Newspaper OpEd (2005)
Robert P. Watson
THE COLD EYE OF HISTORY
In upcoming months, some of President Bush's aides and supporters will likely be pondering the questions "Can Bush's presidency be salvaged?" and "Has the President irreversibly damaged his legacy?" I would respectfully remind them that the question will, after the 2006 midterm elections, no longer be about Bush – we are far beyond that consideration. Rather, it must now about the country's future. Yet, as a scholar of the presidency and historian, these questions prompted me to contemplate Bush's eventual standing as judged by history.
The first attempt to rate presidents occurred in 1948 when the noted historian Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. polled leading scholars and asked them to rank our presidents. Since that poll a number of scholarly rankings have been published and they provide clues as to how Bush measures up compared to other presidents. There is much agreement in these polls as to who are our greatest presidents: Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Thomas Jefferson.
Indeed, these great leaders provide a standard by which all presidents are measured, and their actions and accomplishments offer insights as to the keys to success and greatness in office, especially during times of crisis. From them we know that the country is served well by presidents who exhibit the following traits:
Unfortunately, Bush's presidency has been the polar opposite of this list, which brings up the matter of who are our worst presidents: Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan.
Like them, Bush has been tone deaf to public opinion, disinterested in advice and evidence that contradict his beliefs, intellectually disengaged from the crises that have enveloped his administration, and arrogant in exercising power. These traits were especially prevalent in his nomination of former lottery administrator and pal Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court, as well as in his disregard of the Constitution, thuggishly orchestrated security leaks, and bullying of allies abroad, critics at home, and the press.
But Bush's failure is most apparent in the major crises of his presidency, namely the resounding mishandling of the War in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, recklessly amassing the world's largest budget and trade deficits and potentially insurmountable national debt, and a failure to lead on pressing challenges such as the skyrocketing costs of healthcare, gasoline, or a college education. And in each incidence he refused to adjust, adapt, or alter his flawed strategy.
These missteps bode poorly for Bush because a president's ultimate legacy is how he responds to crisis, particularly war. Even the nation's worst presidential failures in times of crisis – Buchanan's failure to prevent secession of the South, Andrew Johnson's failed Reconstruction, and Hoover's failed response to the Great Depression – pale in comparison to Bush's failures.
Undoubtedly, the source of the problem rests with Bush's personal style. Ironically, this is the very trait about which he and his supporters boasted as a candidate – that he supposedly possessed integrity and leadership skills. Bush's shortcomings are numerous and can best be seen in the mountain of wildly foolish and juvenile official remarks he has made in office, from his premature boast of "mission accomplished" aboard the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln , to jokes to the press about not finding WMD in Iraq, to smirking pride in being "a war president," to his goading terrorists and suicide bombers to "bring `em on!" And they did.
The President continues to proclaim success in the face of overwhelming and incontrovertible failure, while spinning or even outright suppressing facts and evidence to the point where one wonders if he is in touch with reality. Examples abound, including his insistence that an "abstinence-only" policy will prevent HIV-AIDS or his decision to legalize the sale of assault weapons to make our streets and communities safer. Bush has repeatedly suppressed intelligence about the war, ignored medical evidence in decisions by the FDA, and mocked scientific studies on environmental degradation, while both his Attorneys General have stood behind legal and constitutional interpretations that fly in the face of reason, precedent, and the vision of the Founding Fathers.
A particularly disturbing trait of this president has been the culture of secrecy and deceit that has permeated the White House, a problem compounded by his refusal to explain himself and treatment of questions (and questioners) as if they were treasonous. To be sure, unlike Lincoln who appealed to "our better angels" in times of crisis and FDR who affirmed that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," Bush opted for the low-road, governing on fear, division, and distraction. Far from uniting the nation and reaching out, he has sealed himself off from the public, press, and critics, while dividing this nation more sharply than anytime since the Civil War.
Indeed, the President has long passed the point of simply being untrustworthy; he has made a mockery of the office. That Bush will be remembered by history as a failure is now conventional wisdom among scholars of the presidency. So, the question becomes how far down the ranking list will he be?
May I propose three straight-forward measures for rating presidents? (1) Did the president leave the office stronger and in better health than when he took the oath? (2) Did the president leave nation stronger and in better health than when he took the oath? (3) Did the president rise to extraordinary heights in response to extraordinary challenges? Bush is 0-for-3.
Bush will likely be remembered much as is Warren Harding, who served from 1921-1923 and is widely considered to be runner-up as worst president. Harding was disinterested in policy details, brought a group of corrupt cronies to the White House, and stumbled through one mishap after the other. He is remembered as something of a jovial but incompetent puppet for corporate interests, and for setting the nation on a course to the Great Depression.
But it is James Buchanan, president from 1857-1861, who often earns the dubious title of ‘worst president' because he lost the Union to civil war during his watch and failed to change course until it was too late.
When history renders its cold eye on George W. Bush, I believe he will find himself alongside Harding and Buchanan as one of the worst presidents. Bush's legacy will likely be that of death, deficits, and deceit, and it could well take this nation a decade or more to recover from his presidency.
