- This topic has 4 voices and 15 replies.
-
Posts
-
How will Bush's legacy be remembered? What will the history books say about his tenure?Here is a thoughtful article which suggests it will be brighter than you might think given the current criticism of his performance.Have we misunderestimated George W Bush?
He will have his critics for several more years, but like all former presidents, it will become trendy to “rehabilitate” him at some point.
In that article I linked to they talk about other presidents who have been “rehabilitated” in history….Truman, Bush Sr., Eisenhower and Reagan. W's legacy might taken longer to rehabilitate though since much of it will hinge on Iraq's success in the future. Of course, if Obama gets in and a terrorist attacks soon thereafter, Bush's legacy will probably get a bump right there.
Bush is probably the most hated president of the modern era (maybe right there with Hoover). Yet he's probably the only president hated that much that served two terms. That's a legacy in of itself IMHO. For the record, I still like Bush, but he disappointed me on many levels. I also think he's done some things that will hurt the Republic in the future just for the expediency of fighting the war on terror today. Hopefully I'll be wrong on this, but I don't see it at this time.
I think that if Bush has disappointed me it's in the lack of controlled spending. I don't like the fact that a large presence in Iraq doesn't have a specific ending point at this time but the alternative would not be all that feasible either. We can't really blame Bush for this, so the criticism would potentially be in regard to going into Iraq in the first place. That said, very recently it seems that Iraqi security improvements are significantly improving so there may be a “winding down” date on the horizon.But aside from this, when I assess Bush's presidency I am more positive. He seems to have taken the line that it's his job to keep America safe and he will do this with a deaf ear to detractors. Bush sees his responsibility in the highest light. I think that this is largely the kind of leadership that is needed because the threat of "what could otherwise happen" is so great. On the flip side, though, it's a political mudpit. Bush has done a rather poor job at marketing his message to the public to the "spin" on his actions are largely left up to the media and Hollywood to decide, and these left-leaning institutions have their own biases. Bush has appointed fantastic supreme court justices, has created a favorable connection between state and faith-based organizations, has promoted a culture of life, and has spearheaded the effort to benefit Africa more than any other president. He is a relatively modest man with a noble purpose. He hasn't been perfect but I am quite happy with his performance.
He's no Ronald Reagan and McCain isn't going to be as good as Bush was IMHO. The dropoff is quite large from Reagan to McCain (if McCain wins that is).
How will Bush's legacy be remembered? What will the history books say about his tenure?
I think it all depends on the Middle East. Not just Iraq...we already won Iraq. But what effect is that going to have on the region? If terrorist threats don't change or if they increase, then Bush's legacy is toast for the remainder of history. If there is a change, democracy if you will, then Bush could very well go down as one of the greatest presidents in US history...even better than Reagan. Reagan's economic policies were above all, but his ignoring the growing threat of state and non-state sponsored terrorism leaves me with mixed feelings towards him. Yes the Cold War was at a critical point during his tenure, but I think he placed too much of his attention on that. Nixon was really the one who started the change in the bipolar system anyway and IMO, he gets no credit whatsoever. Nixon knew China and Russia were at odds, and he played them against each other brilliantly. Nixon, not Reagan, is more of the reason the US is now the sole superpower.
Nixon, not Reagan, is more of the reason the US is now the sole superpower.
Alright, now that you said it, you have to prove it. This I gotta see. 😮
I already said it. He (with Kissinger) played China against Russia. Detente. He used the old balance of power thing by bringing a third power onstage. 😉
I already said it. He (with Kissinger) played China against Russia. Detente. He used the old balance of power thing by bringing a third power onstage. 😉
So by employing Fabian tactics Nixon/Kissenger (Nixenger for short) made America the sole superpower? You do realize that Carter/Vance/Brzenski bogged Russia down in Afghanistan by supplying the Muhajadeen, and the Reagan/Bush/Schulz/Baker regime spent the Russians into the ground with SDI, the B1 and B2 bomber projects and the modernization of our air force and navy? Not to mention the blunderings of Gorbachev himself who let Perestroika destabilize the USSR by letting free ideas float around added with a pinch of quasi-capitalism? Nixenger gets credit for all of that too? Come on ski there has to be more to it than that.
We'll just agree to disagree. 🙂 There were no recent relations with China before Nixon, and by opening that door, he showed Russia how unimportant they were. Gorby screwed up because he wanted to open up the USSR to the West in order to compete with China. Obviously he failed. Nixon started it, Reagan completed it. All I'm saying is Nixon doesn't get the credit he deserves for increasing US dominance, while Reagan gets all of it.
Don't get me wrong, I like ole Tricky Dick, but I just wanted you to explain yourself as a good scholar is supposed to. Pick a position and defend it. 😉
Pick a position and defend it. 😉
Already did. Maybe you should have read my posts #6 & #8 more carefully before accusing me of not defending my position. 😉
Alright, alright you two [referee whistle]. 😉While we're on the topic of Reagan, I have a question: is Reagan's legacy inflated? He is often appealed to as means of conjuring up iconic images and successful conservative policies. Does his tenure reflect his current image?I should add to this that particularly in Europe in the 18th and early 19th centuries, culture looked to ancient Greece and Rome for inspiration and formed a measure by which contemporary politicians would be measured. In other words, those Europeans looked backward for inspiration and in doing so elevated it above the realities of the ancient days.Is this the same kind of thing - to a lesser degree - that is going on with Reagan's legacy?
Pick a position and defend it. 😉
Already did. Maybe you should have read my posts #6 & #8 more carefully before accusing me of not defending my position. 😉
That's not what I meant. I meant as a rule of thumb "pick a position and defend it." Of course you picked a position and were defending it. DOH!:)
