Comparing Bush

[dazzleman]

I think it is too early to tell.  He, at this point, will rank better than Clinton, his father, Ford, way better than Johnson.  He may be judged better than Truman; certainly, he's done better than Truman, when comparing how Turman was regarded while in office.

I agree with most of what you say, J.J.

It's amazing to me how some people have such a lack of historical perspective that they can claim he's the worst president ever, without waiting to see the results of his policies.

Many presidents now considered great were hated while in office, while other highly popular ones fell in favor after their administrations ended.  There's no way to really judge a president's place in history while he is in office.

Bush will be a consequential president, one way or another.  That's why I don't think it's appropriate to rate him as average.  He will not be average.  He will either be a great president, possibly a mixed one, with strong pluses and minuses, or he could conceivably be a terrible one.  But it's too soon to tell.

[dazzleman]

I think people knew the Roosevelts were going to be great before they left office.

But not at the start of their second terms.  At this point in FDR's second term, he was getting his a** whipped over the court packing plan.  His New Deal was stalled, and he had no effective foreign policy.

There were many who felt about FDR just the way you feel about Bush.  Had he retired in 1940, after 2 terms, his place in history would not be anywhere near where it is.  Although I am a Republican, I have spoken favorably of FDR's leadership in resisting Nazi aggression many times.

[dazzleman]

Ford like

Dude, I really can't agree with you here.  Ford was a relatively bland president, who didn't make a lot of bold moves.  He was basically a caretaker whose main job was to heal the country and make as few waves as possible.  That's what the time called for.

Agree or disagree, Bush has made bold moves.  That's why I say he could be great, terrible, or strongly mixed, but never average.

[dazzleman]

I think people knew the Roosevelts were going to be great before they left office.

But not at the start of their second terms.  At this point in FDR's second term, he was getting his a** whipped over the court packing plan.  His New Deal was stalled, and he had no effective foreign policy.

There were many who felt about FDR just the way you feel about Bush.  Had he retired in 1940, after 2 terms, his place in history would not be anywhere near where it is.  Although I am a Republican, I have spoken favorably of FDR's leadership in resisting Nazi aggression many times.

In 1940, FDR beat a RINO by a landslide.

I am well aware of that.  I probably would have voted for FDR in 1940.  But the comparable time to compare Bush with Roosevelt would be 1937, not 1940.  Roosevelt ran and won in 1940 because of extraordinary international circumstances, and as you know, was the only president to successfully break the 2-term tradition before the 22nd amendment was passed.

[dazzleman]

Absolutely terrible. He has not done a single thing I agree with. At least Reagan has the "tear down this wall!" line going for him. #7

You would have vilified Reagan for his "tear down this wall" comment had you been politically aware at the time Reagan made that speech (1987).  Many people now say they think it was a great speech, but at the time, liberals vociferously opposed Reagan's confrontational policy with the Soviets, and many conservatives were quite uncomfortable with it also. 

[dazzleman]

Before Bush became President, I had the feeling that he'd be the worst President we ever had. Despite my amazing low expectations, he's been a worse President than I thought. Obviously option 7.

jfern I have a few question for you. First how old are you? I want to know this so I can see if President Bush is the first real President that you have known when you are old enough to figure out and understand politics. Second question is what Presidents have you lived under since age 14?

I remember Clinton and Bush senior being President fairly well. I vaugely remember Reagan. I'm not sure how any of this matters, since the other really bad Presidents were from long ago: Buchanan, Coolidge.

It does matter. When you are younger and have not seen many President's within your lifetime you tend to think that whatever nutcase in power at that time is the worst ever since you have not had first hand experience with any others. I'm guessing, although I may be wrong, that you are in college now and only really started getting involved in politics at the end of the Clinton years. That was when you began to formulate your views of the world. That is why you see a leader who doesn't not hold your views, and often goes against them, as the worst in the entire history of the United States. It is not because of incompetence it is because you have not had much first hand experience with other Presidents and other leaders.

I agree Colin.  I have seen a marked lack of historical perspective exhibited by some people here.  Frankly, it does a huge disservice to their views that they express them in such a naive and hysterical manner.

[dazzleman]

Eisenhower kept the New Deal level tax rates in place and forcibly desegregated Arkansa schools. And of course this famous quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you imagine a conservative today saying that?

Actually, Eisenhower was against desegregation (he wanted to keep it like it was)

then why did he send federal troops to Little Rock to force desegregation?

Because the state decided to overstep its bounds (of course I disagree with that but whatever). In actuality Eisenhower was for keeping the status quo.

I think you're right.

Eisenhower had tortured and conflicted views on segregation.  He knew it was wrong, but he couldn't bring himself to oppose it.  His conflict was reflected in his highly ambivalent policies toward civil rights.

Prior to the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, Eisenhower invited some southerners to meet with Earl Warren under his auspices.  He said to Warren, "these are not bad people; they just don't want their sweet little daughters to have to sit next to some big black buck."

Eisenhower believed in the constitution, and did his duty in enforcing the law, but little more.  He provided no leadership on the issue.  He did push through congress a weak civil rights bill in 1957 and again in 1960, but these did little to address the real issues.

I sometimes think that the racial situation might have turned out a lot better if Eisenhower had gotten the situation moving more in the 1950s instead of deferring it to his successors.  By the 1960s, blacks as well as their white supporters were more disillusioned and radicalized, and the whole integration enterprise ended up going off on a very bad track, which ended up making the situation worse in some cases, and it remains frozen to this day.  Maybe this would have been partially avoided if we'd had stronger leadership from Eisenhower in the 1950s.