A Miserable Failure as a President - Essay Example

Is George W. Bush the Worst President in American History? It is no longer a question amongst historians, scholars or the majority of the general public as to whether the presidency George W. Bush will be viewed by historical retrospection as a success or failure. The debate centers on whether or not his presidency will be judged as the worst in history. It is a foregone conclusion by the majority of the nation and the world that Bush has been a miserable failure as a president by any standard, but pronouncing his reign as the absolute worst, more so than the previous 42, would be a particularly distinctive designation that obliges a closer examination of his performance in office. This paper will accomplish this by contrasting a pro-Bush article by Conrad Black, George W. Bush, FDR, and History, and The Worst President in History?, an anti-Bush article by Sean Wilentz. The paper will then assess the Bush Presidency’s foreign and domestic record in an effort to resolve to this debate. The Black/Wilentz Debate Presidential Comparisons Conrad Black asserts that Bush has the opportunity to rise to the historical prominence of Franklin D. Roosevelt whose domestic programs helped to bring the country out of The Depression and foreign policy was instrumental in the winning of World War II. Sean Wilentz rates Bush alongside Herbert Hoover, the presidency that is blamed for the Depression, the impeached Andrew Johnson and the ineffectual James Buchanan. Is Iraq another Vietnam? Black claims that it is ‘nonsense’ that the military and foreign policy debacle of Iraq can be compared to Vietnam. He suggests this because, unlike Vietnam, Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq and observes that the casualty rate of the Iraq war, as compared to Vietnam, is markedly lower, although he doesn’t mention that the rate of severely injured is much higher. Wilentz disagrees saying that the two conflicts are very similar in that they are both foreign conflicts, have each been seemingly unending and un-winnable. The only major difference is that the prestige and credibility of the U.S. has suffered greater damage and terrorist actions against Western nations have been exacerbated as a result of the Iraq invasion and occupation. Foreign Policy Black states that the Bush administration has experienced successes in the ‘war on terrorism’ although he admits the critical intelligence failures prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001; again prior to the military incursion and yet again in the early phases of occupation in Iraq. He suggests that these mistakes will be forgotten when Iraq becomes a stable, democratic nation. Wilentz decries not only the numerous problems caused by the U.S. involvement in an unwarranted war but believes that Bush will forever be held in contempt by history because of the expanded power of the executive branch which has grown well beyond the its Constitutionally-set limits during the Bush presidency. Economic Policy Bush’s domestic policy thwarted a severe recession by the introduction of his tax cuts according to Black, who describes Bush’s proposals for tort reform, education Medicare and Social Security as imaginative but blames Congress for being antagonistic towards these plans. This is the same Congress that was controlled by a Republican majority for the first six years of the presidency and rubber stamped every Bush proposal that came their way. Wilentz describes the Bush tax cuts as a return to the widely discredited supply-side ‘trickle down’ economic policy of Ronald Reagan which was once coined as ‘voodoo economics’ by Bush’s father. Though Black describes Bush’s fiscal policy as ‘fuzzy’ and admits his deficit reduction plan is implausible, he dismisses the notion that the current national debt will cause economic harm to the nation. Wilentz vehemently disagrees. He blames the unprecedented deficits on the tax cuts and an increase of irresponsible government spending. Political Agenda Black claims to find little sustentative evidence to suggest that Bush has pandered to the political agenda of the religious right-wing faction. He also, rather contradictorily, touts Bush’s political savvy by his invoking of emotionally charged ‘morality’ issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and stem cell research during election years. Bush’s influence on the Republican Party has been decidedly influenced by the religious right, Wilentz explained, invoking the words of Republican Party strategist Kevin Phillips who stated that Bush is transforming the Party into “the first religious party in U.S. history” (Wilentz, 2006). Wilentz points to Bush’s extreme right-wing, sectarian stance on the above mentioned and other topics including the teaching of evolution in public schools, assisted suicide, global warming and the Terri Schiavo case. Black forecasts that if Bush achieves his domestic and foreign policy objectives, he will be considered the greatest president since Roosevelt and could possibly surpass that and be considered the greatest since Lincoln. “George W. Bush has been a successful president. He has indisputable aptitudes for leadership, unquestionable courage and integrity, and a chance to be one of Americas great leaders” (Black, 2005). Wilentz ranks Bush’s performance as so poor that he will probably be judged the worst president in history. The Bush Legacy Examined Foreign Policy The subject of foreign policy decisions by Bush almost exclusively relate to the numerous mistakes and subsequent detriments of the war in Iraq. Bush’s ‘war on terror’ included an illegal, immoral and ill-conceived invasion of a sovereign nation which has resulted in the expansion of terrorist activities and is causing an intensified hatred of Western nations by the entire Middle Eastern region regardless of nationality or ideology and thus has been an effective recruitment tool for Al-Qaeda. The ‘war on terror’ also produced the PATRIOT Act. A close examination of the Act, which the members of Congress did not do prior to voting, confirms that those that champion civil liberties as such are justifiably alarmed. Libertarian organizations such as the Civil Liberties Union claim that the Bush administration has a proclivity for secrecy and rejects the concept of transparency. The PATRIOT Act has reproved Bush’s agenda for the “outright removal of checks and balances” (Etzioni, 2004: 9). The Bush administration also justifies the use of torture tactics in secretive prisons so as to extract information from ‘enemy combatants’ as another important tool in the war on terror. Political Agenda The Bush administration is aligned with the far right-wing religious sect and has made it very clear that it is opposed to legal abortions, in at least most circumstances, and has transferred this ideology to its prohibition of embryonic stem cell research. When stem cell research becomes widely accepted, the U.S. will eventually participate, but will then be well behind the curve of technological and structural systems. This industry will pump money into many economies while the U.S. is catching up. Many people will be presented with the possibility of being treated for horrific diseases in other countries while the U.S. lags behind as its citizens continue to suffer. Domestic Policy In 2004, Bush made federal education spending cuts in several key educational areas including $680 million in No Child Left Behind, $393 million in the after-school programs and $304 million for vocational and adult education. In the same year, public college tuition went up by 14 percent nationally while Bush proposed cutting Pell Grants by $260 million. In 2005, Congress cut $1 billion from the so-called ‘No Child Left Behind’ Act (Cahoon, 2005). Bush plans to unveil a $2.5 trillion budget eliminating dozens of politically sensitive domestic programs, including funding for education, to help meet his goal of shaving the budget deficit in half by 2009 (Allen & Baker, 2005). “Virtually all 48 programs that Mr. Bush desires to end are intended to educate children, young adults and college students who are disabled, economically disadvantaged, limited English-proficient and even illiterate” (Broad Cuts, 2004). Even as it proposes these program cuts, the Administration also is proposing considerable tax cuts that would cost more than the program cuts would save.  The spending cuts are, in essence, being used to help pay for the tax cuts, not to reduce the deficit as the administration claims. Economic Policy According to the Commerce Department, the yearly payment on this debt, the deficit, reached $725.8 billion. This represents a 17.5 percent increase from 2004 (Armstrong, 2006). When President Clinton took office in 1993, the debt stood at $2.4 trillion. The massive increase of debt was not used for infrastructure, education, public programs or even to finance a war. As a result of Reagan’s ‘trickle down’ economic theory, the money wound up in the pockets of the rich. In the early 1990’s, Congress adopted a ‘pay-as-you-go’ policy and federal spending cuts which resulted in budget surpluses for four consecutive years. Clinton announced that the nation could pay off the debt by the year 2013 if it stayed on the present course (Schoen, 2006). That optimistic predication has long since been forgotten. Since 2000, the debt has tripled. The ‘pay-as-you-go’ policy expired in 2002 allowing Congress to cut taxes, a politically advantageous move while also increasing spending (Schoen, 2006). The current President Bush administration cut the taxes of the rich while increasing military expenditures on The War on Terror, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the rebuilding of those countries. The debt has now exceeded even the Reagan administration’s record levels. It has severely hampered America’s ability to continue to effectively defend itself or become involved in other potential conflicts worldwide. “There is a growing concern about what the increasing U.S. national debt will do to the nation’s ability to influence world affairs” (Suter, 2004). Environmental Policy Although warnings about the human generated causes of an enhanced greenhouse effect and the subsequent catastrophic outcomes have been sounded for over 100 years, global warming has only recently become an important political matter, at least in the U.S. President Bush, for the first time in his term of office, referred to the subject in his State of the Union speech last month. Even then, he chose his words carefully by calling this phenomenon, ‘global climate change.’ In 1997, the Kyoto Treaty, which has now been signed by more than 160 countries, is, to date, the most comprehensive global effort to decrease CO2 emissions. Though the agreement was signed by the U.S. and then President Clinton consented to decrease greenhouse emissions in the U.S. by 40 percent, it has been dismissed by the Bush administration and has yet to be ratified by the U.S. CO2 greenhouse gases have since increased in the country that produces well more than any other (Melinin, 2005). Most scientists worldwide accept the sufficient evidence that suggests global warming is already well underway and cannot be reversed anytime soon. They and reasonable people of all backgrounds and nationalities agree that if CO2 emissions are not greatly reduced and soon, the resulting greenhouse effect will alter the climate and possibly the sustainability of humankind. Unfortunately, the country that causes the most harm is lead by a person that seems to have ‘cause the most harm’ as his calling card. Conclusion If the criteria for worst president is based on which one has caused the most harm, Bush would be the top choice. No other has been as reckless with foreign policy, more irresponsible regarding domestic issues and less sympathetic to humanitarian concerns, foreign or domestic. Before the full term expires, the Bush administration will likely be considered the most corrupt as well. No president before has displayed such a callous disregard for the views of the Congress, the will of the people, or the precepts of common sense. For these reasons, there can be no doubt that Bush is the worst president in history and there remains nearly two more years for the continued downfall of the nation. Works Cited Allen, Mike & Baker, Peter. “$2.5 Trillion Budget Plan Cuts Many Programs Domestic Spending Falls; Defense, Security Rise.” Washington Post. (February 7, 2005). March 27, 2007 Armstrong, David. “U.S. Racks Up Record Trade Deficit in ’05: $725.8 Billion Total is 17.5% Increase Over 2004’s Mark.” San Francisco Chronicle. (February 11, 2006). March 27, 2007 Black, Conrad. “George W. Bush, FDR, and History.” The American Spectator. (April 2005). March 27, 2007 Cahoon, Cecil. “Congress Strips Billions from Public Education.” National Education Association. (December 23, 2005). March 27, 2007 Etzioni, Amitai. How Patriotic Is the Patriot Act? Freedom versus Security in the Age of Terrorism. New York, Routledge, 2004. Malinin, Sergei. “USA, China and India Outlaw Kyoto Protocol and Set Forth New Climate Change Initiative.” Pravda. July 27, 2005. Schoen, John W. “Why is the National Debt Out of Control?” MSNBC. (2006). March 27, 2007 Suter, Keith. “The Next International ‘Debt Crisis’ is in North America.” Online Opinion. (June 30, 2004). March 27, 2007 Wilentz, Sean. “The Worst President in History?” Rolling Stone Magazine. (May 4, 2006). March 27, 2007 Read More