He was saddled with a controversial war that had the potential to split the country. He was roundly criticized at the time for leading America to its destruction. Any number of mistakes could have caused America to cease existing as a nation. George W was doing irreparable damage.
No, not George W. Bush…George Washington.
Happy Presidents Day. More specifically, Happy Thankless Job Day to the leader of the free world. I truly wonder why anybody would want this job.
The reason why we celebrate Presidents Day is because Americans have gotten cheated out of separate birthday holidays for George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
George Washington was the father of his country. Yet the Revolutionary War was not popular when it started. Most Americans did not want to break away from England. After several high profile military defeats, enlistment levels were down, and morale was low. Yet a critical battle at Saratoga in New York turned things around.
Abraham Lincoln was not universally beloved while he was alive. He was certainly not happy in his marriage. He was married to a dominating shrew that had a habit of hurling vases. If Lincoln were alive today he might be helping Mrs. Lincoln become president just so he could get the peace and quiet that eluded him while he was in office. During his Presidency, he was seen as a bumbler that had incompetent generals. The fact that the North finally did win the Civil War did not change the fact that many carped about why it took so long to get the right general to begin with.
I cannot recall any President that was universally loved while they were in office. There were ones that “did not harm.” They presided over peaceful times, and failed to make matters worse. That assessment is often given to Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s, Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s, and Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Yet these men that were seen as peripheral by some were seen as merely ignoring serious issues that their successors would have to deal with.
We deify men like John F. Kennedy. At the risk of slaying a sacred cow, Kennedy the myth was much more significant than Kennedy the man. He was an indistuingished Senator who won an election riddled with fraud. He spoke well, but did not have any concrete achievements. He died a tragic and untimely death, and became a hero in the mold of Marilyn Monroe, and later on, Elvis Presley. Yet while his words often did eventually ring true, such as putting a man on the moon, his actual Presidency is mostly myth, with little actual results.
JFK is not the only one to be lionized. Harry Truman is romanticized as an honest and sincere man, which he may have been. While in office, he was seen as a bumbler.
Even Presidents that truly did change the world were beleaguered while in office. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War and brought down the Berlin Wall. Yet by the end of his second term, he had lost Congress, and was mired in scandal.
It is through this lens of history that I maintain that we will not know for another three decades what will become of the Presidency of George W. Bush.
Many individuals hate his guts. They hated him before he was ever sworn in. They believe he stole a close election, which they apparently never attribute to their God JFK defeating Richard Nixon in 1960. That was a stolen election.
So George W. Bush’s detractors hated him not for his deeds, but for his existence. He is in favor of something, so his critics have to reflexively be against it.
With George W. Bush leaving office in less than one year, I can safely say that the opinions of him now do not matter. Today is a vacuum. Anybody can judge things in a vacuum. The only thing that matters in the long run is the judgment of history. I maintain that the history books will be kind to George W. Bush.
Everything will depend on the War on Terror, with Iraq being the central front. If Iraq succeeds, which it may be on the verge of doing, than the honorable goal of making the world a better place will have been achieved. Saddam Hussein is already dead. Slowly but surely, Iraq is on the upswing.
Some would say that if Iraq were to fail, the legacy of George W. Bush would that of failure. This would be an overstatement. After all, the Berlin Wall fell when George Herbert Walker Bush was President. Yet the seeds began during the Reagan Presidency, which is why the Gipper is properly given the credit.
Lyndon Johnson actually did pass civil rights legislation, yet JFK is given the credit. Some say Kennedy put the idea in motion, but others say his words were lip service, and that he did not have the same passion for civil rights that his brother did.
We can dissect every aspect of George W. Bush, but the truth is that we need time to see how his deeds affect the world after he leaves office. From Chief Justice John Roberts to General David Petraeus to Treasury Secretaries to the next President, the George W. Bush story has not been written yet. Sure there are some that had it written before he took office, but those without the fancy 3-D glasses they sell at 7-11 can be openminded enough to admit that stories take time to develop.
On this President’s Day, I can only look at George W. Bush and feel sympathy for the man. He came into office expecting to focus on economics, and history dealt him a situation that nobody is ever prepared for. Thrust into a war that nobody except the terrorists wanted, he had to be a steely eyed leader. If he failed at this task, an American collapse would not be unthinkable.
I remember how young and vigorous George W. Bush looked in 1999. He looks much older now. War takes its toll.
George W. Bush was not destined for greatness. If anything, he was destined for mediocrity. Yet for some reason, history thrust a situation upon him. Those who believe he met the historical challenge will see him as a great President. Those who feel he failed to answer history’s call will see him as a disaster. Either way, there most likely will be no middle ground. No matter what, unlike his predecessor, he will be seen as relevant. He cannot be average. He will either be among the best, or the worst.
Some judge a President on their ability to elect their successor. Ronald Reagan was successful in this endeavor. Bill Clinton was not. Yet George W. Bush’s successor is actually Dick Cheney. So if John McCain wins, does President Bush get credit? If McCain loses, does President Bush get blame?
When all is said and done, the main criteria for evaluating Presidents should be whether or not they made America better.
With some Presidents, evaluation is simple. Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of the country with one purchase. He was a success. By almost every possible conceivable metric, Jimmy Carter was a failure.
Most Presidents are more complex.
George W. Bush is not universally beloved at this moment. He is beleaguered.
30 years from now, when Presidents Day includes several more Presidents, we will remember that in the same way we now see critics of George W. Bush, we saw much worse way back when.
Yet George Washington and Abraham Lincoln did just fine in the long run. In the long run, all there is is the long run.
May Presidents Day bring us one day closer to peace in this world, and may it bring peace of mind for George W. Bush. Everybody needs a respite from the worries of the world.
After all, Presidents are people too.
eric
Eric, You provided a solid assessment of Presidents, past and present, and this is a nice tribute to a good man who is destined for greatness. He has not polled the public or the media to sway his convictions, but rather he has taken the information available to him, and by force of will, convinced Congress to do what is best for the US. Granted, he has not pandered to the public or the media but has instead made decisions and recommendations based on logic – something the media and general public refuse to recognize.
Your assessment of JFK is also on target. His words, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” ring loudly in my ears today as I hear the empty promises and “what I, as the next President” will do for YOU when elected… Forty plus years later from a Democrat… how perspectives change… the beloved JFK… I was sitting in 7th Grade study hall, and Mr Larson came in stating, “The president has been shot”. Vicky ……. clapped and said, “Yay”… everyone hates people in power… so he made her stand in the corner with her nose against the wall. I went home, and my Mom was bawling… JFK represented hope and promise, and the reason he is so revered today is because he wasn’t there for the long haul. He never had to opportunity to get called on those promises…
Your point about Washington and Lincoln’s popularity is also well-taken. If Gen Lee had heeded Longstreet’s advice and fought containment / defensive battles, the North would have tired of the war and let it go. Likewise, the English were preoccupied elsewhere during the Revolutionary War, but if they had focused solely on the task at hand, it is likely the colonists would have rolled. All second-guessing but perhaps suggests a divine intervention.
It speaks volumes that in your assessment of great and mediocre presidents, you haven’t mentioned FDR – the man who brought media and socialism to the forefront of our country. He played the media like an orchestra. The similiarities in the “war effort” then and now are primarily twofold: first, the Japanese attacked us, so we needed to respond to prevent future attacks. Second, while responding to the attack, we understood our main effort had to be in Germany, because they posed the greatest threat. Likewise, we stopped the bleeding by invading Afghanistan and put our main effort in Iraq. The differences are also noteworthy: the media portrayed the “japs” as slant-eyed, big toothed killers, and the Germans as monsters…and every citizen was called to do his/her duty to support the war effort… as tens of thousands of Soldiers were dying… today, a smattering of Soldiers are dying, and the media portrays the enemy as misunderstood people of faith who are terrorized by the ugly Americans, and the citizen’s sacrifice is…having to listen to Fox or CNN about the war effort…?. Thank God and the US Constitution for people such as President Bush.
Eagle.
Nice post.
I think we should honor our living presidents on this day as much as any other.
Like Eric said. Unfortunatly it may take 30 years for Bush to get his deserved credit.
We should all make it a priority to tell all those we love just how much we do while they are still able to hear it.
Thanks George. You, ve been dealt a lot more in the last 7 years than I’m sure you bargained for.
Recently someone laughed at me when I said that Bush has had more on his plate in his 2 terms than most presidents could ever dream of.
Its easy to be a great leader when the whole world is throwing you soft balls.
Micky, I read the string of comments reference the number of things on President Bush’s plate – I concur. In the land of cell phones, camcorders, and news media in every crook and cranny, coupled with 24/7 real-time internet coverage, it is too easy to play arm-chair quarterback, especially when the onus is on the one making the decisions at the time. Another “good news story” is his on-going dealings with Africa. They are rich in resources and certainly under-developed, but certainly worth the effort to plant more seeds of democracy.
Eagle,
Do you think you’re going to hear about Bushs efforts in Africa other than him mentioning the other day. And that its a huge worthwhile investment not only in humanitarian and economic interests. But those two approachs alone will be a big damper on any radical islamic movements trying to get its footing down there.
Most dopes cant see that his approach to the GWOT is not only about direct aggression.
Yea, the “shoulda, coulda, wouldas drive me nuts.
Ya’ know, this is going to sound funny, but have you ever considered what would have happened if we lost the Revolutionary War? Now, this is not a judement, here. It’s just hypothetical. It’s hard to day. Would there ever have been Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine? When would slavery have been abolished? 1772, 1807, or 1865?
We on though, and thank our lucky stars we had a great First President. Let’s compare that preisident’s presidency with our current president’s presidency.
George Washington won by landslides, twice, with every single electoral vote.
Bush won 271 to 266 in 2000, and got 286 in 2004.
George Washington was an apolitical general who declined offers of great power and united the American people.
George Bush is a Republican blue-blood who grasps for great power and divides the American people.
George Washington was a Hamiltonian protectionist and an isolationist, he warned of foreign entanglements..
George Bush ran as a semi-Hamiltonian and then used 9/11/2001 to pursue aggressivly militaristic foreign policy.
George Washington won the Revolutionary War against the British, with a rag-tag band of figheters and intellectuals, in less than a decade.
George Bush has fought two expeditionary quagmires for five years with no end in sight.
There really is no other president one could hold up to Washington. He was unique. George Bush is a lot of things, but he’s certainly not unique.
JMJ
The only problem with almost your whole post Jersey is that Washington had centuries to rack up attributes in his favor as archives were disclosed and more truth came to surface.
As Eric said in his first Paragraph;
“He was saddled with a controversial war that had the potential to split the country. He was roundly criticized at the time for leading America to its destruction. Any number of mistakes could have caused America to cease existing as a nation. George W was doing irreparable damage.”
Your critisizing Bush at this time is exactly what Washington went through in his term.
So, with that in mind its quite possible that in 30 years as Eric said it will start becoming evident to people that critics of Bush like you were wrong.
We are seeing the fruits of Washingtons labors today.
As I believe we will (I might be dead) see the fruits of Bushs efforts in the not to far future.
Besides that, your assesments of Bush are just opinions.
Alot of the credit Washington gets is due to historical fact.
Jersey, It is silly to compare presidencies – just as it would be silly to compare boxers of the 1700’s to those of today. Of course GW won by a landslide – the country was looking for unity, they just proved “might makes right”, and their mighty leader was the man for the job. They wanted to make him king. So when they won this independence from Britain, they had a Constitution ratified when? And being an isolationist is a good thing?
It seems rather fruitless to discuss issues with someone who, on one hand will say, “Yeah, and I bet their average IQ is real stunning.”, then in a later post cite percentages that show the average Soldier has a higher IQ than the average US citizen, but that’s only because the military won’t accept too low of a standard, but even so, demographically, these guys are really uneducated and immature, and if you take out the officers and noncoms, the averages would be the same… Did I get that right? Eric laid it out very nicely, and Micky captured the intent: during his time, Washington was so highly regarded, they didn’t even finish his painting…and half the country was mad because he wouldn’t accept kingsmanship… (ok, the last line is a bit over the top)…
[…] at: Tygrrrr Express | Debbie Schlussel | Patterico’s Pontifications | Sister Toldjah | Related PostsHappy […]
This is silly and inaccurate. President Bush is a failure. He has not even been able to win decisively in Afghanistan, let alone Iraq. He has governed from the right, rather than the center, despite the fact that he barely won both of his elections. People hate him for these reasons. Their hatred is not “irrational” and it is dwarfed by right-wing vitriol.
Reagan left a popular President, despite Iran-Contra. JFK managed to avoid getting us into a nuclear conflict with Russia during the Cuban missile crisis. Do you trust that the current President would have been able to achieve a similar result?
Eagle, “might makes right” is the mantra of histories most despised tyrants.
Washington had his detractors among the press and the eiltes, but he was widely popular among the people, even among the loyalists, most of whom chose to stay and unite with the revolutionaries after the war.
Before the constitution there was the AoC. The AoC was too federalistic and divisive, and so yet another conservative construct failed and the liberal and progressive, more centralized, constitution we have today was drafted and passed later. Without it, the country would surely have fallen apart before long, and almost did anyway.
There is a time and a place for all things, even isolationism. Only a over-zealous, unrealistic ideologue wouldn’t think so.
I made that comment about the military to make a point. Did you get that point?
—
Micky,
It’s very hard to imagine Bush ever being popular except among those who like him now. It’s hard to imagine anything good to come from his presidency. I can’t think of a single solitary benefit Bush has brought to America. Not one. I can ussually find something positive to say about any president, even one’s I don’t personally like, like Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. Personally, as I’ve said before, I think Nixon was the best president we’ve had since Nixon, and that’s only saying so much. But Bush will go down among the very worst. The onlly “benefits” even his supporters can show are still divisive and disagreed. Bush has no universal appeal whatsoever. He is only popular among about a third of the population, and will always be that way. That’s not a great legacy by any stretch.
JMJ
I remember how young and vigorous George W. Bush looked in 1999. He looks much older now. War takes its toll.
I can think of many thousands of families on both sides for whom it has been a lot harder.
Still Jersey, you dont seem to grab the fact that alot of people were talking about Wahsington just like you are talking about Bush now.
Your hatred for the man is keeping you from seeing the point I have tried to make twice now.
I’ve done it before and I’ll do it again.
I have shown you the list of all the great things Bush has done. It was extensive.
Your rhetoric is based solely on a hateful opinion and nothing more.
You say its hard to imagine Bush being popular except for those who like him now.
Well DUH?
You dont like the guy !
So why you imagine anything short of him being the worst pres ever ?
You know, I understand your disagreements with Bush, I get it.
But your hatred and vitriol are just over the top bro.
I just read your post on Castro finally calling it quits. And no where in the post do you mention what a bastard creep monster Castro was. But instead you end the post bashing our president by saying he will not be of any consequence in Cuba because he is lame and bla bla bla.
In a post about Castro the monster you fail to point out what reprehensable man he was. And yet the story of Castros resignatin offers a chance for you to bash our president ?
I mean, what the hell is that all about ?
And stop telling me what the future will hold. Its ridculous.
And thats being nice.
People said the same things about Lincoln It took centuries to see the fruits of his labor. And Bush will be afforded tha same amount of time also. Then I believe the world will look back and say “Bush got it right”
Saying that you cant find one positive thing to say about Bush is a clear and undeniable example of total unbalance man. That statement is about as far out and off the mark as it gets.
You really sound quite scary.
Eric, this is a wonderful post! I’m sorry to say I didn’t even think about doing a post for President’s Day, but at least I have the excuse of being extremely busy with personal stuff. Still… I should have done a post. I’m glad so many of my blogging friends did!
Mr. Fabulous.
I can also think of many thousands of families that have had it hard as a result of the war also.
Erics post was about presidents. I seriously doubt that he has ever once forgotten about the soldiers and their families.
Mr. Fabulous.
I should say that its nice to see that someone has not forgotten about these people as well.
“Still Jersey, you dont seem to grab the fact that alot of people were talking about Wahsington just like you are talking about Bush now.”
Nonsense. Washington was a completely different situation, with completely different opinions about him. As a student of history I see no comparison here.
“I have shown you the list of all the great things Bush has done.”
As I said, even among those things to which one can ascribe as accomplishments, many many people see them as bad things! You’d be hard-pressed to find anything he has accomplished that is popular beyond that minority of people who support him anyway.
“In a post about Castro the monster you fail to point out what reprehensable man he was. And yet the story of Castros resignatin offers a chance for you to bash our president ?”
I wasn’t bashing the president. I simply pointed out the Cuba would be better off if Bush leaves them alone.
Most people agree with me about Bush in general, Micky. I’m not the crazy one.
JMJ
The comment, “. He has not even been able to win decisively in Afghanistan, let alone Iraq. ” means what? This isn’t WWI or WWII whereby we are fighting a conventional army. We are waging a war for people’s minds. And, the last time I checked the constitution, it is Congress who has authority over wars and taxes, so if you are taking shots, please aim at the right targets.
Understand that most people agree with Jersey about Bush…most people also believed the earth was flat until they became more informed. That’s the difference between believing an agenda-driven media and living the life – which I’m doing.
Still Jersey, you miss the point.
Not untill history has spoken as in the case with Washington will Bush be appreciated.
Washington was treated the same way you are treating Bush but for different reasons.
If you werent bashing Bush then what was this statement supposed to be ?
JMJ;
” But Bush is a lame duck who will be out of office come next January.’
Sounds like bashing to me.
Who are these people who generaly agree with you ? Got any data to back that up? Or are we al lsupposed to take your word for it ?
I’m really tired of you always throwing up your being a student of history in everyones face, SO WHAT?
I’m a student of Culinary arts and if you asked me what was in a Boulliabaise I could give you a recipe for a bomb if I wanted to.
Why should anyone respect your historical renditions of of the past when your bias is stamped all over your forehead ?
Speak from provable fact dude ! And stop expecting others just to take your word for things just because you profess to have some superior knowledge that you never back up with anything.
JMJ;
“Most people agree with me about Bush in general, Micky. I’m not the crazy one.”
I’ll take a guess and figure that you surround yourself with people who agree with you ? So why would you hear anything different ?