How will history remember Bush?

[WordInterrupted]

As for the USSR, Reagan forced them to spend themselves into bankruptcy by escalating the arms race and refusing to play softball the way Carter had.

(1) Time for a little reality. Carter increased military spending from 97.2 billion in 1977 to 133.9 billion in 1980. That's an increase of roughly 27% over four years. Reagan increased spending from 157.5 billion in 1981 to 227.4 billion in 1984. That's an increase of roughly 30% over four years. Reagan increased spending at a slightly faster rate than Carter, but I don't see any huge policy shift here. They both continued the policy of containment practiced by every pesident since Harry Truman.

Source: OMB budget tables

(2) The economic strain caused by Soviet attempt to maintain military parity with the U.S. through the 70's and 80's may have contributed to the collapse of the USSR, but it isn't an adequate explanation on its own. The USSR was acheiving only modest economic growth comapred with the U.S., but it was not "bankrupt," as you claim. There was no economic catastrophe that forced Gorbachev's hand; he instituted glasnost largely in response to nationalist movements in the Soviet block. If there had been no solidarity movement in Poland, or if Gorbachev had taken a hardline stance, no amount defense spending would have brought down the Soviet state.

 

[Mentalist]

*Clang*


Comments to MA.

 

[TJHairball]

I think he's taken a strong stand against Islamic fundamentalism, something I've been hoping would happen since 1979.

I disagree here, for all the talk given. Why?

Well, I can take two tracks. First, actual policy decisions on the macro scale. The invasion of Iraq. Secular bad-boy of the Islamic world. Israel and Palestine? He seems to have been prodding Israel hard here in practice to actually start shaping their act up a little.

Second, the effect of his behavior. Islamic fundamentalism has been stirred up by Bush's actions. Terrorist activity is on the rise. The Taliban isn't in control of Afghanistan, but they're doing better than they were in 2003.

Lefties can cry about Christian fundamentalism all the want here, but it doesn't change the fact that Christian fundamentalists don't fly planes into buildings.

I suspect that has to do with motive and opportunity. Rather smaller bombs usually suffice for abortion clinics.

 

[Buttons]

As of right now, with huge issues remaining? He'll just be yet another mediocre president, like Clinton, Ford, Johnson, Bush 1, etc. If he can actually come through on Social Security, and continue to tear apart the horrible pyramid scheme which was Johnson's Great Society, he'll be right up there with Reagan and Kennedy.

 

[The Question]

^Agreed, with everyone except Wordin, who will be chiming in here any minute with some windy drivel about the evil of anything not steeped in leftist dogma.

Bush is the lesser of two evils, and until our system is set up so that the person getting the job is fit to actually serve the country instead of cater to whichever special interest bankrolled the campaign that propelled him into office, then the lesser evil is the better option.

As I understand it, our first few Presidents didn't seek out the position, but were to some degree drafted into it. Maybe that's a way to go. Candidates for the position would be forbidden to actively campaign for the Presidency. No catering to special interests, no extra perks or better salary, just extra responsibility. Not to turn being President into a living hell or anything, but it shouldn't be something people aspire to anymore.

 

[MikeH92467]

I agree that anyone who will put themselves through what it takes to become president should be looked at askance. In my opinion, it's the worst part of our political system, but we see it played out in smaller all the way down to local elections. Honorable citizens of every political stripe who would make excellent candidates and elected officials simply refuse to whore themselves out.

More on topic...while agreeing with Number_6's skepticisim about trying to give historical perspective to current events, I really feel that the best comparisons are going to be Harding and McKinley.

Harding was nothing but a likeable playboy and while Bush, to my knowledge, showed the willpower to conquer his drinking problem still is someone in my opinion who's gotten through life on a pass.

While confronting Islamism is a good thing, I think, there are certainly other ways to confront than the wrong headed and totally fouled up operation that was mounted against Iraq. It kinda reminds me of McKinley's imperialist adventures in the Phillipines.

I just feel that in the long term he will be judged as someone lacking in the intellect to tackle the job and his election will be one of the great historical mysteries confronting analysts of this era.

Just my two cents.

edteid fur spllngi

 

[Imperium]

I think he's taken a strong stand against Islamic fundamentalism, something I've been hoping would happen since 1979. (Lefties can cry about Christian fundamentalism all the want here, but it doesn't change the fact that Christian fundamentalists don't fly planes into buildings.)

No, they will just blow them up al la abortion clinics. They are all cut from the same cloth. Muslims tend to live in terrible poverty moreso and the average fundamentalist Christian which I would not hesistate to say would lend a hand to extremist attacks. What is there to live for besides the Glory of Allah?

 

[TJHairball]

As of right now, with huge issues remaining? He'll just be yet another mediocre president, like Clinton, Ford, Johnson, Bush 1, etc.

Disagree with some of that, agree with some of it. I think he'll be remembered as downright bad, while Clinton will get mixed reviews in history texts. It's difficult to understate how much we will judge presidents by peace and prosperity in the long run. Reagan and Clinton are both likely to be remembered reasonably well for that.

If he can actually come through on Social Security, and continue to tear apart the horrible pyramid scheme which was Johnson's Great Society, he'll be right up there with Reagan and Kennedy.

If by "come through," you mean "dumping SS funds into the stock market to artificially inflate stock prices and make the next stock market crash really bad for the country," then he will get remembered in that case not particularly well.

As far as the sort of people who get into office... well, the system needs to be fixed. Right now, it's structurally screwed up.

 

[SSgt_Sniper]

And this is exactly why I made sure all political discussions were kaput in our little circle....

Although I will say this: The charges against Tom DeLay aren't just trumped up; they are also in defiance of the law. Mainly because these laws didn't even exist at the time he supposedly "broke" them. So, what does this mean? Number one: he's not guilty because you cannot break a law that doesn't exist. Number two: what actually occured, the shifting of types of money (read: hard vs. soft) was totally legal even under current law. So on that count, he still hasn't broken the law. This particular District Attorney has pulled this kind of abuse of black-letter law before, and I think, in the end, this time he's going to cost himself a job, since this is the first time he's done it in such a big-ticket manner.

All that said, Tom DeLay's a prick. IMO.

 

[Number_6]

^^Per the post above, I also agree that Tom DeLay is a prick.

And then I started thinking. Is there a senator who has been seated for more than a handful of months that I don't think is a prick? Certainly none of the senators who are usually in the camera's eye.

Are all senators assholes?

 

[MikeH92467]

^^^They might well be. Certainly there are very few that I feel would be willing to (at least figuratively speaking) crack open a beer and watch football at my house.

Just goes to show that something is wrong with the system that fundamentally decent and likeable people of whatever persuasion stand little, if any chance of being elected...even if they can be persuaded to run.

 

[Buttons]

Disagree with some of that, agree with some of it. I think he'll be remembered as downright bad, while Clinton will get mixed reviews in history texts. It's difficult to understate how much we will judge presidents by peace and prosperity in the long run. Reagan and Clinton are both likely to be remembered reasonably well for that.

Don't really agree with that... FDR wuld have been rememered only as an abject failure for the great depression save for a spontaneous pick up in the economy thanks to a certain German head of state.

If by "come through," you mean "dumping SS funds into the stock market to artificially inflate stock prices and make the next stock market crash really bad for the country," then he will get remembered in that case not particularly well.

Nope, come through in making an actual WORKING SS fund, rather than the idiotic pay-as-you-go system currently in place. Whether it's dumping into Mutuals, raw stocks, or just tax divendend portfolios, anything would be better than the current system. As it stands, the system WILL fail. It's not a question of if, it's a question of WHEN and how hard.

 

[DeltaOne]

As I understand it, our first few Presidents didn't seek out the position, but were to some degree drafted into it. Maybe that's a way to go. Candidates for the position would be forbidden to actively campaign for the Presidency. No catering to special interests, no extra perks or better salary, just extra responsibility. Not to turn being President into a living hell or anything, but it shouldn't be something people aspire to anymore.

I agree with this, TQ, but look at it a bit more realisticly. A candidate might not be actively campaigning, but do you honestly that with the media being the way it is today, that the very same shit isn't going to happen? There will always be somebody with the money to get his opinion heard.

 

[Hilbert Frakes]

I hope history condems Bush as a lousy president.

 

[Hilbert Frakes]

With the gas prices and all he should have no problem getting there.

 

[TJHairball]

Don't really agree with that... FDR wuld have been rememered only as an abject failure for the great depression save for a spontaneous pick up in the economy thanks to a certain German head of state.

And so, we remember him in history textbooks as bringing the nation out of the Depression and into WWII and prosperity.

Exactly what I'm talking about. Most casual treatments end up talking mostly about how the nation did while a president was in office.

Nope, come through in making an actual WORKING SS fund, rather than the idiotic pay-as-you-go system currently in place. Whether it's dumping into Mutuals, raw stocks, or just tax divendend portfolios, anything would be better than the current system. As it stands, the system WILL fail. It's not a question of if, it's a question of WHEN and how hard.

And whose projections you believe in that regard... provided you don't do simple alterations, like scale age of benefits over time, etc etc. There's nothing about pay-as-you-go that's fundamentally unstable. Deficit spending in general, perhaps, but that's not a problem limited to Social Security (or, for that matter, even always present in SS itself.)

I do not have any faith in Bush coming out with a working safety net. I believe he subscribes, at best, to what one Republican acquaint of mine credited Reagan with - expanding government programs beyond budget in order to accelerate their demise.

 

[Buttons]

And so, we remember him in history textbooks as bringing the nation out of the Depression and into WWII and prosperity.

Exactly what I'm talking about. Most casual treatments end up talking mostly about how the nation did while a president was in office.

And Bush will be noted to have conducted significant tax cuts, and brought the US out of a fairly significant Recession and recover from numerous national catastrophes, as well as begin the process of reshaping the Middle East...

And whose projections you believe in that regard... provided you don't do simple alterations, like scale age of benefits over time, etc etc. There's nothing about pay-as-you-go that's fundamentally unstable. Deficit spending in general, perhaps, but that's not a problem limited to Social Security (or, for that matter, even always present in SS itself.)

Uh, population dynamics make pay-as-you-go fundamentally unstable. You can see the direct effects of them through out Europe, example France, Belgium, Germany, England, et al. Aging population increases burden on youthful population.

I do not have any faith in Bush coming out with a working safety net. I believe he subscribes, at best, to what one Republican acquaint of mine credited Reagan with - expanding government programs beyond budget in order to accelerate their demise.

This I do agree with... And it occasionally makes me wonder if Bush is really a supergenius... I mean think about it... Demos push everything as "Give it all the money and resources in the world and it'll work!" And when they have huge increases in budgets and have no significant returns it pretty much guts that liberal premise...