Loading ...
By JACK COLWELL
SOUTH BEND - President George W. Bush, with unwavering faith in his beliefs and himself, is convinced of his place in history. His critics also are convinced of his place.
There’s agreement. Not on where he’ll place eventually among the presidents after historians look back at results and ramifications of his policies and accomplishments or lack thereof. But Bush and his detractors do agree that he is leaving office as a very unpopular president.
Bush, certain that war in Iraq was justified and just, has suggested that he will be vindicated in history, same as historians have come to appreciate Harry S. Truman, another president who led the nation into war and left office with approval ratings plummeting amid widespread dissatisfaction over conduct of the war, conditions at home and the level of competency in the White House.
While Truman rates high now, with greater appreciation for his courage to make tough decisions, critics of Bush say a comparison with Truman is ludicrous because Truman was competent, not bumbling, and left the nation stronger, not weaker. They put Bush in the “failed” category of reviled or weak presidents the likes of James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Millard Fillmore, James Polk and Franklin Pierce.
Although it’s far too early to affix a lasting rank among the presidents for Bush, still with a month left in office, a poll of historians by History News Network found 61 percent of those surveyed evaluating Bush as “worst ever.”
Critics say Bush misled the nation about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and tricked us into a long and costly war that squandered U.S. military might, diminished influence and respect abroad and left Iran as the real winner. They blame Bush economic policies for devastating the middle class, running up record deficits and bringing on the worst recessionary times since the Great Depression.
Some of the harshest critics clearly go too far, regarding Bush as “evil,” knowingly doing things to harm the nation.
The president never told former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “Rummy, I want you to mess up the occupation of Iraq, lose as many troops as possible and keep that thing going badly.” His mistake was not removing the inept Rumsfeld long before he finally did. Bush was stubborn, but not intent on evil.
President Bush stuck with his beliefs about the best course for the nation after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Even some severe critics of failure to know what to do in Iraq after reaching Baghdad, after initial military victory, concede that the “surge” he ordered after finally finding the right general has been at least a significant factor in reducing violence in Iraq.
Nor, despite what some Bush haters seem to believe, did he ever order: “Let’s redistribute the wealth, take it all away from the middle class and give it to the wealthiest, especially friends of mine and Dick Cheney in the oil business. And let’s eliminate regulations so wheelers and dealers can do whatever they want.”
Again, he believed he was pursuing the right course, counting on tax cuts and less regulation to spur the economy and bring jobs to the middle class and the poor as well as provide more opportunity for the wealthy.
Recently disclosed White House talking points to promote a positive Bush legacy stress that he responded quickly and decisively after 9/11 and has “kept us safe” from further terrorist attacks in America.
Indeed, he did order quick and decisive action in Afghanistan. As in Iraq, the problem was not with the initial military action but with failure to realize the need for follow-up “nation building” to secure victory.
And it’s a fact that the nation thus far has escaped the series of follow-up terrorist attacks that many feared and predicted. Should Bush be credited for this? Even if his policies are not the sole reason, if he is to be blamed for all that went wrong on his watch, shouldn’t he in fairness get credit for results that were better than expected?
Defenders of the president say the huge deficits and many present economic woes are due to a needed war on terror, not to failed Bush economic policies. That’s one of the parts of the Bush record that historians will explore.
How much of record spending was needed to fight terrorists? A lot, certainly, especially in Afghanistan. How much was wasted. A lot, certainly, especially in the long, chaotic and ineffective stumbling in Iraq after initial defeat of Saddam Hussein’s military forces. But was the whole expenditure to invade Iraq in the first place a waste? Or was the ousting of Saddam, even if he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, a worthwhile endeavor? Historians will look and try to evaluate all of that.
Other Bush spending has become controversial even with his conservative base, with critics on the right saying he turned out not to be a conservative.
They cite what they call the greatest growth of government since the days of Lyndon Johnson. They cite the Medicare prescription drug plan as too costly and No Child Left Behind as improper federal intrusion in local education. They cite growth of the federal bureaucracy and failure of Bush to veto big spending bills approved while Republican congressional leaders were running amok with lobbyists.
Still, some of the programs that miff those on the right could be viewed as proof that those on the left are unfair in portraying Bush as nothing but a cold-hearted right-wing ideologue.
As the president completes his final weeks in the White House, as his last chance at legacy building draws to a close, he has again shown that he cannot be described as an anti-government ideologue. With the recession worsening, his administration has taken action to counter the downturn, with massive government intervention and spending. He also seeks, after Senate Republicans blocked help for the automotive Big Three, to keep them from going bankrupt.
This president is determined not to be remembered as “another President Hoover.”
He will not be haunted by a “Monica” and questions about morality but by a “Katrina” and questions about competence.
Despite what harsh critics say about his place in history, President Bush, with unwavering faith in his beliefs and himself, is convinced of a presidential ranking eventually somewhere near Harry S. Truman. That high? Somewhat lower? Dead last? Somewhat higher? Most of us have our own views. In the long run, historians, with advantage of hindsight and revelations yet to come, will have theirs.
Colwell has covered Indiana politics for more than five decades for the South Bend Tribune.
Tags: George W. Bush, Harry Truman, Jack Colwell
Related posts
This entry was written by and posted on January 2, 2009 at 10:00 am and filed under HPI Weekly. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Post a comment(Latest is displayed first) or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.