Frozen Ice Balls and the Bush Legacy

As the clock winds down on what may well be the worst presidency in American history, the Bush administration spin has taken one more surreal twist as Vice President Dick Cheney's aggressively unapologetic stance regarding the administrations policies and actions over the last eight years is tempered by President Bush and those around him urging us not to judge Bush yet, but to take a longer, more historical view of the Bush presidency. Presumably, this is simply what you say at the end of a failed presidency rather than simply admit that failure, but it is worth trying to determine precisely what President Bush means when he asks us to take a more historical perspective on his presidency.

Perhaps Bush hopes or believes that at least for the foreseeable future, scholars and others will borrow a line from the former Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai who when asked, in the late 20th century, what he thought of the French Revolution said it was too early to tell. Perhaps Bush believes that, as the now back in fashion economist John Maynard Keynes wrote more than eighty years ago, "in the long run we are all dead." More likely, as a baseball fan, Bush is placing his faith in the frozen ice ball theory. This theory, alternately attributed to one of two left-handed pitchers from the 1970s, Bill Lee or Tug McGraw, is essentially that in millions of years the sun will go supernova, the earth will turn into a frozen ice ball and nobody will care what Reggie Jackson, Tony Perez or anybody else did against Tug McGraw or Bill Lee with two men on in the World Series. It is probably true that several million years from now, nobody will be around to care about how bad a president George W. Bush was, but I wouldn't want to hang my legacy on that.

What if, however, we took the Bush claim at face value and imagined what historians, sometime before the frozen ice ball theory kicks in, perhaps years or decades from now will say about the Bush presidency? It is very unlikely that history will view the Bush presidency as kindly as the Bush White House and family might like. The Bush presidency will most likely remembered for squandered opportunities and disastrous decisions in foreign policy, mismanagement of the economy, corruption of both a petty and serious nature, creative interpretations of the constitution, and a studied, and malignant, neglect of major issues such as climate change. In fairness, Bush will be remembered for some positive things such as increases in some areas of foreign assistance and in an "other than that Mrs. Lincoln how was the show?" kind of way, keeping the country safe from terrorism after the attacks of September 11th.

The major areas on which Bush will be evaluated will be the same as those on which most presidents are judged, the economy and foreign policy. In these areas, it is likely that his legacy will grow worse, not better, over the next few decades. With regards to the economy, the evaluation will remain unambiguous, Bush inherited a functioning, even prosperous economy, although hardly one without problems or significant flaws, and due largely to a zealous, almost fanatic, aversion to taxes and regulation, will leave office with an economy that while in severe recession is also plagued by structural problems that will take years to solve. Bush should not be held entirely responsible for these structural problems, but he certainly spent the last eight years making them worse. Even in the throes of the most bizarre Rovian fantasy, it is hard to imagine an economist in the year 2050 or 2100 saying "we should all be grateful for the sound economic management of the Bush administration."

It is the Bush foreign policy, however, that will almost certainly keep historians busiest over the next decades. The most generous historians will give Bush credit for ridding the world of Saddam Hussein who had been one of the worst dictators in recent history. However, even those will have to temper their positive evaluation with a critique of the process by which Bush both took our country to war and how his team conducted that war. The best thing future historians will be able to say accurately about the Iraq war is something to the effect of George W. Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq in the worst way possible-and that's exactly what he did.

It is far more likely that future historians will focus on how Bush allowed international goodwill following the end of the Cold War and the attacks of September 11th, and the accumulated power of the US to drain away into the sands of the Iraqi desert while killing and displacing thousands, wasting billions of dollars and ignoring other serious problems around the world. John McCain's, incessant claims notwithstanding, the surge may be working, but a functioning, peaceful Iraq after the US troops leave, is still a very tenuous proposition. More importantly, the war in Iraq has started an entirely predictable, and predicted, chain of events which has led to far less stability and danger in the greater Middle East. This damage is not irreversible, but if in the future Middle Eastern lemons are turned into lemonade, serious scholars will give the credit where it is due, to the administrations of Barack Obama or perhaps his successors, not to Bush for the mess he made.

Of course, the Middle East is not the only region where Bush foreign policy has been a disaster. Historians will undoubtedly comment upon Bush's years of ignoring the growing strength and malignant role played by Russia in much of Eurasia, and the failure to develop a strategy which recognized the reality of new Russia. It is also telling that as the Bush administration winds down, tensions are heating up between two nuclear powers, but that is only the second most pressing foreign policy issue of the moment. My word limit does not lend itself well to a comprehensive tour of Bush foreign policy mistakes, but the point should be clear by now.

Bush has left the country weaker economically and in a more dangerous unsettled world than the one he found. He has also left the country in more peril from climate change and other environmental threats than it was eight years ago. These are far from short term issues which will go away in a few decades. Unfortunately for Bush, history will judge him and, future frozen ice balls notwithstanding, most historians won't be as forgiving as Bill Lee or Tug McGraw.

Comments

[ajpor]

"As the clock winds down on what may well be the worst presidency in American history,..."

Really? 'May' be the worst? What is that, a sop to the GOP or the Christians?

Look, being the worst is the only talent Bush has. Don't take that away from him; he earned it. Give the boy his due.

[bubbuh]

The Hoover, Harding, Grant and first Adams administrations are clearly in the running for worst. There are others, Bush is in the running as well. Study some history.

[jhamm1]

Bear in mind, this prediction is based on the presumption that historians of the future will actually harbor some knowledge about their subject matter. But I'm not so sure.

Over the past decade, declining educational standards and a progressive lack of respect for the scientific method has produced a new generation of so-called "historians" who have become increasingly sloppy with details, culminating in selective analysis of source material and arguments based almost exclusively on emotion.

One of my old professors showed me a political science "textbook" whose lame-brained analysis of current events included eroneous assumptions that Germany and France failed to support the Iraqi War resolution on account of hoping to maintain oil deals with Saddam Hussein, without any corroborating evidence whatsover, needless to say.

There's an underlying reason why I never trust a professor under the age of 50.

[paulphotog]

Bush jr. showed up eight years ago, with his cadre of deranged neanderthal thugs armed with wrecking balls.
And here we are.

[Lemon722]

But he didn't keep us safe from attack. Learning a lesson in Afghanistan (when he fought the Russians wth US help) bin Laden has repeatedly restated his strategy. The initial attack was to create fear and provoke an attack into Afghanistan where they would bog down an invading army and bankrupt them as they did Russia. The 9-11 attacks were successful and yes no terrorist would be upset if another attack was planned and worked but the point was to make the initial attack big enough, with enough damage to force the US into invading -- then bin Laden hit the jackpot -- the Arab world was not responding as favorably as he believed they would at the start. Most of the world agreed the US had a right to invade -- but W stepped up to save bin laden's backside by invading Iraq and giving the Arab world a uniting reason to fight. Billions of dollars have been spent and will be spent and meanwhile our economy is in pieces. Actually W played right into bin Laden's hands and made it possible for us to lose -- he didn't have to send in additional terrorists to destroy us -- he had Bush and Cheney to do his dirty work for him.

[JEP57]

Lincoln, Focusing on the bad economy of the last half year and ignoring the decent economy of the last seven betrays your agenda. It's like pointing out the four dollar a gallon gas prices a year ago and ignoring the $1.65 a gallon now. You have to look at the overall picture to get an accurate assesment of any leader. And acting on climate change: Does anyone really think we can change global climate back to an ideal state or want to damage economies trying to do it. Maybe Bush has more common sense than you think.

[newworldman777]

"Common sense" does not a great president make. Study, hard work, dedication, benevolence and altruism do. This Bush character never performed or exibited any of them.

Bush seems to like to compare himself to Lincoln, since they both presided over unpopular wars. Unlike Lincoln, however, Bush never suffered over his war; he never lost a minute of sleep over it -- not over the unnecessary deaths of over 100k innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, and not over the deaths of over 4000 American service people. Bush didn't properly educate himself about the cultures that he was meddling with in the Middle East. Bush based his decisions -- most of which were colossal failures -- upon "gut feelings" (which most professionals call "delusions") that he thought were presented to him metaphysically by "God." Bush's rationalization for war were hopelessly flawed, as opposed to Lincoln's sound reasoning. In short, Bush is an utter failure of his own creation. He can blame only himself.

[Articulator]

The economy during Bush's term was a false economy that finally popped. Holding interest rates artificially down created a false impression that eventually had to blow up in everyone's face. Can you imagine if the bubble took a couple of extra months to pop. Rush has already declared Obama as the cause of the bad economy.

[davedave]

his short term award from a not quite grateful world is a shoe.

perhaps if between now and jan 20th all those passing the white house could gently and quietly lay a shoe next to the gates and walls to show appreciation for the many acts of this lame duck regime...

history gave some presidents rushmore, bush gets a shoe.

d

[dessertsfirst]

If the millions of squandered dollars of taxpayers money had been better accounted for and appropriately put to use at the front end of the Iraq war, we might not be in such bad shape economically now. It really is criminal how GWB managed all the resources (human and material), of this great country. GWB brought this country to it's knees in such a way that Osama bin Laden didn't need to attack us again after 911. And he has taken credit for "keeping America safe", since there have been no further terrorist attacks on American soil. The havoc he has wreaked on America is despic@ble, to say the least.

[appleknocker]

Since history is famously written by the winners, and since the war between faith and reason will presumably be won by the faithful by virtue of their higher birth-rate, it is entirely possible that history - at least main-stream popular history - will indeed look favorably upon Bush.

[medici]

If we have a million U.S. presidents, Dubya Bush will still be universally regarded as the absolute worst.

[peterg76]

Bush doesn't care how he's remembered. He just wants to delay scrutiny long enough to escape justice.

[paulfree17]

""and in an "other than that Mrs. Lincoln how was the show?" kind of way, keeping the country safe from terrorism after the attacks of September 11th."

Well he was the President on 9/11 so saying he kept us safe after the attacks is like someone taking credit for not beating their wife anymore.

Bill Clinton kept us safe for almost 8 years from the first WTC attack in February of 1993 through January of 2000. He did it without invading another country, ignoring the Constitution, torturing prisoners, or destroying the economy.

[trisha08]

You failed to mention the torture policy under Bush. It's true, we don't know how those decisions will haunt or hurt us in the future. That history hasn't been written yet, so Bush may be right in that that we need a historical view to judge his presidency. There is a lot of fallout yet to be seen.

[JEP57]

There is no torture "policy". Some organizations consider waterboarding torture but my guess is that most Americans don't consider it "real" torture just a tough technique, and as long as it's extracting vital information from our enemies to keep us safe, they won't put up a fuss to actually stop it. Even people on the left

[jotunloki]

Sorry but we tried and executed Japanese soldiers for using that technique. We also signed the Geneva Accords agreeing that waterboarding was torture.

[kylennblack]

"[Bush] asks us to take a more historical perspective on his presidency."

Hmm. Okay. *builds time machine. Travels back in time*

Done.

Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Abraham Lincoln all agree: Bush s.ucks. I couldn't get a comment from Herbert Hoover - he's still laughing.

[newworldman777]

How peculiar that a president would have the audacity to make draconian -- even illegal -- decisions that affect tens of millions of people, and they then proclaim that his contemporary generation doesn't have the right to judge him since only future generations will have that right. That kind of arrogance goes right along with everything else that this little man has done for the past 8 years.

To use his logic about Iraq, let's expound upon that. Why doesn't the president order the invasion of Saudi Arabia and seize their oil reserves? The Arabs won't like it, but they will get over it. In the end, we will have provided ourselves with a huge supply of oil reserves, thus enabling us to help our economy, enriching Americans in the process. I am being facetious, but you get my drift.

His policies were similar to that of Andrew Jackson. Jackson knew that America could prosper after ridding "their" land of those pesky Indians east of the Mississippi. So, he signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, forcing the Indians from their land. The consequences of the act were disastrous for the Native Americans, but he was only concerned about the "future" of the country. The end result of the policy was wonderful for the European Americans, but the Indians continue to suffer to this day from it's residual effects. The conclusions that can be drawn from the execution of such draconian policies are always relative; they depend upon whose perspective

[Agent420]

"He kept the country safe from terroists since 9/11" is one of the stupidest phrases to come out of the Bush fiasco. Tell me how keeping us safe from a theoretical attack better than keeping us safe from a real attack? The same logic I used back when I was a drinker, "I drink Gin and Tonic to keep me safe from malaria. See, it works, I don't have malaria!"

[trisha08]

Exactly. I've always said (regarding those say that Bush kept us safe from another attack)....
My grandmother smoked her entire adult life and lived to be 90. See, smoking doesn't cause cancer.

It's the same logic.

[dessertsfirst]

LMAO!!! good one.

[larstein]

Failed presidents like Nixon and Bush demand that we wait for the "judgement of history." They assume that books will continue to be the primary record. But in the media age personality and character are far more important in assessing a president's success or failure than historical treaties or wars. Nixon is still considered a conflicted, twisted neurotic by most people. Yet, he is eternally fascinating as a presidential nemesis, as "bad" as Lincoln was "good." Bush, on the other hand, will be remembered mostly for his smirk, that narcissistic, arrogant smugness that inspired nothing but contempt. His most memorable moment will be the "mission accomplished" speech on the aircraft carrier, after appearing in a flight suit, having pretended to actually fly the plane himself. Nearly everything he did during his administration will astonish historians for the brazenness of its criminality, or its breath taking incompetence. That his gang was so effective in stealing trillions of dollars from US taxpayers, making kleptocratic administrations such as the Harding gang look like the small time provincials they were, will confound historians who try to view his presidency as anything other than the crime spree it actually was. The only good to come out of it will be to see the Bush years as a cautionary tale that must never be allowed to happen again.