Assessing Bush's Record
Howard Manly, The Boston Herald, 31 Oct. 2004
Given the closeness of the upcoming presidential election, there's a good chance that President Bush, like his father before him, will serve only one term.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, as history goes, because only 12 of the nation's 44 presidents have served eight years or more in the Oval Office. But it's not a good thing either. If W loses, he would join the ranks of George H.W. Bush, William Taft, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter as the five sitting presidents to lose a re-election bid.
Win or lose, Bush the son has left a mark on history and as he recently said during one of those endless campaign stump speeches, history will shine brightly on his administration.
That could be wishful thinking - or, as at least one presidential historian suggests, an accurate assessment. The bottom line is that it's still too early to tell.
``It's interesting,'' said Roger Porter, a Harvard professor and former economic and domestic adviser to three Republican presidents, including Bush the father. ``Even after four years, we still only see the future dimly. It is frequently the case that presidents are underappreciated when in office and their stature tends to grow in subsequent years.''
A case in point is Harry Truman. As measured by public opinion polls at the time, Truman was not viewed favorably by the public. But as time went on, and historians assessed Truman's record, his stock increased significantly.
But Bush the son is no Harry Truman and how he is perceived by historians in the future depends on how they view his handling of several major issues - the 9/11 attacks and his mobilization of the nation to address terrorism; his decision to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq as part of his goal to establish democracy in the Middle East; his handling of the economy, federal budget, tax policies and the recession that he inherited; and his policies on health care and education.
``Right now, the assessment is too preliminary,'' Porter said. ``We don't know how the War on Terror will conclude or how long it will take. Nor do we know what the situation in Iraq will look like in five to 10 to 15 years. Nor do we know the future impact of Bush's tax and budget policies, nor the effects of his No Child Left Behind education legislation or the impact of his enormous entitlement program to provide free drug prescriptions under a revised Medicare program.''
With Bush, nothing is ever easy. Another noted historian, Robert Dalleck, says that based on Bush's record, he will not only lose the election but also will be viewed as one of the worst presidents in history.
``His record is pretty poor,'' Dalleck argues, naming the Iraq war as one of the main culprits. ``Iraq has cost a lot. Most of the country has become increasingly of the mind that the U.S. is caught in a quagmire, not like Vietnam, but definitely in the shadow of Vietnam. The sense of frustration with Bush's decisions and the feeling that we are trapped in a war that we cannot get out is more than troublesome. And Bush has no answer.
``Because of that, he will go down as one of the poorest presidents since Warren Harding and maybe Buchanon,'' Dalleck insisted.
It's not the issue of Bush's brain power. ``It's his lousy judgment,'' Dalleck said. ``He has an almost messianic approach to foreign policy. He actually believes that he can establish democracy in the Middle East and that is just nonsense and arrogance.''
Time does heal most records, as the late Richard Nixon would attest. And losing a re-election bid is not the end of the world. It's difficult for any one party to sustain four successive terms, and the Republicans were well on their way until Bill Clinton and Ross Perot emerged. Even Bush the father has seen a bump in his standing, based mostly on his foreign-policy record and the passage of time. The end of the Cold War was handled astutely, without a single shot or humiliation of the Soviet Union during its demise. Even the War in Iraq was handled with diplomacy.
No telling how Bush the son will be viewed. One thing is clear. Given the division his policies have created, historians have divided accordingly.
``Bush and some critics and historians will argue that he has moved the country in the right direction,'' Porter said. ``But others will argue that, in fact, he has moved the country in the wrong direction. As for me, I'm fundamentally an optimist and if you look at the more than 200-year history of our country, who would have known that in 1878 when the framers of the Constitution drafted that document, that this country would be the most dominant nation in the history of the world. Now we have had our share of ups and downs, but on the whole, this American experiment has been wildly successful.''
That's true, but Dalleck raised an interesting point.
``In a country of 285 million, it's a tragedy that these two candidates are the best we have to offer,'' he said.
Given the closeness of the upcoming presidential election, there's a good chance that President Bush, like his father before him, will serve only one term.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, as history goes, because only 12 of the nation's 44 presidents have served eight years or more in the Oval Office. But it's not a good thing either. If W loses, he would join the ranks of George H.W. Bush, William Taft, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter as the five sitting presidents to lose a re-election bid.
Win or lose, Bush the son has left a mark on history and as he recently said during one of those endless campaign stump speeches, history will shine brightly on his administration.
That could be wishful thinking - or, as at least one presidential historian suggests, an accurate assessment. The bottom line is that it's still too early to tell.
``It's interesting,'' said Roger Porter, a Harvard professor and former economic and domestic adviser to three Republican presidents, including Bush the father. ``Even after four years, we still only see the future dimly. It is frequently the case that presidents are underappreciated when in office and their stature tends to grow in subsequent years.''
A case in point is Harry Truman. As measured by public opinion polls at the time, Truman was not viewed favorably by the public. But as time went on, and historians assessed Truman's record, his stock increased significantly.
But Bush the son is no Harry Truman and how he is perceived by historians in the future depends on how they view his handling of several major issues - the 9/11 attacks and his mobilization of the nation to address terrorism; his decision to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq as part of his goal to establish democracy in the Middle East; his handling of the economy, federal budget, tax policies and the recession that he inherited; and his policies on health care and education.
``Right now, the assessment is too preliminary,'' Porter said. ``We don't know how the War on Terror will conclude or how long it will take. Nor do we know what the situation in Iraq will look like in five to 10 to 15 years. Nor do we know the future impact of Bush's tax and budget policies, nor the effects of his No Child Left Behind education legislation or the impact of his enormous entitlement program to provide free drug prescriptions under a revised Medicare program.''
With Bush, nothing is ever easy. Another noted historian, Robert Dalleck, says that based on Bush's record, he will not only lose the election but also will be viewed as one of the worst presidents in history.
``His record is pretty poor,'' Dalleck argues, naming the Iraq war as one of the main culprits. ``Iraq has cost a lot. Most of the country has become increasingly of the mind that the U.S. is caught in a quagmire, not like Vietnam, but definitely in the shadow of Vietnam. The sense of frustration with Bush's decisions and the feeling that we are trapped in a war that we cannot get out is more than troublesome. And Bush has no answer.
``Because of that, he will go down as one of the poorest presidents since Warren Harding and maybe Buchanon,'' Dalleck insisted.
It's not the issue of Bush's brain power. ``It's his lousy judgment,'' Dalleck said. ``He has an almost messianic approach to foreign policy. He actually believes that he can establish democracy in the Middle East and that is just nonsense and arrogance.''
Time does heal most records, as the late Richard Nixon would attest. And losing a re-election bid is not the end of the world. It's difficult for any one party to sustain four successive terms, and the Republicans were well on their way until Bill Clinton and Ross Perot emerged. Even Bush the father has seen a bump in his standing, based mostly on his foreign-policy record and the passage of time. The end of the Cold War was handled astutely, without a single shot or humiliation of the Soviet Union during its demise. Even the War in Iraq was handled with diplomacy.
No telling how Bush the son will be viewed. One thing is clear. Given the division his policies have created, historians have divided accordingly.
``Bush and some critics and historians will argue that he has moved the country in the right direction,'' Porter said. ``But others will argue that, in fact, he has moved the country in the wrong direction. As for me, I'm fundamentally an optimist and if you look at the more than 200-year history of our country, who would have known that in 1878 when the framers of the Constitution drafted that document, that this country would be the most dominant nation in the history of the world. Now we have had our share of ups and downs, but on the whole, this American experiment has been wildly successful.''
That's true, but Dalleck raised an interesting point.
``In a country of 285 million, it's a tragedy that these two candidates are the best we have to offer,'' he said.