I usually don't do this...publish somebody else's work. Gather should be for writers, not bloggers.
I will make an exception in this case, because it is such an important article, and so well researched and written.
I promise that I will not do this often.
Here is the link.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 37
I agree. Impeachment won't solve anything, and like Clinton's impeachment, it will just immobilize the country for a year, and when we're done what do we have? Cheney running the country! No thanks
The best thing that can happen is if both houses of Congress are controlled by Democrats after the elections this fall. I know, I know, the Dems aren't that much better, but at least they will serve as a check on Bush's idiocies. And then, hopefully, we can elect somebody in 2008 who will be more responsible.
I found the last paragraph about the future judging Bush interesting. I think the concept of "Last Judgment" in Christianity is a metaphor for the people of the future judging the people and actions of the past. Those ideas and actions judged not worthy to take the world into the future are "burned" in the "fires" of consciousness and abhorred in the future. The nation will be left sweeping up the ashes of Bush' policies and actions.
I agree. I thought it was the best summing up of the Bush presidency that I have seen.
Sandy,
Yes, political gridlock is preferable to riding on a train headed for a bridge that is out.
Donald,
Yes, but the problem is, those jerks control the media, and this message needs to be broadcast to every citizen! How do we do that?
Verie,
If there is a "Judgment Day" for these jerks, they will surely be toast...if not by the wrath of the Almighty (which I doubt, as you know) then by the wrath of future generations. I only hope the nation can survive the damage these people are donig.
"...There are some numbers. The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred and fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered -- maybe they were all crazed liberals -- making the project as unofficial as it was interesting. These were the results: 338 said they believed Bush was
failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever. Worse than Buchanan. ..."
Briefly: about 1200 historians were (informally) polled regarding Bush's performance as president. 415 responded (~35%), of which 338 said he was failing, and 77 said he was succeeding. SInce 2/3's didn't bother with the poll (actually, this is a relatively good response rate), there is the question of self-selection bias (i.e., those with the strongest feelings are more likely to respond). So 28% of the total said he was failing, and 6% said he was succeeding--about a 4.4 to 1 ratio. Likely the 2/3's who did not respond tilted the same way, but not as far (maybe 2:1?). (Most people throw these things away without regard to content, and it is very telling that a fifth felt he was the worst president ever.
Unfortunately, there are not enough details to dig deeper (it would be interesting to see how strongly people felt Bush was succeeding or failing. Those most motivated to respond to a survey are those with the strongest feelings on the subject, so most of the people with the strongest feelings would have been in the 1/3 who responded, not the 2/3 who did not. If the percentage in the 1/3 who felt that he was strongly succeeding was low, it is highly likely that the percentage of the 1200 is even lower).
Of course the historians are liberals. But mainly by definition, not by content. Currently, anyone who disagrees with the ruling conservative coalition is labeled liberal.
I'm not hearing the level of outrage from the Dems that I should be hearing, though. And, it's a long time until the midterm elections this fall. The American electorate has a very short attention span. Will they even remember the mess the country is in by October?
It's up to us, and the rest of the concerned citizens of both parties to keep the pot bubbling.
I have my own theory as to where Mr. Bush will end up in the filing cabinet of history. I also believe he will end up in the back of a bottom drawer, but not for the reasons other have suggested.
The biggest mistake Bush has made, in my opinion, is forgetting that the American people as a whole are not and never will be of the corporate executive mindset.
During his entire Presidency, Bush has mistakenly thought that all of America wants to sit in the boardroom someday, take long vacations,have an expense account, wear a suit every day, and only do manual labor as a hobby.
Because of this miscalulation on his part he has walked himself out to the end of his own gangplank. He can't go back, and he's not too thrilled about taking that last step forward.
Take a look around the world, in every society that has survived the test of time, it is the average Joes and Janes of the world that have survived. Castles that once housed the rulers of the world are now bed and breakfast-type hotels, or other public facilities.
Long after Carl Rove is forgotten and Dick Cheney is forgotten George Bush will be remembered as the Prseident who "just didn't get it". I doubt he'll be remembered by history as being especially evil. More likely he'll be remembered as the President who mistakenly thought all Americans wanted a "Dallas" lifestyle, instead of the "Jefferson's" lifestyle we're really after.
As usual, an interesting and different view from you. Thanks.
I think he will not be viewed as benevolently as you suggest. Too much really bad stuff...ill-conceived and executed war, media manipulation, suppression of civil liberties, torture and corruption...has come to light, and it happened on his watch.
Like Warren Harding, he may be viewed as an incompetent bumbler who made poor choices for advisors and delegated too much authority to them.. That is the best he can hope for.
I would guess that the historians who support the the president are pretty tepid in their support. And many conservatives aren't happy either. Is it the same here?
23rd Qualm
"Bush is my shepherd; I dwell in want.
He maketh logs to be cut down in national forests.
He leadeth trucks into the still wilderness.
He restoreth my fears.
He leadeth me in the paths of international disgrace for his ego's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of pollution and war, I will find no exit, for thou art in office.
Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy media control, they discomfort me.
Thou preparest an agenda of deception in the presence of thy religion.
Thou anointest my head with foreign oil.
My health insurance runneth out.
Surely megalomania and false patriotism shall follow me all the days of thy term, and my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever."
His idiot speech is always worth a laugh.
His wife seems nice, kind of pitiful, but nice.
His mommy loves him.
Lots of folks pray for him.
I don't think he tortures dogs. Iraqis, but not dogs.
He's always smirking. The same smirk, war or peace, rich or richer.
You don't need big words to communicate with him.
He's really a jolly, carefree guy as long as the oil companies are looting.
If you were in his admin you could be a internet perver, theif or Rumsfeld and he'd back you forever.
See? He's not ALL bad.
Thanks for showing me the kinder, gentler side of Dubya. I needed that.
The issue relating to the mechanisms that should be used to 'gather' the data for wise decision-making has been an issue in advanced courses in graduate management schools for a long time. Diverse opinions -- generally speaking -- should always be systematically 'gathered' in order to gain realistic views of the decision-making issues being deliberated upon. Polling provides SCIENTIFIC mechanisms to study complexity. There is a great deal of technique and knowledge about the designs and use of such high-powered statistical and probabilistic methods. I woud guess and hope that our Historian friends have been careful in fully utilizing and explaining their methods and proceedures with regard to the important assessments that have appeared in the article to which you gave us acccess.
Polling methods provide ways to give BALANCED information about situations. All such analysis is designed to better understand existential realities. There is too little discussion about the nature of TRUTH in the public domain. Academics and empirically inclined scientists (not all are such) worry about conclusions reached from data, and most often turn to carefully designed analysis of data methods along with experimental designs.
In many well run companies, gathering important data that gives realistic insight into what REALITIES are all about, is a sine qua non (i.e. that which cannot be ignored). OPINIONS should be a culmination in an investigation after as many facts -- broadly gathered and carefully analyzed -- have been evaluated and then set against the decision-problem. I have had the opinion (and I am quite well versed in these highly technical analytic methods (a PhD with such methods) and I have taught graduate school courses in marketing and other research methods) many executives are not always well versed in these advanced techniques that add 'balance' to decision-making possibilities. I wince whenever I hear a high government official say that s/he pays no atention to poll results. Whose judgement is then becoming operative? Usually a very narrosw personal one. And that can be dangerous since actions from on high impact many, many citizens -- WORLDWIDE with undesired consequences.
All is OK if you are making decisions for youself, where very few other human beings are going to be impacted by your decsion. BUT when your decision is going to impact millions or possibly billions of other persons on our Earth, that official had better pay attention to the findings of WELL DESIGNED POLLING DATA. Not to do so is a violation of a basic moral premise to be careful when stakes are high, VERY high. And that translates into a recognition that decisions must reflect a deep RESPONSIBILITY to ALL OTHERS, not the personal self. Ignorance KILLS!
Human Judgment is always -- by definition -- narrow. Interactions with very diverse informed others is a KEY rule to be followed, minimally. Beyond that wisdom requirement are the scientifically and carefully drawn OPINIONS and FINDINGS of broad based POLLS. In that way decision-making at high government levels becomes an exercise to create for the MANY of us regular citizens, an insurance policy that notes that we do not wish to have OUR lives determined by a mind that may not have the vision and judgement on specific issues that the importance of the decison to be made infers.
I must admit that the Historians;' case seems valid for me as I understand its structure and its conclusions. I presume that they were analytically careful. I try always to be (wisely?) neutral on important issues. I must say here that I am concerned that too little balanced judgement seems to be influencing the highest reaches of our government in these dangerous days, on very important issues with very significant LONG-TERM implications.
Dick
Thanks for your thoughtful and informative comment. My view is that this is not the first time in recent history (Nixon comes to mind) when an embattled president has isolated himself from reality with his small staff of sycophants who tell him what he wants to hear...or what they want him to hear. Arguably, this president did that BEFORE he became embattled, however.
I think Bush's quasi-religious approach to the presidency precludes the kind of objective data gathering and consensual decision making that you describe. His faith, and his unswerving loyalty to his cronies defines him. He doesn't want to be confused with facts.
It's a time of hope and change. It's always good to get perspective but we must remember that the past need not necessarily be repeated, as long as we let it inform our present as we plan for the future.
I am not worried about Obama repeating Dubya's mistakes. But he will undoubtedly make some of his own. Nobody does the Presidency perfectly.
I too wonder what the writer would say now, eight months after this article was written. A lot has transpired since then. None of Bush's actions since then have changed my opinion. His administration will go down in history as one of the worst, if not THE worst, that our nation has ever seen. I fervently hope that it will not be remembered as the one that led to the demise of the nation.
Still, while George W. will never answer the charges, that should not prevent the watchdogs from writing them, for the benefit of the public.
The article appears to be closing the book on the Bush administration. No, no. Later for that. In addition, in simply recapping the headlines, the assessment failed to acknowledge anything close to the extent of Bush damage, for example, credit policies and the incident on September eleven.
Of course they led to the demise of the nation. My question is, "Can America recover?"
Overly dramatic?
I wouldn't say that our nation has met its end yet, Ed. We have probably lost our position as the last remaining superpower, though. Our waning military/economic strength practically guarantees that. I read a piece by a Brit the other day who said, basically, not to worry about it. We'll be better off as just a member of the community of nations.
I tend to agree.
(not forgetting the Bushes are they.) The article seems so timely and such, with so much scurrying around. Dylan put it this way:
"Across the street, they've nailed the curtains,
They're getting ready for the feast.
The Phantom of the Opera,
A perfect imitation of a priest."
in, "Desolation Row." (1965)
I was using "demise" in the sense of lost position or status, as opposed to outright death; the former certain, the latter an eerie possibility. One thing we can be pretty sure of, we haven't hit bottom yet; but I can see England from here.
I'm sure it's not the first time you have heard it expressed.
But look, if the American public is going to elect utter delusional incompetents such as any Bush, Cheney, Wolf-wits, Perl, Robertson, Limbaugh, Kristol, Rove, I could go on, turn them loose with the fate of the world, all I can say is Viva la France.
Bush hasn't a clue of what the diplomats' game is, but the rest of the world knows all too well. The game is to make the other fellow look like a jerk. With Dick and George, the world's diplomats have had a literal field day. Only, not everyone is laughing.