out the only terrorist group with real potential.

I hope you're right, but I'm not confident.  An attack like 9/11 was relatively easy to carry out, and I think it could be repeated.  It's very hard to protect the number of targets that we have.  That's why we have to take the war to the enemy.

[Gustaf]

I don't think the terrorist networks ahve that sot of power, genreally speaking. 9/11 was the exception rather than the rule, and despite the hatred and the war on terror, the terrorists haven't come close to repeating 9/11. Bin Laden is hiding in a cave somewhere or is dead, the Afghanistan War basically wiped out the only terrorist group with real potential.

I hope you're right, but I'm not confident.  An attack like 9/11 was relatively easy to carry out, and I think it could be repeated.  It's very hard to protect the number of targets that we have.  That's why we have to take the war to the enemy.

9/11 was planned ahead a lot thogugh wasn't it? I think people understimate the problems of terrorist attacks. You have to have competent people and then plan everything. I read somewhere that 98% of all Palestinian terrorist attempts kill no Israelis. Part of the reason was that something like 4 out of 5 sucide bombers kill no one but themselves in the explosion. Terrorists are usually amateurs. The most imprtoant thing is to make sure that they can't get enough supporters to become more dangerous.

[JohnFKennedy]

Bush is like Churchill in that he has been a voice telling Europeans and liberal Americans things they don't want to hear, so rather than hating those who want to attack them, they hate him.  This similar treatment of Churchill by the British people before the war ended up costing them dearly, leading to a very difficult war that they could have won easily if they had woken up sooner.

Churchill wasn't very popular before WW2 because he had been responsible for several terrible operations in WW1, he was voted out after WW2 because the war had ended and he wasn't particularly good in peace-time so Atlee replaced him. Atlee was mainly voted in because of his promises of free health-care and lots of social benefits that people could now pay more attention to since the end of WW2 and I would like to point out that Churchill became Prime Minister again in 1951.

Churchill wasn't voted in by the public in the first place, once Chamberlain resigned, the House of Commons had to choose a new leader and the only leader the Labour party would accept was Winston Churchill so he led a coalition govt.

[minionofmidas]

Although the Government wasn't dependent on Labour.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In theory... the problem Churchill had was the fact that a lot of the Tory MP's elected in the 1931 farce were very hostile to him and very hostile to his anti-appeasment rhetoric in the 1930's... the fact that the second most prominant anti-appear was Nye Bevan probably didn't help Churchill's image with his backbenchers...

Although Churchill did win the 1951 election, Atlee won more votes overall. At the time "the shires" were heavily over-represented at Westminster... making Atlee's '45 landslide all the more amazing.

[minionofmidas]

I thought that was ended by the 1940s redistrictings?