Worst, Worster, Worstest
The Washington Post carries a total of five op-ed pieces today discussing the likely historical ranking of George Bush in the Presidential gallery; and while, as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't belong in that line due to illegitimacy, they make for fascinating reading. In descending order of obloquy, the pieces are:
Vincent J. Cannato argues that the test of history requires a historical timescale, and that it's possible that Bush could be spared the worst-ever ranking due to a haze of distance or with an eye to successes that may yet appear. This most obvious reactionary lickspittle amongst the five makes the best-case assumption that Bush's legacy will be 'mixed', thereby demonstrating that even amongst the right, there is a dawning realization of catastrophe.
Michael Lind makes the case that Bush ranks merely as fifth-worst, and offers up James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison as greater catastrophes.
Douglas Brinkley also notes that there are two more agonizingly long years to go which may offer Bush redemption, but
[t]hough Bush may be viewed as a laughingstock, he won't have the zero-integrity factors [sic] that have kept Nixon and Harding at the bottom in the presidential sweepstakes. Oddly, the president whom Bush most reminds me of is Herbert Hoover, whose name is synonymous with failure to respond to the Great Depression. When the stock market collapsed, Hoover, for ideological reasons, did too little. When 9/11 happened, Bush did too much, attacking the wrong country at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. He has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president.
David Greenberg, pending the next two years, sticks with Nixon in the bottom spot, for the time being.
Eric Foner keeps it simple, with the self-explanatory title He's the worst ever.
And to think that there was a time when some interested parties were flogging a 'Bush is like FDR and Churchill' storyline.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Accountability | Corruption | Crime | History | Impeachment | Iraq | Barking crazy rightwingers | George W. Bush
Bush has done the impossible for Nixon
Submitted by Bouldin on 3 December 2006 - 10:41pm.
...which is make him look good by comparison. Nixon was a crook, no doubt, but at least he was competent. Bush couldn't even deal with a hurricane.
In retrospect, Nixon was not so bad
Submitted by Daniel Millstone on 3 December 2006 - 11:51pm.
He went to China, he signed a whole network of environmental statutes. Compared to Ronald Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, Nixon was just great. I worry that, in retrospect, future progressives might see Bush II as not so bad.
Sad but true
Submitted by sidnora on 4 December 2006 - 1:15am.
this isn't the first time in the past long, long six years that I've found myself waxing nostalgic for Nixon. He was at least living in the same world as the rest of us, at least until near the end.
Heh...
Buchanan at least had the unique distinction of POSSIBLY being our only gay president. Of course this is disputed.
Andrew Johnson was mainly trying to do the best he could during the aftermath of the Civil War. He had a harder situation in his hands.
Nixon at least was intelligent, initiated Detente and opened up diplomacy with China, started the EPA and, in short, gave a genuine positive legacy to America despite being a crazy, paranoid, possibly drugged up, bitter old man.
James Madison??? First time I've heard him in such a list of worst Presidents.
Harding may be in the running. Hoover was MUCH better than Bush could ever fantasize of being, though in the end he failed.
All in all, Harding and Bush are both rock bottom. I'd far rather Buchannan than Bush any day. And note to Republicans: once your boy is being compared with Harding and Buchannan, you know you suck.