Posted on 05/22/2008 5:04:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
One hundred nine historians already nearly unanimously agree. They call the presidency of George W. Bush a "failure." The History News Network (HNN), who polled the historians, failed to name them or where they work. Wonder why?
American Enterprise magazine, in 2002, examined voter registrations to determine the political affiliations of humanities professors at an assortment of colleges and universities, public and private, big and small, located in the North, South, East and West. Of those registered with a political party -- and most were -- historians overwhelmingly belong to a "party of the left" (Democratic, Green or Working Families parties) versus a "party of the right" (Republican or Libertarian parties). Take Brown University's history department. Seventeen professors belonged to parties on the left, zero on the right. Cornell University's history department? Twenty-nine on the left, zero on the right. Denver College: nine history professors left, zero right. San Diego State University: 19 left, four right. Stanford University: 22 left, two right. UCLA: 53 left, three right. University of Texas at Austin: 12 left, two right.
HNN's historians provided three principal reasons in labeling Bush's presidency a "failure":
1) Invading Iraq. Since the "surge" began, casualties have fallen dramatically. Five hundred thousand Iraqis, up from zero, now form the Iraqi military and police. Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead in their own security. The main Sunni bloc, who refused to participate in Parliament, recently returned to the government. According to American Enterprise Institute, of the 18 original benchmarks set for the Iraqi government, 12 have been met, with substantial progress being made on five, and only one -- the least important -- stalled. Fifty-three percent of Americans now consider victory in Iraq a possibility, with Americans almost evenly divided on whether to stay or withdraw by time certain. Oh, and just an aside, no attack on American soil since 9/11.
2) Tax breaks for the rich. By definition, any tax cuts go disproportionately to the rich because the rich disproportionately pay more taxes. The top 1 percent of income earners in 2005, those earning $364,657 or more, paid over 39 percent of all federal income taxes. On the other hand, they earned approximately 21 percent of taxpayers' income. The President John F. Kennedy tax cuts, by percentage, lowered taxes more than the Bush cuts. Does anyone call the Kennedy tax cuts a "failed policy"? Kennedy, pushing for his tax cut program, used the same Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush logic: "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." From 2003 to 2007, in constant dollars, total Treasury revenue increased 20 percent.
3) Alienation of nations around the world. Take a look at the globe. France's newly elected President Nicolas Sarkozy praises Bush, dismissed his country's opposition to the war as "French arrogance," and says his countrymen's anti-Americanism "reflects a certain envy of (America's) brilliant success." British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel and Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper all support Bush, and maintain close ties with America. Italy's enthusiastically pro-Bush prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who sent troops to Iraq, left office in 2006. His predecessor withdrew the troops. But guess who's now back, in a landslide victory? Berlusconi.
As a result of Bush's commitment to democracy and his initiatives combating HIV and AIDS, the President enjoys near rock-star status in many African countries. And NATO, thanks to Bush's prodding, swelled from 19 members to 26, admitting in 2004 Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
And what about Bush's war on Islamofascism, which allegedly provokes alienation and a backlash against America? Support for homicide bombing among Muslims in predominately Muslim countries worldwide shows a dramatic decline. Support for "suicide bombing" in Lebanon, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, dropped 50 percent or more in the past five years. Similarly, support for Islamist political parties -- linked or sympathetic to the Taliban or al-Qaida -- has dropped dramatically. In Pakistan, for example, Islamist parties garnered only 3 percent of the vote, down from 11 percent in the previous general election. "The Islamist defeat in Pakistani," writes Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri in The Wall Street Journal, "confirms a trend that's been under way (in Muslim countries) for years." Muslim support for Osama bin Laden in Pakistan fell in the six months before February '08 by as much as 50 percent -- to 24 percent -- with some former followers now renouncing him. In Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province, where many believe bin Laden hides, polls show support for him falling to single digits.
Maybe historians should wait for some, well, history, before rendering a verdict.
George W. Bush combined with the decadence of the GOP Congress to completely sever the bonds of Republican tradition. Neither the White House nor the Congress stood for anything whatsoever resembling Republicanism.
My sentiment exactly. While I did not like his immigration position he is a good president.
Pictures are slow loading, but speak thousands of words...
Leadership on energy?
Leadership in education...?
Did nothing to prosecute high crimes and misdemeanors... and now we have them in our face again!
Fiscal control?
At least we can agree that he is compassionate and loves people!
Agreed.
Unlike the Democrat party, however, the Republican party's members do not confuse the good of the country with the good of their party.
Bush's presidency has ben brilliant on a wide array of fronts. History will, indeed, appraise him as a seminal thinker with the ability to move the country in a profoundly positive direction regarding taxation and foreign policy.
His selection of substantial numbers of minorities in his administration, many filling top posts, will not go unnoticed as a profound change in direction from that of democrats who consistently favor the white boy's club with occasional gestures toward woman and blacks in the person of utter incompetents.
Overthrowing Hussein and the Taliban and providing support for the emergence of 2 democracies in the mideast is nothing if not audacious and brilliant.
Bush provided tax relief for all taxpayers to the chagrin of Democrats who are constitutionally unequipped to accept the proposition that lower taxation increases revenues in an environment where taxation is crippling the economy.
The contempt of Democrats for Bush is based entirely on his successes. The displeasure of Republicans for Bush is based on his singular failure to reduce the size and scope of government. This is a presidency that has cast the US in the role of protector of oppressed people everywhere. More could have been done. More will be done by successive presidencies to insure the march of democracy and freedom from government here and around the globe thanks to the deep seated principles of GW Bush.
Agreed.
Unlike the Democrat party, however, the Republican party's members do not confuse the good of the country with the good of their party.
Bush's presidency has ben brilliant on a wide array of fronts. History will, indeed, appraise him as a seminal thinker with the ability to move the country in a profoundly positive direction regarding social equality, foreign policy and taxation.
His selection of substantial numbers of minorities in his administration, many filling top posts, will not go unnoticed as a profound change in direction from that of Democrats who consistently favor the white boy's club with occasional gestures toward woman and blacks in the person of utter incompetents.
Overthrowing Hussein and the Taliban and providing support for the emergence of 2 democracies in the mideast is nothing if not audacious and brilliant.
Bush provided tax relief for all taxpayers to the chagrin of Democrats who are constitutionally unequipped to accept the proposition that lower taxation increases revenues in an environment where taxation is crippling the economy.
The contempt of Democrats for Bush is based entirely on his successes. The displeasure of Republicans for Bush is based on his singular failure to reduce the size and scope of government.
This is a presidency that has cast the US in the role of protector of oppressed people everywhere. More could have been done. More will be done by successive presidencies to insure the march of democracy and freedom from government here and around the globe thanks to the deep seated principles of GW Bush.
“historians write off bush’s presidency”
should read;
“historians judge bush’s presidency to be anti-revolutionary and dismissive of international-socialist goals for the 21st century-purification promised with U.S. elections of 2008”
What Paul Johnson said. Koch too.
Here’s something else—to address the disappointments I share with many here:
W picked his battles— the important ones and left the others alone.
They would have distracted him.
It’s sometimes what you don’t do, more than what you do.
That being said there sure are lefty Moonbat 'historians' writing utter tripe. One such 'historian' is Mary L. Dudziak who penned this:
What Thurgood Marshall Would tell the Roberts Court
Just take a guess, I don't have to say anything - you'll be correct as to what it's about and its tone.
An aside, I quickly read a bit of it. Just enough to confirm that Thurgood Marshall was a moron and shouldn't have heard Traffic Court cases. His Bakke opinion re: slavery is nonsense (historically wrong).
As if we needed another expansion of INTRUSIVE government, he gave us the DHS and it's pleasant friends at the TSA!
Oh c'mon DH, BushBashing is all the rage. Jump in the water's fine here on FR.
the Republican Party was disorganized, and thereby discarded several credible Conservative candidates in favor of McCain.
McCain has been running a shadow party operation behind the scenes during the entire Bush presidency. His nomination has been in the works for 8 years and was the foregone conclusion, regardless what "we the people" may want. I agree, the "new" GOP organized this disaster.
President Bush has continued to show enormous integrity, focus, and love of country in spite of the above detractors and those unseen detractors. Bush is not a perfect man nor has he always been right but he is head and shoulders above those who have tried to bring him down from the get-go. John Conyers punts for others in our government who don’t want to appear so negative making Conyers one of the most disgusting characters to come along in a long time….there are too many to count. History will go well for G.W. Bush.
The difference is that most people knew the historians were full of crap back then. Reagan was, and is, revered by a solid majority of Americans. Recently, even many of these historians have started to grudgingly come around. But there isn't a chance in hell that Bush is remembered as fondly by the country as Reagan is.
January 2005 to January 2007 are the only 2 years President Bush "enjoyed" both houses of CONgre$$.
What did they do for the President?
1. Unconstitutionally thwarted President Bush in appointing judges, (led by JM) ambassadors and other appointments that belong solely to the executive branch.
2. Began, or at the very least joined the rats, denouncing the war in Iraq by passing the Terrorists Bill of Rights and Kiss the Terrorist bill, whining about "torture" and closing Gitmo and began the constant pounding on Rummy. All led by none other than JSM!
3. They set the President up with veto proof majority on McCain/Feingold/Thompson, which no one ever mentions when they bash the President for signing it. Although, all the hostility about CFR has gone by the wayside since the lead name on that atrocity has been anointed.
There is much more, but this is making me nauseous so I'll stop for now.
How can we possibly know what we think until we hear from the historians.
Exactly right, thank you!
Of course all the above mentioned items are what make him hated by the "new" GOP...McCain's Shadow Party.
Well said!
True ... what we see here is various folks' biases being rubbed the wrong way; and there's always the temptation to pick on the convenient target as the reason why their particular issue didn't go their way.
Real history is a lot more complicated than that.
President Bush slew the giant, but missed that gnat flying around your head.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.