Maybe you saw or heard about the Pew poll last week placing George W. Bush’s DISapproval rating at 61% now, with an all-time low approval figure of 28%. (My God, 28% of the American public still vote Okay? Who and where are these people?)
Well, while Pew was formally polling the general public, Millsaps’ Robert S. McElvaine was informally polling 109 professional historians over a three-week period for HistoryNewsNetwork.com. And guess what: 98.2 percent call Bush crappy. In fact,
more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. … [O]nly four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations. [emph. mine]
When McElvaine did a similar poll in 2004, 19% of those responding rated Bush a success, 81 percent a failure, and only 11.6% put him dead last. But four years on, nearly six times as many do.
“There are,” McElvaine points out, “at least two obvious criticisms of such a survey.”
It is in no sense a scientific sample of historians. The participants are 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.
The second criticism that is often raised of historians making such assessments of a current president is that it is far too early. We do not yet know how the things that Mr. Bush has done will work out in the future. As the only respondent who classified the current presidency among the ten best noted, "Any judgment of his "success’ or lack thereof is premature in that the ultimate effects of his policies are not yet known. " True enough. But this historian went on to make his current evaluation, giving Bush "high marks for courage in his willingness to attack intractable problems in the Near East and to touch the Social Security "Third Rail.’ "
Nonetheless, the comments the professionals provided parallel what you hear from (most of) us non-pros:
"No individual president can compare to the second Bush, " wrote one. "Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large. " …
One historian indicated that his reason for rating Bush as worst is that the current president combines traits of some of his failed predecessors: "the paranoia of Nixon, the ethics of Harding and the good sense of Herbert Hoover. . . . . God willing, this will go down as the nadir of American politics. " Another classified Bush as "an ideologue who got the nation into a totally unnecessary war, and has broken the Constitution more often than even Nixon. He is not a conservative, nor a Christian, just an immoral man . . . . " Still another remarked that Bush’s "denial of any personal responsibility can only be described as silly. "
"It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush, " concluded one respondent. "His domestic policies, " another noted, "have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base. "
One of them really nails it: "Bush does only two things well. He knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches. …. "
McElvaine writes that, four years ago, he himself ranked Dubya’s presidency the second worst, “a bit above that of James Buchanan.” Now, though, “I see the administration of the second Bush as clearly the worst in our history.”
My reasons are similar to those cited by other historians: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States enjoyed enormous support around the world. President Bush squandered that goodwill by taking the country into an unnecessary war of choice and misleading the American people to gain support for that war. And he failed utterly to have a plan to deal with Iraq after the invasion. He further undermined the international reputation of the United States by justifying torture.
Mr. Bush inherited a sizable budget surplus and a thriving economy. By pushing through huge tax cuts for the rich while increasing federal spending at a rapid rate, Bush transformed the surplus into a massive deficit. The tax cuts and other policies accelerated the concentration of wealth and income among the very richest Americans. These policies combined with unwavering opposition to necessary government regulations have produced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Then there is the incredible shrinking dollar, the appointment of incompetent cronies, the totally inexcusable failure to react properly to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, the blatant disregard for the Constitution –and on and on.
Like a majority of other historians who participated in this poll, my conclusion is that the preponderance of the evidence now indicates that, while this nation has had at least its share of failed presidencies, no previous presidency was as large a failure in so many areas as the current one.
Oh yeah? says Crawford’s most famous.
As far as history goes and all of these quotes about people trying to guess what the history of the Bush administration is going to be, you know, I take great comfort in knowing that they don’t know what they are talking about, because history takes a long time for us to reach.
— George W. Bush, Fox News Sunday, February 10, 2008
Riiiight. I guess that’s why the House of Representatives (you should pardon the expression) is moving at a velocity worthy of the Mississippi Supremes to impeach his worthless ass. I’d cry “A pox on them!” except that any legislature that could stir itself to impeach the last turkey for what he did but let this vastly bigger one go unimpeded isn’t worth the breath.
Sadly, I think many of that 28% live in–wait for it–MS. One of my most vivid memories of Oxford is of those little, square “W the President” bumperstickers on every freaking car. Except Dickie–he had a Kerry bumpersticker (didn’t stop him from donating a half-million to Dumbya’s presidential campaigns, though).
I read in Tom Schaller’s excellent Whistling Past Dixie that in about two generations MS will move into line with the mainstream of America in terms of social views. For my part, it has been my good fortune to know many young, educated Mississippians who have a much greater consciousness of the issue of race in American life than one typically finds in the north and who are eager to bring progressive changes to the state. With enough time, they will have the opportunity to do so.
Sorry about the long comment–it’s the lawyer in me, I guess.
That must be an interesting read, zennie. Sounds it, from what I’ve heard anyhow. But I’m wondering whether the Obama campaign hasn’t begun the undermining of its whole premise (which is, according to what I’ve heard, that the Dems can safely ignore the Southern vote and still win nationally).
First, IS that pretty much what Schaller’s saying? Second, do you think he’s on-target if so? And third, can you nutshell his two-more-generations theory about Mississippi for us?
Lotus, it’s a little hard to summarize the book. I’d be happy to send you a copy. Just put up one of those blogger “wish list” things, and I’ll get one for you.
As you note, Schaller’s essential point is that at this time Democrats can’t win in the South. He demonstrates in immense detail that reactionary social views overwhelmingly dominate the voting patterns of white Southerners. He notes in passing that the demographic trend is for this pattern to change, i.e., in two generations the South will resemble the rest of the country in terms of voting less on “values” than on economic and other issues. But, he points out, the country does not have two generations to wait to develop a progressive majority.
I don’t really see Obama’s campaign as rebutting Schaller’s point. Schaller demonstrates through statistical evidence that black voter turnout in the South is very strong, but unfortunately the monolithically Republican character of the white vote in the South cancels out those Democratic votes. For example, there is no “gender gap” in the white Southern vote: women actually vote Republican in larger numbers than men. So I’m not surprised that Obama has gotten a lot of Southern votes in the primary, but I don’t think he’ll carry Southern states in the general (VA may be an exception).
Schaller’s main point is that Democrats need to stop trying to rebuild the FDR coalition by attempting to win back the South and instead concentrate on getting votes by, for example, consolidating the Democratic vote in the northeast, and by developing votes in states that are trending Democratic, like Colorado and New Mexico. Obama’s campaign does bear out these trends in that, for instance, he carried both CO and NM in the primary.
Like I said, it’s a hard book to summarize, but well worth reading.
Aha, thanks, zennie — yep, one I definitely want to read (but I’ll run to the NSB libe for it, rather than having you send me a copy). I must check into the wish-list option, in case any other foloers want to use it, though, so double thanks for two good ideas.
Regarding Bush’s popularity, I knew he was in trouble when my 75 year old uncle, who is as conservative as they come, said he was done with Bush. Many conservatives of the traditional sort (economically conservative, small-government conservative) abandoned him long ago. My own view is that it would be impossible for anyone to do worse than Bush has done. Whatever happens in this election, I’m certain there will be at least some improvement in that office.
I’m for Obama, but I don’t think he will carry many Southern states in November. But I don’t find Schaller’s premise far-fetched. Even in my very rural Mississippi town, there is an increasing tendency for black and white to cooperate politically despite the old disputes. So two generations may do a lot to lessen the political and racial split that we now have.
rogerwilco, also the South is a prime area for economic development in the US. With development, greater wealth, and so forth, the South inevitably will become more liberal. A rising tide, etc.
One important point Schaller makes is that white Southerners are not “duped,” as many Democrats believe, into voting against their self-interest by voting for “values,” i.e., Republican politicians who campaign on social issues and who, when in office, pursue policies that impoverish their constituents. White Southerners identify their self-interest with “values voting.”
George W. Bush is dumber than dirt. History will establish him as a worse president than Warren G. Harding. He represents all I have detested in the GOP all my life. Damn ‘em all.
Dear Ben: for once we agree, however, I would add to your dumber than dirt description that he is totally lacking any moral compass whatsoever so not only does he lack the intelligence to make decisions, he also lacks any moral basis to guide him.
I grew up as a young Republican. I was at Ajax in Oxford with two very good friends when the the votes were coming in in 2000 very happy that Bush was projected to win. Over the course of four years Bush, along with a few other actors, killed the conservative in me. Denying global warming, hidden racism, Katrina, Katrina, Katrina, MFing Katrina, gas prices, lies about Iraq (although Saddam did all he could do to stop weapon inspectors), and the list goes on.
A commentator (I forget who) made a good point about Rove and the s0-called neocons. True conservatives believe in limited government, which is small due to its limited sweep but nonetheless competent in its “proper” area of responsibility. The neocons believe in no government and therefore are unconcerned whether government works and in fact prefer that it not work. This observation, if accurate, makes the failure of the government in so many areas during the current administration explainable as due not to incompetence but to intention.
I think the problem in this country goes beyond “Bush is dumber than dirt”. There is no leadership in the Democratic party, thus the Repubs don’t have to knuckle down. Gore, Kerry, Hillary, Obama, Bubba Clinton, Pelosi, Reed, Rangel, Thompson, give me a break.
Ducks for cover!
Heh! No need to duck, DB — except as to Obama. Hide ‘n’ watch . . .