Friday Misc.

by Cliopatria

Cliopatria contributing editor Sean Wilentz tells Rolling Stone readers that George W. Bush might go down as the worst President in American history. Coming out the same day that Bush’s approval rating plunged to an all-time low (33%), Wilentz’s thesis is plausible. But unless Bush launches a nuclear strike against Iran, I’m skeptical. It’s always hard to evaluate contemporary political figures through a historical lens, but it seems to me that Bush would have to go much further than he has to surpass either James Buchanan or Richard Nixon.

Buchanan started his administration by conspiring with the Supreme Court over the timing of the Dred Scott decision, stood idly by as civil war raged in Kansas all while engaging in a (failed) power grab in foreign affairs, and then impotently watched Southern states secede. Nixon’s level of corruption is of a league unmatched in American history—the idea of bugging the offices of the opposition party and the subsequent massive cover-up (not to mention the credible allegations of encouraging the South Vietnamese to avoid a peace settlement before the 1968 elections) strikes at the heart of our democracy. Of course, that Bush could even be compared to Nixon or Buchanan shows how far he has fallen since the months after 9/11.

Crooks and Liars has the best of Scott McClellan—in video form!

Tony Judt gives his all to defend the Walt/Mearsheimer piece—but falls a bit wide of the mark, given that his Times essay critiques the “Israel lobby,” not W/M’s “Israel Lobby.” Indeed, the mere publication of Judt’s op-ed in the Times—a key component of W/M’s “Lobby”—would seem to undercut the W/M thesis.

The Chronicle has an interesting piece on junior faculty bargaining for higher salaries. Those of us who teach at institutions with wholly fixed salary structures might not mind confronting this dilemma.

The Keystone Kops Duke lacrosse investigation continues—D.A. Mike Nifong executed search warrants for the two indicted players’ dorm rooms yesterday (wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to have taken this step before indictment—and perhaps have checked if either or both had alibis in the process?). After searching in vain for the accuser’s clothing, a shoe, or other property, the police seized . . . a Times article on the case and an Ipod.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Andre Mayer - 4/24/2006

Harding: Well, you mentioned Buchanan and Nixon. Although policy, not corruption, appears to be the main issue (though some see it differently), I think it's possible that Bush will appear in historical perspective more like Grant and Harding -- a president unduly controlled by his underlings -- an unsuccessful Reagan, if you will.

Economy: Sitting presidents are blamed for the business cycle, yes, but I was thinking of a much more severe fiscal/economic meltdown (as predicted by, say, the Comptroller General of the US), that would weaken the country noticeably long-term. Think climate change, not weather. Historians might well point to Bush's tax-cut-and-spend policies as a prime cause.

Adam Kotsko - 4/22/2006

So you'd say that leading the nation into an unnecessary war based on lies would not put him in the running for worst president ever?

Actually, I guess that's been pretty common in US history.

Robert KC Johnson - 4/21/2006

That's right--I forgot that envelope. I'm sure that's going to crack the case wide open . . .

Robert KC Johnson - 4/21/2006

I haven't seen any of Bush's defenders term him worse than Harding. Though they're shrinking in number, my sense is that Bush defenders still see him in highly positive terms.

On the deficit and Bush's historical reputation--yes and no. I agree with you in theory that Bush should be blamed if the economy subsequently tanks, just as Reagan's economic policies, by dramatically expanding the deficit, should have been blamed for the economic downturn of the late 1980s. But in practical terms, the President in power at the time is usually the one who gets blame (or credit) for the economic situation. So just as Bush I bore most of the brunt for the recession, I suspect that whoever follows Bush II will bear most of the brunt for whatever economic policies result from the current deficit.

Andre Mayer - 4/21/2006

You know a president is struggling when his defenders concede he's worse than Harding.

Actually, Iraq is not the only major threat to Bush's historical reputation. If there is a serious fiscal/economic meltdown, he's likely to be assigned the blame because Clinton left a balanced budget. If there's a climate change disaster, he'll look bad because Gore presumably would have taken some sort of action.

Time will tell, of course, but at this point, the downside risk appears to be very large.

Chris Lawrence - 4/21/2006

I'm sure the key evidence in the case is going to be the envelope from some young woman at Boston College from six months before the alleged rape. (Yes, I am being sarcastic.)

In defense of the police, maybe he wrote some nasty comments on the Times article... heck, I've been tempted to deface the Times on occasion, and they don't even trash me in print.