Democracy Arsenal

« Standing Up | Main | Pre-Testimony Thread »

April 07, 2008

Posted by Michael Cohen

I've always thought of historians as being sort of mild-mannered folks who wear tweed jackets and speak in stentorian tones about past events, but apparently there are a few frisky ones. According to an informal survey of 109 historians, done by the History News Network, 98% consider Bush's presidency a failure and 61% consider it the worst ever.

But the real fun is in some of the comments offered. Here are just a few of my favorites:

“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.

Here's another:

“Bush does only two things well,” said one of the most distinguished historians.  “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.  His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.”

Wow. Tell me how you really feel.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER:


Only one thing can pull Bush out of the dumps -- a national emergency. (I mean a real one, not the three fake ones he has declared by Executive Order.) The US embassy in Baghdad is under siege by "Iranian missiles" and "Iranians fought Iraqi troops on Basra," Petraeus will testify. Then it's Katy-bar-the-door because Bush/Petraeus will create an emergency. Keep your fuel tanks full, etc.

I believe that future historians will study what led the Bush administration to power more than the actions of the administration. Bush probaby would not have gotten elected if it was not for the political climate of the nineties which included Christian fundamentalism, the American triumphalism after the Cold war, and the worship of free market economics. In the nineties it became an accepted norm that America cannot really lose a war and that an unrestrained free market system works best. Finally that Americans must repudiate the libertine culture of the sixties and seventies became a commom mantra of the mainstream media in the nineties. The American political establishment and media must look at themselves for bearing some responsibility for the Bush administration and its actions. As a Barack Obama has repeatedly stated we must get rid of the mindset that led us directly to war, and this mindset, I believe, has lot to do with the bad political legacy of the nineties.

Hey Peace,
"I believe, has lot to do with the bad political legacy of the nineties."

so were you against the Clintons then? or it took you another 10 years to figure that out. Same will happen to Bush's presidency. The real story will come out in the next 10 years.

To peace 2:
It was not the Clintons that I was against, but rather the political climate of the nineties that led to the election of George Bush. George Bush's legacy as a failure is pretty much a sure deal because of not only Iraq, but Katrina, and the failing economy which has a lot to do with Bush's economic policies.

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Guest Contributors
Sign-up to receive a weekly digest of the latest posts from Democracy Arsenal.
Powered by TypePad


The opinions voiced on Democracy Arsenal are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Read Terms of Use