History profs rate Bush a disaster

[baby_bear]

http://tinyurl.com/38wqu

by Tom Brazaitis
Cleveland Plain Dealer
May 23, 2004

<snip>
President George W. Bush's campaign for a second term got a big break last week from the nation's historians. Responding to a national survey by George Mason University's History News Network, 81 percent of the 415 historians who expressed a view of the Bush presidency so far classified it as a failure and 12 percent see it as the worst presidency in American history.

...
So, why did I begin this column by saying that the historians' negative assessment of Bush was a big break for the president?
That's easy enough. The more Bush stumbles, the deeper his loyalists dig in. Recent polls show that Americans think the country is on the wrong track for the future and that the Iraq war was a mistake, but Bush's standing against Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts remains high, with only a point or two separating them in polls.

When Rush Limbaugh and the other conservative talk show hosts who shape opinion in much of the country get hold of this survey, look for them to blame the "pointy-headed liberals" warping young people's minds on college campuses and writing nasty, know-nothing newspaper opinion columns.

Like the protagonist in Hans Christian Andersen's tale "The Emperor's New Clothes," Bush parades around naked, confident in the assurances of his courtiers that only the dullards in the country will fail to appreciate his magnificent new suit. So far, the strategy seems to be working.
</snip>

good stuff.

s_m

[gristy]

1. Yup, the author's take on this is just what I was thinking when I saw

the headline to your thread.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

It is their stupidity that gives rise to so many people buying into the conservative lies/memes that is the biggest barrier to an enlighted future in America.

[KC21304]

2. I believe the author of this is Eleanor Clift's husband.

Can you imagine ? 81 % say it is a failure ?

[Wickerman]

3. I question this

How could those other 19% be SO misinformed and still be allowed to teach? Proof that tenure could possibly be a bad thing.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

5. The article said...

...That they were being ironic.

- "At least eight of the 77 historians who expressed a belief that Bush's presidency has been a success so far seemed to be pulling our leg. Seven said Bush's presidency is only the best since that of Bill Clinton, his immediate predecessor, and one said the country hasn't seen a president of Bush's caliber since Millard Fillmore (1850-53) who filled the remaining term of Gen. Zachary Taylor after Taylor's death. Fillmore's time in office was unmemorable. He was defeated by a rival from within his own party."

[Wickerman]

7. Thanks for the Enlightenment

I too, was being ironic.

[Merlin]

13. Eleanor Clift is a saint!

Not she's married to this great author, but because she stand up week after week to the dunderheaded bullies on McLaughlin. She deserves a medal.

[paulk]

4. here's a link to the referenced article

http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html


it's worth a read

[Martin Eden]

9. Thanks for the link n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Thank you for posting this

I rate Bush just that low, too, but I am surprised to see that the sentiment is shared by so many academics. One would expect a little more bi-partisanship.

Having been a partisan lefty all my life, I get suspicious of my own partisanship. In the Frat Boy's case, maybe it's simply justified. He really is the worst occupant of the Whtie House ever.

[indepat]

8. But what do historians know of things such as our history, our Constitu-

tion?

[Kellanved]

10. OT: why these tinyurls?

The board software will shorten the link automatically, no need for this.

I don't like tinyurl because:
-I can't see where the link goes
-another company learns something about my surfing habits
-tinyurl learns about the readers of a certain page (where from, from what page linked)


As for the article: great find, thanks for posting. :thumbsup:

[Fovea]

11. The historians are already dealing with him.

Color him gone.

[myopic4141]

12. Success and failure are relative terms.

To rate the Bush Presidency a success or failure, one has to look at the goals and determine whether or not they were met. Bush's goal is to eliminate the social safety net via bankrupting the Federal Treasury. So far, he is succeeding in that goal. Bush's goal is to remove the environmental regulations in favor for industry to rape and pillage the planet. Thus far, he is being successful in that endeavor as well. Bush's goal was to remove Saddam Hussein via a war with Iraq and regardless of outcome, he will have succeeded in that as well. Bush desires this nation to be feared rather than respected; therefore, another goal has been achieved. Neither Bush nor his apologists care about the cost of achieving these goals, so there will be continued support as long as the successes pile up. The historians who claim that the Presidency is a failure are looking at it from the wrong viewpoint. The only historians who got it correct about success and failure are those who understand what Bush's goals are.