I came across a US News & World Report Blog article this evening, and its title caught my attention: “The First Draft of History Looks a Bit Rough on Bush.” Strangely, what struck me had nothing to do with my wholehearted concurrence with the title’s assessment; rather, I immediately pondered whether or not historians can really make that judgement just yet.
Posted 11 April 2008, Kenneth T. Walsh wrote:
President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can’t be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush’s presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success. Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the historians rated Bush’s presidency in last place. Among the reasons given for his low ratings: invading Iraq, “tax breaks for the rich,” and alienating many nations around the world. Bush supporters counter that professional historians today tend to be liberal and that it’s too early to assess how his policies will turn out.
Again, I must tell you that I have no problem with the results of above mentioned survey. Indeed, one of the Bush Administration’s most devious actions, infesting the Justice Department with political hacks, should be tacked on to the above listed reasons for Bush’s ratings. The chance that history will “vindicate” Bush are exteemly small.
That being said, there are too many variables involved in the historical assessement of George W. Bush’s presidency. Most would say that his historical verdict is dependant upon the outcome in Iraq, which is something we won’t know for some time. Other issues, in the not-so-distant-future, will also need to be resolved.
Consider the Huffington Post article, “Obama Would “Immediately Review” Potential Of Crimes In Bush White House.” Of course, this depends upon the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election in November. However, an intense investigation into the treatment of detainees or pre-war intelligence manipulation, just to name a couple of issues, may well turn out to be criminal offenses. Then again, it may turn out that such lapses were due to managerial ineptitude. Only time will tell.
Of course, there are many other issues that need to be resolved before the Bush administration can be properly judged by historians. Most contemporary assessments are damning, indeed; however, they can only serve to inform future historical treatments of George W. Bush. However it turns out, I look forward to reading it. Until then, survey administrators may ask their questions and contemplate their results; but, should they ask how history will judge Bush, the answer they receive, from historians anyway, should be: Yet to be determined.
If you’re interested in a pro’s assessment of this issue, be sure to check out Robert S. McElvaine’s post on HNN.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 16th, 2008 at 9:41 am and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
If you have not done so, please view PBS Frontline’s “Bush’s War” (available on their website as it was aired). The subject matter is indeed grim, but more importantly, a pattern of leadership is exposed to show that President Bush is not a leader but a follower of incredibly arrogant and insanely immoral advisors. I really think that when it is all sorted out, our current President will be dismissed as just a poor manager of people. If his world and domestic actions over the past 7.5 years are any indication of the will of “We, the people”, we are in more trouble than I can say.