[Peace-discuss] An American Disaster

[ppatton at uiuc.edu]

History Profs Rate Bush a Disaster
by Tom Brazaitis
 

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.

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.

"Actually, I think [Bush's] presidency may exceed the 
disaster that was Nixon," said one historian who was not 
named. "He has systematically lied to the American public 
about almost every policy that his administration promotes."

Robert S. McElvaine, who teaches history at Millsaps College 
in Jackson, Miss., reported the survey's findings, adding his 
own astonished comment that so many people still support a 
president with so many strikes against him.

McElvaine ticked off a list of 13 major Bush failings, 
starting with the wrong-headed decision to go to war in Iraq.

"He misled (to use the most chari- table interpretation) the 
American public about weapons of mass destruction and 
supposed ties to al- Qaida in Iraq and so to a war that has 
plainly (and entirely predictably) made us less se cure, 
caused a boom in the recruitment of terrorists, is killing 
American personnel needlessly, and is threatening to suck up 
all our available forces and be a bottomless pit for the 
money of American taxpayers for years."

Among McElvaine's other points:

The loss of 3 million American jobs in the first 2½ years 
under Bush, the worst record since Herbert Hoover.

Turning the great worldwide outpouring of good will after the 
9/11 attacks against the United States into worldwide hatred 
by breaking all major international agreements, declaring our 
right to invade any country that we wish, and "bull-headedly 
charging into a quagmire" in Iraq.

Inheriting an annual budget surplus of $230 billion and 
transforming it into a $500 billion-plus deficit in less than 
three years.

Cutting taxes three times for the benefit of the rich, a 
policy that McElvaine says can be stated succinctly: "If you 
had to work for your money, we'll tax it; if you didn't have 
to work for it, you can keep it all."

Calling upon American service people to serve ever-
lengthening tours of duty in a war zone while telling 
Americans to "sacrifice" by going out and buying things.

Proclaiming to be a conservative while big government runs 
roughshod over the Bill of Rights and keeps "all sorts of 
secrets from the people, while allowing the people no privacy 
from the government."

"Some voters may judge such assessments to be wrong," 
McElvaine says, but they are assessments informed by 
historical knowledge and the electorate ought to have them 
available to take into consideration during this election 
year."

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.

Brazaitis, formerly a Plain Dealer senior editor, is a 
Washington columnist.