Reaction to the First Draft of Bush's History
An item in my Presidency column this week hit a nerve. Big time.
"The First Draft of History Looks a Bit Rough on Bush" summarized an informal survey of presidential historians who gave George W. Bush abysmal ratings on his job performance. A sampling of the outpouring of comments:
If Bush were a genuine conservative, which is to say, CAUTIOUS, he might be a mediocre president. Instead, he's tried to reshape the world, and that kind of ambition deserves not only the label of "liberal," but a grade of F-.
I'll wager that 100 percent of the historians in Lincoln's time considered him a failure as well!
These historians are obviously people with left bias. I would wonder how they rated Reagan.
Your beloved "W" got us into a completely unnecessary war where THOUSANDS of American soldiers have been killed, and tens of thousands left paralyzed or as amputees.... Yee haw! Shoot 'em up cowboy. Thank God for term limits You people are freakin nuts. And by the way, I'm a Republican.
What caused the ruckus was an unscientific poll of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network: 98.2 percent judged Bush's presidency to be a failure, and 1.9 percent classified it as a success.
Robert S. McElvaine, who teaches history at Millsaps College, wrote on the HNN website that the participants were "self-selected, although participation was open to all historians. Among those who responded are several of the nation's most respected historians, including Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winners."
He conceded that the survey was subject to criticism for being premature, as Bush is still in office. But he added: "Historians are in a better position than others to make judgments about how a current president's policies and actions compare with those of his predecessors. Those judgments are always subject to change in light of future developments. But that is no reason not to make them now."
The debate reminds me of a story my colleague Jay Tolson wrote last year entitled "America's Worst Presidents," which took a fresh look at the nation's most dismal commanders in chief, including Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, John Tyler, and Ulysses S. Grant. What prompted the story then? A USA Today/Gallup survey in which 54 percent of respondents said history would judge Bush a below-average or poor president.
The hubbub shows just how polarizing Bush still is nearly eight years into his presidency.
—Kenneth T. Walsh
Tags: George W. Bush | history
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (3)
Reader Comments
Bush, Worst President in History
Bush at first thought he was lucky to have Cheney as VP, only because he thought he did not have higher aspirations. Now he has to be very sorry of lending so much power to someone with no incentives to test his own views in the game of politics. Cheney figured if he was wrong Bush would take the blame as President, which he has. America blames Bush for eight years of a wasted presidency. It is highly unlikely that Cheney and his neocons will offer apologies for what they have wrought. Like Bush, they are looking to the long span of years that history will vindicate them. It will indeed be eons before anyone trusts them again.
Bush presidential record
George Bush's domestic and foreign policy actions have been so abysmal,that they are unworthy of comment
People also thought Clinton was a God but look at the reality
I don't take what most liberal historians have to say as truth since most of them have held people such as Castro, Che Guevera, Stalin,Pol Pot and other mass murderers as "men of the people" this was a very necessary war as one of the most heinous dictators was removed and his mudering raping son's killed. It takes people with courage and conviction to stand up to the bullies, as we clearly seen during Clinton's presidency a coward only entices bullies to act more aggressive. People say a lot of things but do they understand what's really going on? No they don't or else we wouldn't have so many people crying about three thousand dead soldiers as the end of the world. When the soldiers themselves say this was a necessary war and that they are proud of what they've done and have accomplished who cares what a bunch of cowardly historians has to say. In the end we are still the greatest nation on earth and we should start learning how to push back regardless of what the few liberal cowards has to say
Add your thoughts
All comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.advertisement
