Will the pages of History be nice to George W. Bush?

Answer 1

Not very likely.

Different historians have different perspectives--and of course, like everyone else have their own opinions on political and economic issues. Conservative historians will no doubt be kinder to Bush than those who are more liberal.

But--regardless of personal views, there are certain questions they tend to agree on. One is judgement; another is ability to foster consensus; and most importantly, effectiveness.

On the first--I think even the more conservative historians will view the Iraq war as among the worst blunders in US history, both in its beginning and in the handling of the occupation.

Bush's unwillingness to compromise or attempt to work on a bipartisan basis clearly has led to a near-total breakdown of consensus on a wide range of issues. Conservative historians may point someof the blame at Democrats--but that won't change their overall judgement.

One thing virtually all historians will almost certainly agree on is tha tBush has been ineffective in getting his agenda implemented. early on he had a couple of successes--notably "No Child Left Behind and his tax cuts (NOTE--the point here, for historians, is : did he get things done, not whether they were "good" or "bad"). But Bush's efforts to get Social Security, health care, immigration, and othr reforms, along with a wide range of other failed proposals, will, on balance, not impress historians.

Somebody is bound to say, "but Bush is standing up to the Democrats on issues--stem cell research, Iraq, etc." Regardless of how one views Bush's actions in this regard, historians genereally regard "rule by veto" as a hallmark of a failed presidency. The repudiation of Bush's Iraq policies by the voters in 2006 likewise.

Answer 2

Bush isn't honest. He lied us into the Iraq war. He lied about how long it would take for us to be finished there. He's still lying. Clinton was embarrassing, but at least his nastiness was personal stuff. Bush's nastiness is international and much more harmful. Somebody said that Bush mandated "educational standards." Not! What he did was impose the "no child left behind" requirement, which isn't an educational standard, but the exact opposite: it require the elimination of standards. Because of this policy, smart kids are having their grades unfairly limited, so that the gap between their scores and the scores of stupider kids won't seem so large. The smartest kids don't have any incentive to work their hardest anymore because it won't show in their grades no matter how well they do. Clinton was bad. Bush is worse. If we even have elections again, I'll bet that this trend toward baseness in national leadership continues.

Answer 3

I suspect he will be butchered, regardless of the kindness shown to the presidents following Nixon.

Consider that Dubya did not win the first election, and barely won the second. He never had a mandate (a defining victory indicating he should get busy with his vision of America). There was a moral obligation to stay as bipartisan as he could, but he lacked either the morality or the courage to follow such an ethic. The law allowed him to force US policy far right, and he did.

Consider also that he is a C student with very little comprehension of the issues of the Presidency, and none at all of the complexity of foreign policy.

He has not protected our rights at home, but gave us the Patriot Act. He has all but broken off relations with many of our greatest allies. And we have wasted untold billions of dollars and thousands of young American men on an ill-advised war, following an invasion under false circumstances.

I think history is going to rip him apart.

Answer 4

No, I think future history students will study that he was the least popular president that made the most controversial choices that did not represent his country. They will probably study his bad decisions and what he could have done to make the country a better place.

Answer 5

Nope,Too much damage. Probably study his bad decisions and what he could have done to make the country a better place.

Answer 6

I doubt that or the pages of history would not contain the factual evidence of what a failure Bush is.

Answer 7

.People need to stay with the facts, and I am not talking about the way the media likes to changes things around to drum up higher ratings from the mindless masses.
How much have you been hearing on how well things are going in Iraq now - not one thing from our media. Their answer to this is well it hasn't been long enough, but if their were higher death rates that would be news worthy. The BBC is talking about it though unlike our fine news people.

But when it comes to history books the people that write them tend to stay with the facts not the politicians views.
So I think he will be in the good light.

Answer 8

Only if that (_*_),.,.,-head Rupert Murdoch corners the market on history book publishers or Disney publishes its own Fantasyland version.

Answer 9

Only if MAD magazine intends to include a History section.

Answer 10

I don't think so...

he's made mistake after mistake and has hardly made any attempts to "fix" his mistakes...

I don't think Iraq is or has been a hotbed of terror... and I think history will reflect the failure of waging a war on terror there...