|
Post by sushiboat on May 17, 2006 21:25:17 GMT -5
A few weeks ago, Rolling Stone published an article by historian Sean Wilentz titled " The Worst President in History?" For comments and responses, see this Google News search. So what do you guys think? Is Dubya the worst ever? Merely bad? Average? Good? Great?
|
|
|
Post by zaab on May 17, 2006 22:11:17 GMT -5
He took a stratospheric approval rating right after 9/11 and brought it down to Nixonian depths with plenty of presidency left to bring it even lower. Likewise he turned a situation in which most nations on earth were offering goodwill and unity and turned us into a pariah nation. He entered a war under false premises. In times of environmental peril, he is attempting to roll back every piece of environmental protection he can. He helped lay a city to waste with his gross incompetence. In the midst of an utter disaster of a war, he is threatening to enter another one, but this time we could use nuclear weapons. He doled out massive tax cuts to the wealthy in the middle of an expensive war and wracked up trillions of dollars in record breaking debt. He oversaw torture in Abu Graib (sp?), held prisoners without charge in Guantanamo...His administration has been involved in what seems to be an endless string of scandals, and each time W insists he is above the law. He stole at least one and as many as two elections....(I could go on and on)
I know the prudent thing would be to wait a few decades and let history sort out who was worst. But, I'm not paid by anyone to be prudent, so I'll go out on a limb and say he is the worst, and the only thing the passage of time will do is reveal just how bad he was. Unfortunately as a nation we'll be regretting his presidency for a very long time.
|
|
|
Post by Crashtastic on May 17, 2006 22:36:18 GMT -5
Lets just say I'm counting the days until November 2008
|
|
|
Post by christfollower on May 18, 2006 2:14:28 GMT -5
I do not agree with everything he has done, but I do not believe he is the worst we have ever had.
We might be in a recession but we are not in a depression nor will we. As far as overseeing the prison abuse - the top person of any place does not always know what is happening at the bottom. That is why all large groups have a chain of command. When there is a Democrat president in office the right screams conspiracy theory or foul - same goes when there is a republican president in office by the left. People get to hooked on what party they belong to instead of looking at the candidate or the lack there of. Bush's administration has been plagued with problems and I believe that is Bush's fault. History shows that what ever party is in power does what they want - they are not in office for the people but for themselves. The political parties also believe they are above the law - not just Bush. His might be more serious in nature, but McKinney and Kennedy proved this.
The younger generation unfortunately are not very learned in history. Heck, a survey done in high schools showed over 50 percent of the students thought the US fought with Germany against Russia! So I can understand that they would not consider the president who brought the US into Vietnam, the president who sent troops after the countries own vets and brought the US into a depression. There are others with a record as bad. Still, it is the current president that is the worst - only due to the way people feel at the given moment. There will be others that will follow Bush as the worst.
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on May 18, 2006 3:05:53 GMT -5
My, this is the most loaded topic i've ever seen here at SU!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Politics and who does it is always entirely subjective, and the last word can never be said in a discussion like this. Needless to say, (and maybe it isn't given how ignorant people can be about their history, as CF pointed out) there have been plenty of lousy and controversial presidents throughout our history. But the past has pushed the heated feelings and emotions over these politicians into the void and made them forgotten. Plenty of people felt that Monroe, John Q Adams, Jaskcon, and Burevn and Lincoln were the worst ever, and Hayes, and T. Roosevelt, and Taft, and Wilson, and Hoover and FDR, and Johnson and Nixon, and even Carter and Reagan many felt were worse. One thing i've noticed though in my studies of American history; as the bureaucracy and scope of govt increase in size and money, the controversey and heated emotions only increase along with it. So the judgement of a politician is always proportionate to the size of the power s/he is responsible for. Hell, if i had the time and the will power to do it, i could ressurect all the heated arguments and backstabbing that went on through these mens' administrations. But i know it won't do any good given the loaded and biased nature of this topic. I don't think Bush is the worst president ever, no. I have my reasons for thinking so, and for the time being, i will keep them private.
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on May 18, 2006 8:42:21 GMT -5
A point that Andrew Bard Schmookler makes is that the other bad Presidents who are candidates for the worst spot dealt badly with the crises of their times. On the other hand, Bush and his administration are different: But this crisis is different. Unlike those of 1861 or 1929 or 1941, the crisis of today is not because of anything that’s happened to our country (Even if the official story of 9/11 were accepted as true, there’s no reason why that trauma had to precipitate a lasting crisis in our national life). No, the reason for our present crisis is that we’re being ruled by a regime of lawbreaking, usurpatious, lying, power-lusting, and blundering thugs.
It's not that we need better leadership in this crisis. The leadership is the crisis.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on May 18, 2006 11:10:19 GMT -5
I don't know much about the previous presidents - so I can't be sure.
|
|
|
Post by zaab on May 18, 2006 11:10:57 GMT -5
I don't think its the high school kids who got Ds in history that are calling W the worst ever, its a significant proportion of historians like the one sushiboat cited. Historians are not the type to make off the cuff remarks they have their academic integrity to protect. I think once time sorts things out we'll be feeling just how bad this presidency was for years to come. Its not going to be pretty, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on May 18, 2006 12:17:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on May 18, 2006 13:12:47 GMT -5
Those are pretty funny, i admit. Now let's see one of Senator Kerry and Senator Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on May 18, 2006 13:25:39 GMT -5
A point that Andrew Bard Schmookler makes is that the other bad Presidents who are candidates for the worst spot dealt badly with the crises of their times. On the other hand, Bush and his administration are different: But this crisis is different. Unlike those of 1861 or 1929 or 1941, the crisis of today is not because of anything that’s happened to our country (Even if the official story of 9/11 were accepted as true, there’s no reason why that trauma had to precipitate a lasting crisis in our national life). No, the reason for our present crisis is that we’re being ruled by a regime of lawbreaking, usurpatious, lying, power-lusting, and blundering thugs.
It's not that we need better leadership in this crisis. The leadership is the crisis. Excuse me? All the crises of those times mentioned could be attributed directly to the leadership of the time. He is accepted as a hero now, but Lincoln was among the most controversial and hotly debate presidents in US history. ( Just look at all the books written about him still, and you'll understand this). Like i said, we have forgotten the emotion that came along with these presidents, but Lincoln was one of the most hated because of the destruction he wrought on the South. Lincoln did not have to invade the Confederacy and re-establish federal control over them. The offensive war that he waged was one of the most controversial in our history; not just about slavery, but of the question of who was superior, federal or state govt. That was a very big legal issue of the time. It's a settled issue now, but it was the hottest topic around back then. Lincoln has the blood of 600,000 Americans on his hands, and many more crippled for life, no matter how well intentioned his goals may have been. About the only thing that kept Lincoln above criticism for so long was his martydom for the cause. It's hard to criticise a martyr, but had he lived he would bore the brunt of recontruction and all its controversy. As for Hoover and FDR, they deserve all the criticism they can ever get. Again, FDR did not have to pursue a war with Germany. Germany was not the aggressor against the US, it was Japan. But somehow, FDR contrived it to make Germany the aggresor. Once again we got sucked into the Europeans' web. FDR went to war with the Germans and Italians, why? Suposedly to stop all the human rights' abuses by a powerful, cruel dictator, (even though Hitler had not yet made any moves against the US in 1941.) Guess what? That's exactly the same kind of reasoning that lead Bush to invade Iraq. Pardon me for thinking so, but think about; the US was also stuck in the great depression for 9 years for under FDR's administration. No matter how you portray it, that's a failure of almost epic proportions for an administrator. Millions of people were out of work for prolonged periods, with no hope of ever getting back on their feet. FDR's irresponsibility also got us involved in Indochina, where he promised US aid to the Vietnamese. Of course, he never followed through on this, but go back and read somf of JFK's motivations for getting into Vietnam, and you'll see FDR's reasoning in the mix. These policians such as Lincoln and FDR are seen as heroes now, but again they were among the most hotly debated and loathed of American contemporary society. History portrays them as love figures now, but I don't think you can compare Dubya Bush to the failures of these Presidents. So if we're gonna call Dubya the worst in US history, well, you better go back and study some of our history there before we get further into this debate. You'll find a lot of hot stuff if you look hard enough. And don't just google information either.
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on May 18, 2006 16:38:11 GMT -5
Lincoln didn't mislead Congress into believing that the South seceded. The South had actually seceded and taken the first act of war in capturing Fort Sumter.
There is no equivalence between WW2 and Iraq War 2. The size and immediacy of the threats were not of the same order of magnitude. Iraq was at most a regional threat, and its neighbors were against the war. The Axis was truly an alliance that threatened the world and had conquered or was attacking much of it before the US got involved.
The US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. Then Germany and Italy declared war on the US. Then the US declared war on Germany and Italy in response. To call the US the aggressor in WW2 would be perverse. Also, it was the Congress that declared war, in accordance with the Constitution. However, FDR did lead the charge – to his credit, I'd say.
The Great Depression was part of a worldwide depression. FDR had the right idea, but he just didn't do it on a large enough scale until WW2. Keynes was right, but his theory had not become part of conventional wisdom yet. It took massive government spending (in WW2) to stimulate demand. In contrast, Bush is using supply side justifications that were long ago proved untenable.
|
|
|
Post by Buzzz on May 18, 2006 18:57:34 GMT -5
Yes.
|
|
|
Post by scottydstno on May 18, 2006 20:37:08 GMT -5
I'd say he's pretty bad yea lol :\. I was actually for him before he was elected the first time ... but since then i've only disliked him more and more, just as the majority of the rest of the world seems to have.
|
|
|
Post by christfollower on May 19, 2006 1:42:24 GMT -5
Zaab - I wasn't referring to kids who got D's in high school history. Its the fact that schools are not teaching history in depth. Over 50%, I hope that is not all D students- that would just be awful.
But as said earlier - it's a view point.
|
|