Historians agree: Worst President Ever

[Vympel]

Link

“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”

America’s historians, it seems, don’t think much of George W. Bush.

Now in all fairness, historians should wait a while before passing judgment on a president’s who served recently, much less one still in office. But the current incumbent is a special case. After all, 81 percent of Americans, according to a recent New York Times poll, believe he’s taken the country on the wrong track. That’s the highest number ever registered. The same poll also says 28 percent have a favorable view of his performance in office, which is also in Nixon-in-the-darkest-days-of-Watergate territory.

But, as George Mason University’s History News Network reports, the historians have a different measure. They want to stack him up against his thirty-three predecessors as the nation’s chief executive. Among historians, there is no doubt into which echelon he falls–his competitors are Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Franklin Pierce, the worst of the presidential worst. But does Bush actually come in dead last?

Yes. History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure.”

This marks a dramatic deterioration for Bush. Previously he wasn’t viewed in the most positive terms, but there was a consensus that he wasn’t the “worst of the worst” either. That was in the spring of 2004. In the meantime, Bush has established himself as the torture president, the basis for his invasion of Iraq has been exposed as a fraud, the Iraq War itself has gone disastrously, the nation’s network of alliances has faded, and the economy has gone into a tailspin–not to mention the bungled handling of relief for victims of hurricane Katrina. In 2004, only 12 percent of historians were ready to place Bush dead last.

Here are some of the comments that the historians furnished:

“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of areas: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”

[Medic]

My initial reaction was of course one of glee but then reality sunk in: damnit if most people even give a damn about history. If 50 years from now there exists an analogue to Fox News and the conservative echo chamber print, airwave and digital media then it won't fucking matter, whatever silver lining can be gleamed from his presidency ("liberator" or "go-it-alone balls" -- not saying those are true or good just what may be) will be touted loudly and proudly and all the negatives will have canned, talking-points answers deflecting or reassigning blame elsewhere.

I want to be proven wrong.

[Shroom Man 777]

But I thought history would decide? Has the Liberal Media also turned The History against this great administration?

And...well...wow, and I know there are folks who still cling to the GOP and prefer them to the Lie-berals. It's sad to see the slow and painful decline of a great country.

[brianeyci]

It was a lot more retarded than that Shroom Man. It was something along the lines of "the deaths will be a footnote" or "fine print in history" or something... classic Bush. I can't remember who in his administration said it, or when.

The bad thing is, future generations will not necessarily mark Bush as the worst President ever, because of academic tone. It will probably be buried in history essays, with conservotard parents not realizing what their children are learning until they actually read their essays. When they do they'll crap their pants and have an uproar, claiming political interference.

The parents never have to get an F for claiming Bush is the greatest President ever, stripping them of their undergraduate degrees, so this changes nothing other than creating a future generation who will make Admiral Vlademar and Illuminatus Primus look like happy go lucky in comparison. Especially if the older generation bombards the generation in the say, 2040's, with tales of how great the past was.

[Ma Deuce]

Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Franklin Pierce, the worst of the presidential worst.

And why is Woodrow Wilson not there? I still think he was the worst president ever, and I'm supremely annoyed how popular history - not just in America, but all over the world - tends to gloss over his reign of terror, not to mention his blatant racism and Confederate sympathies, instead painting him as a near-great or even great president.

[Anguirus]

They want to stack him up against his thirty-three predecessors as the nation’s chief executive.

Oops.

I also agree that Wilson is even worse than Bush, but I'm hard-pressed to think of another that was as bad. Perhaps the strikingly racist Jackson, or a few of Lincoln's immediate predecessors.

[Ma Deuce]

And another thing: who are these nameless historians? I despise articles that don't name the sources they quote.

[Guardsman Bass]

I think it is a little too early to throw Bush in as the "worst of the worst" quite yet; we really need to wait a couple of years until he's out of office to get some better perspective. Case in point: Jackson was quite popular with most of the population (although not the Whigs) when he was in office, and it is only now that we can look back and see him as the racist douchebag that he really was. We need to wait a while and see, for better or for worse, how his legacy pans out in the world and America.

[Surlethe]

The problem with the "history will vindicate neoconservatism" mindset is this: if historians look kindly on Bush, it will be a true vindication of his presidency; if historians don't look kindly on Bush, then they're damned liberal academics.

[Rogue 9]

*Checks the news*

Nope, South Carolina hasn't started a wave of secessions yet. Buchanan still holds the bottom spot.

[ray245]

I think it is a little too early to throw Bush in as the "worst of the worst" quite yet; we really need to wait a couple of years until he's out of office to get some better perspective. Case in point: Jackson was quite popular with most of the population (although not the Whigs) when he was in office, and it is only now that we can look back and see him as the racist douchebag that he really was. We need to wait a while and see, for better or for worse, how his legacy pans out in the world and America.

Quite true, Harry Truman was very unpopular in his time, yet he is a revered figure in history.

[Patrick Degan]

I think it is a little too early to throw Bush in as the "worst of the worst" quite yet; we really need to wait a couple of years until he's out of office to get some better perspective. Case in point: Jackson was quite popular with most of the population (although not the Whigs) when he was in office, and it is only now that we can look back and see him as the racist douchebag that he really was. We need to wait a while and see, for better or for worse, how his legacy pans out in the world and America.

Quite true, Harry Truman was very unpopular in his time, yet he is a revered figure in history.

The difference is that Truman ended World War II, formed NATO, instituted the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and Japan, and desegregated the U.S. Army. He's got negatives to be sure but Harry Truman managed to do lasting good for his time in office. Chimpy, by contrast, is the anti-Midas —everything that man has managed to touch has turned to shit. Twenty or two hundred years isn't going to whitewash his failures in Iraq and New Orleans, his incompetence, his corruption, and his illegality. The fact he had to be installed by the Supreme Court against the will of the people to begin with is enough to tarnish him forever.

[Steven Snyder]

This sort of thing has already been addressed by Bush...

Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history - revisionist historians is what I like to call them.

[Illuminatus Primus]

They want to stack him up against his thirty-three predecessors as the nation’s chief executive.

Oops.

I also agree that Wilson is even worse than Bush, but I'm hard-pressed to think of another that was as bad. Perhaps the strikingly racist Jackson, or a few of Lincoln's immediate predecessors.

Wilson's tenure may have been directly less pleasant as a result of his idiotic choices than Bush's, but the fallout from Bush and the relative decline on America's part will be much starker and deeper.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Let's try harder. Name a couple things Bush did which you like.

Missile defense and pushing for new nuclear power plants. That's...it.

[Mr Bean]

Let's try harder. Name a couple things Bush did which you like.

Missile defense and pushing for new nuclear power plants. That's...it.

Don't forget AIDS money in South Africa, there's three good things hidden in the massive pile of shit that is the Bush Presidency.

[Adrian Laguna]

And another thing: who are these nameless historians? I despise articles that don't name the sources they quote.

They did name the source, History News Network.

Wilson's tenure may have been directly less pleasant as a result of his idiotic choices than Bush's, but the fallout from Bush and the relative decline on America's part will be much starker and deeper.

Certainly in terms of America's standing in the world Bush has been far worse than Wilson. However, in terms of suffering caused world wide, as well as domestic issues, I think Wilson wins. After all, many of Chimpy's stunts were pioneered by ol' Woodrow.

Let's try harder. Name a couple things Bush did which you like.

Missile defense and pushing for new nuclear power plants. That's...it.

That would make him score higher than Wilson (by two points) and Buchanan (by one point).

[Patrick Degan]

Certainly in terms of America's standing in the world Bush has been far worse than Wilson. However, in terms of suffering caused world wide, as well as domestic issues, I think Wilson wins. After all, many of Chimpy's stunts were pioneered by ol' Woodrow.

To be sure. Had Woody not been so hellbent on sticking the U.S. into the Great War, World War II might not have happened. Hitler might have spent the rest of his miserable life as a paper-hanger before retreating into the bottle. He also just insisted on having us stick our noses in on the Russian Civil War, which had a lot to do with Soviet paranoia regarding American intentions years down the line.

The ultimate consequences of the Iraq clusterfuck, however, have yet to be reckoned.

[Uraniun235]

Let's try harder. Name a couple things Bush did which you like.

Missile defense and pushing for new nuclear power plants. That's...it.

Don't forget AIDS money in South Africa, there's three good things hidden in the massive pile of shit that is the Bush Presidency.

Wasn't the AIDS money tied to the requirement that contraception be ignored in favor of abstinence-only approaches?

[Darth Raptor]

And why is Woodrow Wilson not there? I still think he was the worst president ever, and I'm supremely annoyed how popular history - not just in America, but all over the world - tends to gloss over his reign of terror, not to mention his blatant racism and Confederate sympathies, instead painting him as a near-great or even great president.

"The Allies of WWI were the good guys in a justified war." "He tried really, really hard not to fuck up postwar Europe but had really bad luck." "Blah, blah, blah reform."

[Darth Wong]

I think a major point in favour of Bush being the worst president of all time is an examination of the assets handed to him. It's one thing to be an abysmal president when you're handed a country which is still trying to claw its way into the first nations club, but it's another thing to be an abysmal president when the Fates hand you a 90% domestic approval rating, a global outpouring of sympathy, the most powerful economy and military in the history of the human race, and you still manage to fuck everything up.

[TC Pilot]

Sorry, President Buchanan is the worst president in American history. Until Bush decides it's illegal for him to act to stop an illegal secession of half the country from the Union, he doesn't deserve it.

Personally, I find it far more fitting that he can't even be # 1 in failures.

Though, to be fair, if Bush were the president when Buchanan was, I wouldn't be surprised if Emperor Norton of California would have ended up overthrowing him.

[SirNitram]

I'm torn. Are we sure no other President has comissioned legal justification to revoke the 4th Amendment, the Writ, the Congressional need to approve war('The Iraq AUMF allows us to attack Iran' 'The Iraq AUMF allows us to stay there forever despite only talking about stopping Saddam.'), politicized the DOJ to the point of comic relief, tanked from 90% to consistant thirties in approval, spied on every transfer of information through phone and internet lines, and managed to put the most powerful military in the world to shame by failing to meet the 'Two fronts' standard of the Pentagon, and instead reducing the readiness to the point Generals openly talk about the Army breaking?

That's a tall hurdle, but it's probably doable.

[brianeyci]

managed to put the most powerful military in the world to shame by failing to meet the 'Two fronts' standard of the Pentagon,

Can you elaborate on this "two fronts" standard? Is there an actual long standing foreign policy about not opening a war on two fronts, or is it a lot more subtle with diplomatic + military meaning two "fronts"?

[Adrian Laguna]

Sorry, President Buchanan is the worst president in American history. Until Bush decides it's illegal for him to act to stop an illegal secession of half the country from the Union, he doesn't deserve it.

Buchanan was at least aware he was an idiot unfit to run the country and declined to go for a second term.

Can you elaborate on this "two fronts" standard? Is there an actual long standing foreign policy about not opening a war on two fronts, or is it a lot more subtle with diplomatic + military meaning two "fronts"?

Judging by context, and throwing in a little history, it's about the United States being able to fight a war on two fronts.