Without.A.Doubt

The Washington Post features five historians who opine on Bush's legacy as the worst ever. Michael Lind ,the Whitehead senior fellow at the New America Foundation, thinks that Bush is only the fifth worst, being beaten out for the bottom spot by James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and James Madison. Madison makes it into the bottom five for the War of 1812, a totally unnecessary war that ended with Washington and the White House being burned. While conceding that it is a bit early to judge Bush's presidency while he is still in office, Douglas Brinkley provides his opinion on the issue anyway, comparing Bush to Herbert Hoover.

David Greenberg, who teaches history at Rutgers, damns Bush with faint praise, saying that for now, he's "sticking with Dick" as being worse than Bush, in At Least He's Not Nixon. Only one, Vincent Cannato, who teaches history at UMass and worked for Bush, holds out on voicing an opinion, saying it's too soon to tell.

As Eric Foner, the DeWitt Clinton professor of history at Columbia University, writes in He's The Worst Ever:

Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55 historians to rank U.S. presidents on a scale from "great" to "failure," such polls have been a favorite pastime for those of us who study the American past.

Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history. . . .

More often, however, the rankings display a remarkable year-to-year uniformity. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt always figure in the "great" category. Most presidents are ranked "average" or, to put it less charitably, mediocre. Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Richard M. Nixon occupy the bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them. A look at history, as well as Bush's policies, explains why.

At a time of national crisis, Pierce and Buchanan, who served in the eight years preceding the Civil War, and Johnson, who followed it, were simply not up to the job. Stubborn, narrow-minded, unwilling to listen to criticism or to consider alternatives to disastrous mistakes, they surrounded themselves with sycophants and shaped their policies to appeal to retrogressive political forces (in that era, pro-slavery and racist ideologues). Even after being repudiated in the midterm elections of 1854, 1858 and 1866, respectively, they ignored major currents of public opinion and clung to flawed policies. Bush's presidency certainly brings theirs to mind.

* * * *

Despite some notable accomplishments in domestic and foreign policy, Nixon is mostly associated today with disdain for the Constitution and abuse of presidential power. Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he viewed every critic as a threat to national security and illegally spied on U.S. citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law.

Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.

* * * *

Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history.

This is a topic I've covered before. It was this time last year that History News Network at George Mason University polled historians informally on the Bush record, with a substantial number finding Bush to be the worst, see He's Number One. See also, historian Sean Wilentz's view in the profile he wrote for Rolling Stone, And the Winner Is?

Some things never change. Bush is certainly someone who doesn't like to change. Nor does his legacy.

~ ~ ~ ~

In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.

-- HL Mencken