Bush the Most Powerful Failed President
Published in NRC
(Netherlands) on 19 January 2009
by James Kennedy (link to original)
(Netherlands) on 19 January 2009
by James Kennedy (link to original)
Translated from
by Anne Hukkelhoven.
Edited by Katy Burtner.
There have been few bad American presidents since 1933, but Bush is a warning: failure has catastrophic consequences.
Although some will argue that history will favorable judge George W. Bush, most historians doubt this. During a recent History News Network poll, an impressive 61 percent of professional historians said that Bush was the worst president America has ever known and 98 percent were convinced that his presidency was a failure.
Historians are not known for their conservative political standpoints and it is possible that they overlooked a few success stories: school reforms which caused the test scores of American children (also children from low-class families) increased again, a large anti-AIDS campaign in Africa, the removal of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and the prevention of other terrorist attacks on American soil (this goal will also be the most important part of the fight against terrorism for Barack Obama) all occurred under Bush's reign. Is it possible that he was really the least successful president of the 42 presidents that have led America until now?
The United States have known many bad presidents. James Buchanan (1857-1861) did not want to take a clear stand when the southern states wanted to separate themselves from the northern ones, and he did not succeed in keeping the United States together. A recent biography even suggests that he sided with the South and encouraged separation, which caused a civil war that would cost the lives of 600,000 Americans in the end. The very competent general Ulysses Grant, who helped the northern states to victory and was voted president for two terms (1869-1877), turned out to be one of America's least competent presidents. His government was plagued by fraud and abuse against which he hardly acted. But, Warren Harding's presidency (1921-1923) was even worse. He admitted honestly that he was not fit for the job and would have rather spent his time playing cards, while good friends and subordinates were able to enrich themselves via illegal activities under his protection.
According to many Americans who tried to survive during the Great Depression of the thirties, Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) was considered the biggest crook. He promised every American a chicken in every pan and a car in everyone's garage, but when the economy went downhill, his policy worsened the crisis and he refused to give support to destitute Americans. Unfortunately, this list of failing presidents is by no means complete. Franklin Pierce (1853-1857) and Andrew Johnson (1865-1869) were completely ineffective, as well. George W. Bush actually fairs well in comparison to them.
What is striking is how few bad American presidents there have been since 1933, the year that Franklin Roosevelt accepted his office (who is regarded, together with Washington and Lincoln, as one of the best American presidents). During this era, the American federal government became too important to fall into the hands of incompetent leaders.
Of course, not all presidents of the last 75 years were this successful. John F. Kennedy's America was considered in the eyes of the public to be a modern Camelot, but the quality of his presidency was disappointing. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were fiercely criticized, and rightly so. Both were excellent politicians who were capable of big accomplishments, but both presidencies ended dramatically; Johnson because of the dragging Vietnam war and Nixon because of the Watergate scandal. Similarly, Jimmy Carter was not popular. The confidence of Americans in Carter decreased at a certain point to a mere 23 percent, even lower than the lowest point of 27 percent during the presidency of Bush Jr.
But even so, the establishment of the United States as a superpower in the international arena and the expansion of domestic government services made sure that an average president was no longer taken for granted. Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan were strong presidents and Ford, Bush Sr. and Clinton commanded respect.
In the nineties, however, America seemed to be able to relax a bit. Because of the end of the Cold War, America seemed to be left as the only invincible superpower. In the domestic area, there were few challenges. Reagan started with tax reductions in the eighties and Bill Clinton busied himself with the Republican House to reform and restrict the American social security system. Deregulation was already a mantra for years before George W. Bush became president. But, although the United States was confronted with serious problems, such as health care and climate change, the country was deeply divided by culture wars and lacked the shared vision on the tasks that the United States had to undertake.
The America of the nineties slightly resembled the America of the twenties. It returned to the days of Warren Harding and his successor Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) who, even though he was a better president than Harding, saw no large role for the American president in domestic or foreign policy. It was in this context that Bush Jr. narrowly became president of the United States, nominated by a party who was led more by the image of the 'average American man' than by his competencies, experience, and leadership skills.
September 11th and the crises in the 21st century made this feeling of sufficiency disappear, especially in the area of foreign policy and safety. The terrorist attacks gave energy and focus to the Bush government and transformed his presidency into an imperial government in which he pulled large power and influence towards himself.
But, although the challenges of this century transformed the image of the presidency, it was the same man who carried it into effect. His wrongful estimations and abuse of presidential power on the one hand and his lighthearted neglect of domestic crises such as Hurricane Katrina and the lack of supervision of the financial market on the other are heavily laid against this president who might have been judged mildly in the twenties. Today, presidents of modern America are not allowed to seriously fail because their missteps have catastrophic consequences in the world arena.
Much confidence exists that Obama, whose success is indebted to the crises of the Bush era, will rehabilitate the presidency. History teaches that crises (like the Great Depression of the thirties) have motivated Americans to vote for inspiring candidates and have stimulated chosen presidents to large accomplishments (like Franklin Roosevelt).
The presidency of Bush also is a warning: failing is no longer allowed. Therefore, it is by no means certain that future historians will judge Obama's presidency positively.
Although some will argue that history will favorable judge George W. Bush, most historians doubt this. During a recent History News Network poll, an impressive 61 percent of professional historians said that Bush was the worst president America has ever known and 98 percent were convinced that his presidency was a failure.
Historians are not known for their conservative political standpoints and it is possible that they overlooked a few success stories: school reforms which caused the test scores of American children (also children from low-class families) increased again, a large anti-AIDS campaign in Africa, the removal of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and the prevention of other terrorist attacks on American soil (this goal will also be the most important part of the fight against terrorism for Barack Obama) all occurred under Bush's reign. Is it possible that he was really the least successful president of the 42 presidents that have led America until now?
The United States have known many bad presidents. James Buchanan (1857-1861) did not want to take a clear stand when the southern states wanted to separate themselves from the northern ones, and he did not succeed in keeping the United States together. A recent biography even suggests that he sided with the South and encouraged separation, which caused a civil war that would cost the lives of 600,000 Americans in the end. The very competent general Ulysses Grant, who helped the northern states to victory and was voted president for two terms (1869-1877), turned out to be one of America's least competent presidents. His government was plagued by fraud and abuse against which he hardly acted. But, Warren Harding's presidency (1921-1923) was even worse. He admitted honestly that he was not fit for the job and would have rather spent his time playing cards, while good friends and subordinates were able to enrich themselves via illegal activities under his protection.
According to many Americans who tried to survive during the Great Depression of the thirties, Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) was considered the biggest crook. He promised every American a chicken in every pan and a car in everyone's garage, but when the economy went downhill, his policy worsened the crisis and he refused to give support to destitute Americans. Unfortunately, this list of failing presidents is by no means complete. Franklin Pierce (1853-1857) and Andrew Johnson (1865-1869) were completely ineffective, as well. George W. Bush actually fairs well in comparison to them.
What is striking is how few bad American presidents there have been since 1933, the year that Franklin Roosevelt accepted his office (who is regarded, together with Washington and Lincoln, as one of the best American presidents). During this era, the American federal government became too important to fall into the hands of incompetent leaders.
Of course, not all presidents of the last 75 years were this successful. John F. Kennedy's America was considered in the eyes of the public to be a modern Camelot, but the quality of his presidency was disappointing. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were fiercely criticized, and rightly so. Both were excellent politicians who were capable of big accomplishments, but both presidencies ended dramatically; Johnson because of the dragging Vietnam war and Nixon because of the Watergate scandal. Similarly, Jimmy Carter was not popular. The confidence of Americans in Carter decreased at a certain point to a mere 23 percent, even lower than the lowest point of 27 percent during the presidency of Bush Jr.
But even so, the establishment of the United States as a superpower in the international arena and the expansion of domestic government services made sure that an average president was no longer taken for granted. Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan were strong presidents and Ford, Bush Sr. and Clinton commanded respect.
In the nineties, however, America seemed to be able to relax a bit. Because of the end of the Cold War, America seemed to be left as the only invincible superpower. In the domestic area, there were few challenges. Reagan started with tax reductions in the eighties and Bill Clinton busied himself with the Republican House to reform and restrict the American social security system. Deregulation was already a mantra for years before George W. Bush became president. But, although the United States was confronted with serious problems, such as health care and climate change, the country was deeply divided by culture wars and lacked the shared vision on the tasks that the United States had to undertake.
The America of the nineties slightly resembled the America of the twenties. It returned to the days of Warren Harding and his successor Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) who, even though he was a better president than Harding, saw no large role for the American president in domestic or foreign policy. It was in this context that Bush Jr. narrowly became president of the United States, nominated by a party who was led more by the image of the 'average American man' than by his competencies, experience, and leadership skills.
September 11th and the crises in the 21st century made this feeling of sufficiency disappear, especially in the area of foreign policy and safety. The terrorist attacks gave energy and focus to the Bush government and transformed his presidency into an imperial government in which he pulled large power and influence towards himself.
But, although the challenges of this century transformed the image of the presidency, it was the same man who carried it into effect. His wrongful estimations and abuse of presidential power on the one hand and his lighthearted neglect of domestic crises such as Hurricane Katrina and the lack of supervision of the financial market on the other are heavily laid against this president who might have been judged mildly in the twenties. Today, presidents of modern America are not allowed to seriously fail because their missteps have catastrophic consequences in the world arena.
Much confidence exists that Obama, whose success is indebted to the crises of the Bush era, will rehabilitate the presidency. History teaches that crises (like the Great Depression of the thirties) have motivated Americans to vote for inspiring candidates and have stimulated chosen presidents to large accomplishments (like Franklin Roosevelt).
The presidency of Bush also is a warning: failing is no longer allowed. Therefore, it is by no means certain that future historians will judge Obama's presidency positively.
Next article![]( "The New Administration and Pakistani Relations")
