"The Worst President in History?"

That is the title of an article in the 5/4/06 issue of the magazine Rolling Stone which assesses George W. Bush. The author, one Sean Wilentz, a professor of American history at Princeton University, poses the question in a rhetorical sense: the reader of the article pretty well knows, from the beginning, what Wilentz’s answer is going to be. Following are some quotations from the article.

–Twelve percent of the historians polled (by the cable channel History News Network)–nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success–flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush’s role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher.

–Since the commencement of reliable polling in the 1940's, only one twice-elected president has seen his ratings fall as low as Bush’s in his second term: Richard Nixon, during the months preceding his resignation in 1974.

–How does any president’s reputation sink so low? The reasons are best understood as the reverse of those that produce presidential greatness...Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties–Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off.

–He has not only displayed a weakness among the greatest presidential failures–an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities.

–No other president–Lincoln in the Civil War, FDR in World War II, John Kennedy at critical moments of the Cold War–faced with such a monumental set of military and political circumstances failed to embrace the opposing political party to help wage a truly national struggle. but Bush shut out and even demonized the Democrats. Top military advisers and even members of the president’s own Cabinet who expressed any reservations or criticisms of his policies–including retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni and former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil–suffered either dismissal, smear attacks from the president’s supporters or investigations into their alleged breaches of national security.

–The wise men who counseled Bush’s father, including James Baker and Brent Scowcroft, found their entreaties brusquely ignored by his son. When asked if he ever sought advice from the elder Bush, the president responded, "There is a higher Father that I appeal to."

The author goes on to cite, in his opinion, the three worst and the three best presidents.

In the worst category ("The Biggest Failures" he calls them) he lists James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Herbert Hoover. Part of his commentary on each is:

Buchanan: "Like Bush, Buchanan left the country more divided and acrimonious."
Johnson: "Johnson’s efforts during Reconstruction were as disastrous as the rebuilding of Iraq."
Hoover: "The failure of Bush’s domestic agenda is unmatched since Hoover...(Hoover’s) upbeat insistence that 'prosperity is just around the corner' backfired, resulting in a landslide for FDR."

As the best ("The Greatest Successes") he cites George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Washington:"Unlike Bush, whose contested election divided the country, the greatest hero of the American Revolution was named the nation’s first president nearly by acclamation, which gave the new national government immediate credibility."
Lincoln: "Lincoln under pressure of daily combat on American soil, did not flout the law in secret, as Bush has. He welcomed rival voices in his own cabinet..."
Roosevelt: "While Bush adheres to a simplistic ideology in the face of changing realities, Roosevelt fought the Great Depression by engaging in relentless experimentation."

It is interesting to note that Wilentz’s choices of the worst and best presidents largely coincide with those from the book Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and Worst in the White House* His picks for the best are the same as the book’s--and in the same order: each of the 39** presidents is given a rating from 1 (worst) to 5 (best); Washington’s was the highest at 4.92. Those for the worst were slightly different: the book listed Buchanan (with the lowest rating of all the 39 at 1.33), and Andrew Johnson but did not include Hoover (instead Franklin Pierce and Warring Harding filled out the list). However, Wilentz’s descriptions of each of the six presidents seem to be original and in no way follow the descriptions in the book.

* Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and Worst in the White House, edited by James Taranto and Leonard Leo, Free Press, New York 2004, 291 pages. Approximately 75 individuals (historians, political scientists, and law school professors) participated in the ratings of the presidents; there was a separate writer (from various professions, none from the rating participants) for each president.

** All presidents through Bill Clinton are included in the book with the exceptions of William Henry Harrison (who served only one month in office prior to his death) and George W. Bush (because he was still in his first term when the book was put together).

Buchanan’s pick as the worst president is of personal interest to me because he was the commencement speaker at my grandfather’s class’s graduation from the University of North Carolina in 1859. He is reported to have commented that "War clouds are gathering" in his address.

My take

Selecting the worst of 40 presidents in our 200+ year history poses the difficulty of judging a man in an era other than his own.

Would Buchanan have been the worst if he had been in office during the 1920's, when the first World War was over, the economy was humming (although with the problem of inflation), and the stock market couldn’t go anywhere but up (prior to October 1929)? Unlike Harding, who died in office after serving 2 ½ years in the early 1920's, Buchanan was not charged with any scandal.

Suppose Buchanan had been in office during the 1950's, when our country had recovered from the second World War and people were feeling good most of the time–the Cold War seemed distant, inflation was moderate, people could get jobs (especially those who went to college under the GI bill). Again, with no scandal charged to him (unlike Eisenhower’s chief of staff, Sherman Adams, who had to resign in the vicuña coat affair), Buchanan may have looked better in history.

So it is hard to say whether George W. Bush has been "The Worst President in History," but I have no difficulty in saying that he has certainly been one of the worst.

My charges against Bush:

His bullheadedness, combined with an arrogance that exacerbates his very moderate intellect, lead him to largely shut out those who disagree with him.

His courting the religious far right.

Iraq. About two months before the invasion of Iraq, my son asked me how I felt about Bush’s building up to the invasion. I recall saying that I was "conflicted." I had to believe his allegations of WMD’s and Hussein’s connection to Al Quida–I had nothing at my disposal to disprove those allegations. But I did say that, even if the allegations were true, I strongly disliked his swaggering attitude toward the rest of the world: "Those who aren’t with us are against us."

His father, as president, sent his secretary of state, Jim Baker, to consult with those countries who later became our allies in the first Gulf war; by doing so, he won the support of most of the world in driving Hussein out of Kuwait. George W. could have sent Colin Powell on the same mission or, even better, gone himself to do the job (as he, in fact, tried to do after the invasion of Iraq was well under way). No multilateral game for him: we’ll do it ourselves!

Now that his mendacity and all the poor planning for the invasion’s aftermath have come to light, Iraq is his albatross. We can hope that eventually history will show that the Iraq invasion did do some good by bringing something like democracy to the Middle East, but that is certainly a lot to hope for.

Since he professes to be a faithful believer in the Divinity, when he passes on to meet his Maker, Bush had better be prepared to explain away his personal responsibility for the tens of thousands of American military personnel and Iraqi civilians killed and gravely wounded, as well as the thousands more of ordinary Iraqis whose lives have been made miserable during the war and its aftermath.

His actions unrelated or indirectly related to the invasion of Iraq:

–Reneging on a planned meeting at his Texas ranch with Jean Chretien, the Canadian prime minister at the time, shortly after the invasion of Iraq because of his (Bush’s) pique over Canada’s not sending troops to join the invasion. Instead, he met with Spain’s president Asner, who did send troops; but Asner was voted out of office and replaced by Rodriguez Zapatero in 2004, who brought the Spanish troops back home.

–Setting a tariff on imported steel in 2003–a move clearly intended to win votes in the 2004 election from steel-making states (he had lost Pennsylvania, with its 23 electoral votes in 2000); he rescinded it some months later. While the tariff might have helped the steel companies and their workers for a time, the higher steel prices that resulted hurt many companies that fabricate products from steel and their workers (2003, with GDP growth of just 2.7%, was still in a recovery phase from an earlier slow economy).

–An income tax cut, that together with the cost of the Iraq war and other massive spending, has ballooned the deficit, after surpluses during the Clinton administration. One day, the rest of the world may stop buying our Treasury and Federal Agency notes, instead investing in Euro-denominated debt; if that happens, our country will suffer greatly. (I plan to do a future blog posting on this point.)

A more sure way of boosting the economy and putting more money in the pockets of low and middle-income workers would have been a holiday of several months from the payroll tax. That, of course, would have worked against the solvency of Social Security (including Medicare) but would still have been a better trade-off.

–Claiming to be a fiscal conservative but failing to veto farm and highway construction bills that were reported to be filled with pork. I have no expertise on those topics but I believe commentary by economists and others who cite the pork.

--Not allowing the USA to become a member of the International Court of Justice--the judiciary body which brings international war criminals to the bar of justice. One can speculate that Bush wouldn't have anything to do with this court out of a sense of PYOA (protect your own ass)--that is, because of his invasion of Iraq, he could conceivably be hauled before that body and charged as a war criminal.

–His disgusting behavior in the Terri Schiavo situation.

–His proposed Constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage.

–The Harriet Miers affair.

Should he be given credit for anything that he may have done right? Perhaps. The Medicare prescription drug bill may prove to have merit. His personal investment accounts idea, although now seemingly dead, might have been good for working people if many serious potential obstacles could somehow have been worked out. He might be on the right track in respect to the immigration issue; I like his viewpoint that Hispanic and other immigrants are a net benefit to our country.

But all that said, I stick by my opinion expressed in an earlier blog:

I believe if George Bush were my next-door neighbor, or the neighborhood hardware merchant, I would like him. He has some likable traits. I would probably like to have a beer with him–except he says he doesn’t drink.

But, as President I believe that he is a tragic misfit. I am afraid that, as a nation, we and our children will have to pay for his many misguided actions for a long time. ( "A nice guy in one role, a disaster in another" posted 3/15/06).

My response to "Anonymous's" comments (see them by clicking on "Comments" at the bottom of the posting (below) and then clicking on
the up arrow):

Thanks for your comments. I welcome all comments.

Watch your language, Anonymous, this is a family-oriented blog. Would you like your little ones to see your comments?

I would probably like to have a beer with Bush if he were my neighbor (and not our president) for the reason I gave: he has some likeable traits.

As to Yale vs. U. of Maryland: it's not the college, it's the student. I'll wager that you learned as much (and perhaps more) at U.of M. than Bush did at Yale. With a grandfather and father who were wealthy and influential politicians, I suspect that George W. was less than a brilliant student.