History on His Side

A lot of history talk going on today. With the end of Bush’s reign coming to a close (Thank God!) alongside the public’s discussion of McCain carrying on Bush’s third term, talk of the Bush legacy has revved up. The Washington Post has a nice prelude of what is to come for those interested in presidential history with an informal survey of 109 historians most of which judged Bush to be on the bottom end of presidential success. My view is that it’s probably a little early to decide exactly how Bush will be remembered. There are some matters, however, that can be used to determine how history might treat Mr. Bush.

Historically speaking, there are a lot of unpopular presidents. Americans usually have a disdain for whoever’s in charge. Lincoln barely won reelection; Truman, as Bush likes to point out, once had a 22% approval rating; JFK was only moderately popular and Reagan was never as immortalized by the American public as what the GOP Fantasy World wants us to believe. So how does all that bode for our Anointed Leader? I would say a lot depends on who the next president is.

Presidents are judged every much by their successors as they are by their actual term(s). Andrew Johnson who succeeded Lincoln- and was impeached- was disliked from the beginning. U.S. Grant wasn’t much better. Though any mortal white male would have been doomed to try and live up to Lincoln’s four years as president.

Eisenhower with his numerous vacations and leisurely golf extravaganzas at least made Truman look as if he wanted to be president. Johnson’s plunge into Vietnam and chaotic handling of every matter before him made the calm and cool Kennedy appear much more competent.

I’ve always thought that Bush has made Clinton look much better in the eyes of history. Granted, Bill Clinton left office as one of the most popular presidents in modern history, but having George Bush as your successor assuredly makes even the disastrous presidency of Andrew Johnson look somewhat bearable. But having, say, a more honest and less scandalized president succeed Clinton would have really played havoc with Clinton’s legacy. Instead 8 years of Bush leaves Americans yearning for Bill, or at least for the era.

In my view, Bush has a 25% shot at some redemption. If McCain wins in November and delivers us four more years of Bush, the Bush legacy will be remembered as a far-sighted administration plagued by incompetency, scandal, war and huge polarization. If McCain wins and totally throws aside the neoconservative policies of Bush, yet in a subtle way as not to condemn Bush for creating the mess McCain may inherit, then Bush will be remembered slightly better than what he is currently. In other words if the GOP holds on to the White House then Bush has a shot at redemption and some historical fondness. If Obama wins, there isn’t a chance in God’s green earth that Bush will have any historical graces whatsoever.

It being too early to judge still doesn’t excuse recent history as being less than favorable to George Bush by any means. History can be a stubborn old man sometimes and if future historians look back with the sources we have today George Bush might not be popular enough to even warrant the discussion.