Nixon!

Say what you will about unneccessary military deaths... the title of 'worst president' should be reserved for someone who actively attacked the system of government. Bush is sneaky and underhanded, but he's never actively tried to destroy the authority of other branches of government. He's never done anything close to what Nixon did. (As far as we know.)

If you think he lied to bring us into a war and caused tons of deaths, I understand. But that makes him a killer... we've had lots of those as presidents. Is he a worse killer than other killers? Maybe. But he's not a worse president than other presidents. Andrew Jackson openly defied the Supreme Court... can you imagine if Bush did that today?

"In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant."

41 separate historians made this joke?? What gives? Were they asked this in a room together, or did they just happen to read that bon mot in some historian journal and all rattle it off? A very weird sentence.

Ingen, did you read the entire article?

"Bush is sneaky and underhanded, but he’s never actively tried to destroy the authority of other branches of government."

Historically overreaching signing statements? Brash circumvention of FISA with respect to wiretapping? Both of these actions undermine the legislative branch's authority.

But your point is well taken about Andrew Jackson -- he spearheaded some of the worst genocide that has ever been seen in the United States. And other presidents during his time condoned such actions as well. So no, I don't think Bush is the worst president of all time, but I think his reprieve comes from the times, not from the man.

But what makes Bush the worst modern president of all time, in my book, was his handling of the post-9/11 situation. The article asserts that the greatest and worst presidents emerge during times of great crisis. After 9/11, a great leader would have united both parties, asked sacrifices of the American people (and you bet they would've complied), and harnessed our alliances with our democratic allies to do whatever was necessary. Instead, Bush stiff-armed the Democrats, asked Americans to keep driving their SUV's and getting tax cuts -- i.e., no sacrifices whatsoever except of the lives of young, poor men -- and treated allied countries who weren't 100% behind us condescendingly. He bungled a massive, MASSIVE opportunity.

What was the opportunity?

The opportunity to ask Americans to make sacrifices. The opportunity to reach out to the opposition party and work harmoniously and w/o acrimony. The opportunity to take advantage of the huge wellspring of international support of America, rather than alienate them. Remember the few weeks after 9/11?! A great leader would've molded that to confront the issue of terrorism - Bush squandered it.

"the worst modern president of all time"
-I think your point about historical contigency is spot on, to the point that 'worst pres of all time' is basically a totally pointless speculation, especially at this juncture. I think you can count Katrina pretty goddamn heavily against him too. His particular brand of cronyism at this point in time is also, I think, horrifyingly insidious. Watch him shake that administration up! Isn't it beautiful!

Why is asking America to make sacrifices required? This isn't World War II, I'm pretty sure we can deal with terrorism without rationing food. If you're talking about just gas, I don't really think that's the long term solution. Sure, it takes money out of the 'bad' region, but then the Middle East will just be a poor chaotic region (similar to Africa) as opposed to the moderately wealthy chaotic region that we have now. While Africa doesn't threaten the US directly in the same way that the Middle East does, I don't really think it's a good model for a long term solution. Taking the money out of the Middle East doesn't eliminate the issues there, it just keeps those issues more local.

Back to the topic at hand, overreaching on signing statements means nothing. He can say whatever he wants when he signs documents, it carries no weight and changes no laws. He might think it does, but it doesn't.

I agree that FISA is a bigger problem. But to some degree, you have to give a president leeway to listen to legal advisors. He brashly ignored the FISA rules, but he had actual lawyers telling him it was ok. He'll go to court and he'll be told he can't do that anymore and that will be the end of it. I would seperate the ignoring of occasional laws (especially when you've got at least a minimal argument for why you didn't breach them) from actively working against the system. Ignoring a law is not the same as attacking the law-making process.

Nixon did that. Jackson did that. They're worse.

Oh, and Jon May is right about that sentence. I thought it was really weird too.

"Why is asking America to make sacrifices required?"

You're right. The national debt is a good thing.

That's unrelated to 9/11.

Crazymonk, I don't mean to be a little pessimisstic, but more realistic... I don't think Bush had a big opportunity. Take Bill Clinton, for example. You told me that his museum primarily focused on his international accomplishments... did the rest of the world remember those at all? I think that there are more reasons than just Bush that some parts of the world do not like the U.S.. In fact, I think it is a little more hyped because of the media than anything. As for uniting the parties with harmony, remember when Bush Sr. raised taxes and the Democrats nailed him for it? Took him down? I think it's a little naive really... but I like that you still have idealism. I just don't think your idealism has definite boundaries. In other words, give me something I can put my hands around, not generalizations about "confronting the issue of terrorism." What does that mean anyway? Sorry to be such a ninny.

Ugh, and I'm still slowly reading that Rolling Stone article (not enough free time anymore) and one thing it hits Bush for, which I always think is unfair, is the economy. Say what you will about his policies helping or not helping... the problem with the economy didn't originate with him. The economy was falling hard post internet boom and then 9/11 destroyed a simply staggeringly enormous amount of American wealth.

The economy of the country essentially stopped for a week, how much wealth does that erase?

You can argue that his policies didn't help the situation, but the fact that we lost the Clinton era budget surpluses is only minimally linked to Bush. There's no president, regardless of politics, who wouldn't have lost those surpluses.

Perhaps, but by stubbornly refusing to cancel his tax cuts, Bush no doubt accelerated the growth of the defecit. Say what you want about Bush not being responsible for the economy as a whole, but all but the most neocon of the financial community has at this point abandoned all trust of the Bush administration's responsibility in this area.

C. Chip, I really hope you take the time to read the article. You might then understand what I'm trying to get at. It's true that being a divider not a uniter is not unique to Bush (although Clinton was far more compromising than him -- perhaps because of the makeup of Congress) -- but it's more about *when* Bush decided to be a divider. As the article points out, Lincoln and FDR are considered great leaders by historians because they brought both sides together in times of great need. Doris Kearns Goodwin's new book on Lincoln's cabinet also speaks to this. Bush? Rather than taking advantage of the moment to bring both sides togeter, he took advantage of the American's people trust to stiff-arm the opposition even more than usual. Really sick, if you think about it.

I won't pretend that I can really talk about our economy, but I'm sorry, I'm two sentences in and I've gotta stop and say again:

"Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th...."

-Didn't we pretty much have this? And didn't they prove that without overt ideological implications that feed directly into the rhetoric they're so good at vomiting on us (i.e. when those implications work directly against them), they're absolutely incapable of leading this country as a whole... or, really I should say, they prove unequivocally that they're straight up BAD for this nation?

I'm sorry, did I say bad? I meant as horrible as humanly possible.

Ingen says, "He can say whatever he wants when he signs documents, it carries no weight and changes no laws."

And Congress can pass whatever laws it wants; it carries no weight and changes no executive-branch policy.

How is it not attacking the structure of our government to claim that the executive branch is not responsible to the other two? It both decreases the administration's legitimacy and encourages future presidents to do likewise.

I don't know if historians will view him as the worst president ever, but I do. Christ, at least Regan seemed charming and not condescending all the time. Bush thinks he knows what's right for us, and even if we all scream no he will do it. He is the decider. Sure, Jackson may have been terrible (though who wasn't commiting genocide at taht time in america), but I wasn't alive during those times. I am alive now and this man is one of the worst things to happen to our country (baring 9/11) in a long long time.

Well, I don't know if historians will view him as the worst president ever, but I do. Christ, at least Regan seemed charming and not condescending all the time. Bush thinks he knows what's right for us, and even if we all scream no he will do it. He is the decider. Sure, Jackson may have been terrible (though who wasn't commiting genocide at taht time in america), but I wasn't alive during those times. I am alive now and this man is one of the worst things to happen to our country (baring 9/11) in a long long time.

"condescending all the time"
-seriously, I grow non-partisan queasy every time the asshole opens his mouthhole.

As a member of the choir that this author is preaching to, I agree and am consistently amazed that Americans aren't enraged. But I feel like "worst" is hard to judge objectively (can we even find a consensus about what's important to us as a nation?), and I have my doubts about this author's objectivity anyway ("paleo-conservative" doesn't strike me as a term free of bias, and he's awfully mean to Hoover).

I had to look up "tendentious," and it's my new favorite fifty-cent word.

PS. I don't think Bush actually wore the shirt at the top of this story. I bet it's photoshopped.

When he gets into how historians are 'generally really objective' or whatever- goddamn, aren't we well past spouting shit like that? Dude needs to read some Foucault. And yeah, again, a member of the choir.

Yeah, but he sure as shit wore that belt buckle. That's what I, personally, would love to string him up by.

Hey, you might be surprised by the apathy that youngsters (some of whom read Rolling Stone) have toward the Bush administration. They'll probably end up skipping the article, but I still don't think it's completely fair to see it as purely preaching to the choir.

As for Hoover, I have much more respect for him than I do for Bush (e.g., Hoover, in a time before commercial flight, traveled out of the country tens of times before becoming president. He was also a voracious reader. Bush, wealthy and with many options, left the country twice before he was president. (I think Mexico and Canada.)) And the writer does say that Hoover has his defenders. But he's right about one thing: Hoover stubbornly stuck with his individualist politics during the Great Depression, and it failed miserably. FDR may've been in the right place at the right time, but his solutions actually worked, at least from the perspective of his contemporary Americans.

i decided he was the worst president in history a long time ago. but lately, i've been thinking more along the lines of a "worst presidents club." mainly because i came to realize that Bush I is just as awful a human being as his son, even if he didn't commit quite as many subversive, devious, anti-american acts; and that Reagan is the reason why i hate everybody and everything today.

i don't want to go into it, but let's face it: Reagan destroyed america over the course of 8 years, turning a once-sort-of-politically-conscious populace into a fully materialistic media-obsessed borg-like entity comprised of cellphone users and SUV drivers.

i'm not saying that consumerism didn't kick into high gear in the post-war 50's, but Reagan (through Reagonomics) helped seal the coffin of capitalism and washed away completely the concept of citizens having a direct, active role in their government.

at least that's how it feels. also, he's the reason millions still die from AIDS. so, fuck him. i'm glad he turned into a fucking vegetable.

2 notes:

1. i think marco helps make my point. why are young people so apathetic? i hate baby boomers, and am generally opposed to the 60's as a rule, but the truth is that young people used to care about shit. now, they're just a bunch of fucking fuckwad fuckheads who fuck a lot.

2. i realize cell phones and SUVs weren't around in the 80's, but i think you get my drift about reagan paving the way for such gluttony and audacity.

Man, I wish I had an SUV and a cell phone.

I'm a big fan of consumption... I just need to figure out a way to get some money.

Roosevelt is remembered fondly because of World War II. If the war hadn't come along to improve the economy, the depression would have ended a lot later... possibly after his term. We might look at him as someone who tried really hard but failed to impact the situation. World War II saved him on the economic front.

He seemed to do a pretty good job at war fighting, though, so good for him.

Is it actually possible, though, to separate the war from the depression? Is there really an 'if' there? Honest question, I don't know a ton about this.

While World War II, got the US out of the Depression, you are insultingly wrong about saying that Roosevelt is remembered fondly because of the war only. When people think Roosevelt, they usually think New Deal first. He was elected to a 3rd term before the US entered the war. No president would've been able to end the Depression before the war, but FDR isn't lauded for ending the Depression. He's lauded for the way he *handled* the unshakable Depression. He gave Americans work, he gave Americans hope, and all from scratch. There may've been some negative repercussions that came out of some of his policies, but government has rightly adjusted itself over time (and in my book, sometimes overadjusted). People of older generations *revere* FDR, and more often than not it has to do with his public works projects, which changed lives. The Depression was out of his hands, as was the war. What's to be respected is how he handled both.

Also, both conservative and liberal historians rate FDR highly, and they're not narrow-minded enough to ignore his first two terms. Even a Federalist Society vote ranked him the 3rd best president.

And before you counter that how can I blame the recession on Bush, but not the continuing Depression on FDR: I don't. Bush didn't cause the post-9/11 recession, but I think he handled it very poorly.

side note: if you haven't read the plot against america by philip roth yet, you should. it's a lot of fun reading his scenario of how fdr gets ousted from office (non-spoiler, it's on the first page) and the US becomes isolationist and signs a non-aggression treaty with hitler. interestingly plausible.

My points remains that if the depression had lasted for another thirty years, it wouldn't have matter how much of an effort FDR would have made or not made. He may have been a good leader, but nobody's going to rank a leader highly for governing over a twenty year depression.

That's, of course, assuming the country didn't fall into civil war... which it probably would have if the Depression had lasted for another twenty years. Then, I suppose, the outcome of that war would determine FDR's fate.

Regardless of what anybody claims, people want results, not leadership. The republicans are going to be hit hard in the next election not because Bush has been a bad leader but because he hasn't been achieving results. If the war was "over" and the economy was going strong, even if he was still an ass, Bush would be looked upon much more fondly. His leadership isn't the issue, his success rate is the issue.

His success rate is SHOCKINGLY low. He really needs to have something, somewhere work out in his favor.

I can't deny that the times have a lot to do with making the man. But when it comes to dealing with the times, FDR aced the test. You can't rate a president by counterfactuals.

"My points remains that if the depression had lasted for another thirty years, it wouldn’t have matter how much of an effort FDR would have made or not made. He may have been a good leader, but nobody’s going to rank a leader highly for governing over a twenty year depression."
-That seems to me the same as saying, it doesn't matter who the president is, it's all circumstantial anyway. I mean, what's a good leader if not one who acheives results? It's everyone else's fault that Bush's stated objectives are not achieved? Is it that Bush's policies are good and we just don't get it? He'd love if that were the case, but it isn't. The whole point is that the "war" is not over in part because it shouldn't have started (I believe you mean Iraq? or the war on terror generally- if the latter, I don't have time, but that doesn't absolve him any further- every time he opens his mouth about that, I have to take a shower to wash the shit off).

The president doesn't exist in a vacuum, but let's not pretend that his leadership and his success rate are totally unrelated, either.

I agree that the Presidency doesn't exist in a vacuum, but I think that FDR in particular got very lucky (from the "rate a president" point of view) with the beginning of World War II. It solved the issue of the Depression when his policies alone and leadership alone weren't.

Now, if you want to argue that he lead us into World War II to solve the Great Depression, THEN you've got yourself a good argument.

Ugh, forgive me for not proofreading.

Hey, cm. I just got a chance to read the article. Your
statement:

"As the article points out, Lincoln and FDR are considered great leaders by historians because they brought both sides together in times of great need"

First, the article did not really say this, and secondly, even if it did, it's not really true. People hated Lincoln...Republicans and Democrats... he was extremely unpopular as a president.. Only his death would begin to turn the tide of opinion. FDR was also fiercely hated by some, but of course, loved by others.

In regard to "confronting the issue of terrorism" I could not find many mentions in the article about that. So I while I wholeheartedly despise Bush and his administration with you, I think whatever strategy we are using to combat his policies as a nation are not working-- thus, being able to articulate just exactly what you are feelings are about what he could have done differently to "confront the issue of terrorism" seems important.

I, for instance, do not know what would have worked better in regard to our initial response after 9/11... I'm no fan of the Iraq War though...

So, anyway, back to the idea of Bush being the worst president of all time? I'd probably still go with Andrew Jackson-- although he was quite popular back in his day.

I'm still unclear on how "asking Americans to make sacrifices" would have helped to fight terrorism?

I'm pretty sure the terrorists don't hate us for our deficit spending (although, wouldn't it be awesome if they did?).

Do you really think Bush was saving the troops for Iraq? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me... by the way, I like conspiracy theories... You should post some some time.

Well, maybe it's sort of unfair to say Lincoln brought both sides together when the whole issue was secession. But the article does say: "Presented with arduous, at times seemingly impossible circumstances, they rallied the nation, governed brilliantly and left the republic more secure than when they entered office."

As for confronting terrorism, I've already mentioned twice the three opportunities that Bush missed: 1) not alienating the Democrats, 2) asking Americans to make sacrifices, and 3) not condescending to allied countries. Our response was fine right after 9/11, but eventually Bush's arrogant attitude started working against us.

You want another example? He should've put more men on the ground in Afghanistan -- we would've more likely caught Osama at Tora Bora if we had. Why didn't he? Because he was saving them for the Iraq war.

As I said, I don't think Bush is the worst president of all time -- again, he never explicitly ordered genocide. But I do think he is the worst modern president.

If it was true, it wouldn't be a conspiracy, it would be strategy.

W makes Taft look good.
The current Bush administration makes Nixon look like a commie.
Ever wonder why no citizen will admit to voting for a Republician toward the end of their term (Nixon, Regan, Bush 41, W).
Yet we Americans keep falling for it over and over and over.
Damn shame it is...damn shame.