As I write this, we are a few hours from the inauguration of Barack Obama as our 44th president, and George W. Bush will very soon be history. Rating the presidents is a popular game. As we enter the final days of the 43rd president’s reign, many professional pundits and others are putting in their two cents worth, rating the presidential performance of Mr. Bush. Since I don’t get paid for expressing my opinions, my own view is not even worth the proverbial two cents, but here goes…
As President Bush and some of his friends have correctly noted, it is too early for any “final” verdict on his presidency. There are various future events that could modify our initial conclusions regarding the Bush record. It is at least possible, for example, that Iraq will emerge in the near future as a stable liberal democracy, and a model to be emulated by its Arab neighbors. If this actually happens, even Mr. Bush’s harshest critics would probably have to revise their evaluations upward at least a little bit. I do not think that such an outcome is likely in the foreseeable future, but it is possible. The main point here is that our judgment at this time has to be regarded as tentative, and subject to possible reassessment in either direction based on subsequent events.
Before getting into the factors that I believe are the most crucial in judging the Bush presidency, I want to dispense with the factors that some people sometimes emphasize, but which I think are of little or no importance. First, the controversy surrounding his election eight years ago, and the possibility that the election was “stolen” on his behalf by the Republican political establishment in Florida, has no bearing on how we should grade the Bush presidency. Whether or not his becoming president was the result of improper shenanigans of some kind, the fact is that George W. Bush has been the President of the United States for the past eight years. It is his record as president that matters, not how he got to the White House in the first place. Second, let’s assume that Mr. Bush is basically a nice guy, a devoted family man, and that his actions as president were motivated by sincere intentions to best serve the interests of the American people. That also does not matter. We judge our presidents by what they actually did, and the effects of their actions, rather than our assumptions about their motives.
In his recent public comments, Mr. Bush has (like any other retired or soon-to-be retired president) tried to put a positive spin on his own presidential record. More than anything else, he emphasizes the fact that since 9/11/2001, there have been no subsequent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. His point is that he has kept America safe for the past 7+ years. The implication by Mr. Bush and his supporters is that this factor is such a major plus in his record that it far outweighs all the possible, but unspecified, negatives. I do not agree.
I can give him some credit for the absence of terrorist attacks in the U.S. during the past seven years, but subject to some significant qualifications. In the first place, if the lack of terrorist attacks since 2001 is the crowning achievement of his presidency, then it is also appropriate to note his administration’s failure to recognize the threat of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11. Vigilance by the administration since then has undoubtedly helped to prevent subsequent attacks, although it must share a significant share of the credit with the good work by many local police departments and the intelligence agencies of other countries. However, in addition to the productive resources that have been used in combating terrorism, President Bush also wasted extraordinary resources that were supposedly for the same purpose, but which contributed no incremental value. Is America really safer and stronger than it was seven years ago? In many ways, I strongly doubt that it is.
As much as anything else, the war on terror has defined the George W. Bush presidency. After the 9/11 attacks, it was apparent that the Taliban in Afghanistan had provided a base for the Al Qaeda terrorists, and it was appropriate to go after them. Had President Bush focused on that mission, he might have succeeded in establishing an effective and responsible Afghan government, capturing or killing bin Laden, and at a fraction of the costs actually incurred in the “war on terror.”
Instead, Mr. Bush turned his attention on Iraq and its odious dictator, Saddam Hussein. While nobody disputes that Saddam Hussein was a very bad guy, by 2003 his ability to be a menace beyond the borders of his own country was very limited. He had been effectively contained by the economic sanctions, no-fly zones, and weapons inspections. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was completely unnecessary, and even if we concede (which I do not) that the decision to invade Iraq and force regime change was a proper exercise of American power, the policy was executed with gross incompetence. Although Mr. Bush has tried to deflect responsibility for these mistakes on others (the CIA and its counterparts in allied governments, along with some of our military leaders), he is absolutely responsible for all of the mistakes pertaining to the Iraq War. It was Mr. Bush, and advisors personally selected by Mr. Bush (such as Donald Rumsfeld), who ignored sound advice and accurate information that did not fit their preconceived notions. The main justifications given by the president for the war (a strongly implied connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, plus Saddam’s alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction) were bogus. The costs of the war to America have been huge, in terms of lives, treasury, and diplomatic damage. So far, it is not at all apparent that Iraq or the Middle East – and America’s interests in that region – have derived a net benefit as a result of the regime change. The one country in that region that has undeniably gained from Mr. Bush’s actions is Iran, and that cannot possibly have been Mr. Bush’s intention. For all of Saddam Hussein’s faults, his one “virtue,” from the U.S. point of view, was that he was an enemy and counterweight to the Shiite theocracy in Iran. While that fact would not justify supporting his regime, forcibly removing Saddam from the picture brought on a successor government in Iraq that is supported and influenced by Iran. President Bush had articulated his notion of an “axis of evil,” consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. The implication was that these three countries were allies of each other, conspiring together to do evil deeds at every opportunity. It appears to me that Mr. Bush was handed a catchy phrase by a speechwriter, and then sincerely bought into its implication. In fact, Iraq and Iran were enemies of each other, and to some degree each of those two countries served as a check on the power of the other. Not any more, thanks to President Bush.
Personally, I am appalled at the Bush administration’s contemptuous attitude toward civil liberties and international law’s prohibitions on torture. George W. Bush should, and probably will, be condemned by future historians for his disregard for the laws and the Constitution that he swore to uphold. In the name of keeping America safe from terrorists (which nobody should dispute is a worthy goal), Mr. Bush has claimed the right to torture suspects, lock people up without time limits or any due process, spy on American citizens without a warrant – and all of this in direct contradiction of statutory and international law. The Bush administration has, in effect, asserted that anything it does in the name of national security is legal and proper, and not subject to any laws that would suggest otherwise. In its efforts to hold itself above the law, the Bush administration is very much on the wrong side of history.
However, I do not weigh these factors as heavily as some critics are inclined to do. The Bush record in these areas is very bad, but compared to some of the other wrongheaded policies by this president, these problems are more easily corrected. In times of perceived threats to the American way of life, civil liberties have often been discarded. Within the living memory of many older Americans, many thousands of Japanese-Americans were rounded up and put into concentration camps. This was morally reprehensible, and it served no legitimate national security purpose. That episode has to be regarded as a disgrace in modern American history, but it has not prevented most historians from an overall judgment that Franklin Roosevelt was one of our great presidents. Mr. Bush’s willingness to use torture as an interrogation tool, and his attempts to claim that the president is beyond the reach of the law, have been a disgrace, but they have far less long-term impact than many of his other actions. Civil liberties and the rule of law can be easily restored by the next president’s reversal of these policies and practices of President Bush.
Leaving aside the issue of keeping America safe from international Bad Guys, the major domestic legacy of the Bush administration was his tax cut legislation during his first term. The president had campaigned on his intentions to reduce taxes, and as president he lobbied hard to get the legislation through Congress. He was successful in getting Congress to pass something very close to what he wanted. If the net effect of the tax cut is good, Mr. Bush deserves the credit; if the net effect is bad, he deserves the blame. In my own opinion, the tax cuts had more negative than positive effects. I am less bothered than some people are by the fact that most of the benefits went to those with high incomes. Reducing marginal tax rates generally have a stimulating effect on economic activity. The real problem with the tax cuts is that they were accompanied by huge increases in government spending. Recall that, back in 2001, Mr. Bush inherited a government in fiscal surplus. He claimed at the time that surpluses would continue indefinitely into the future, and that even under the worst case scenario – a recession plus an as yet unforeseen national emergency – the enacting of his tax cuts would supposedly only reduce future government surpluses by half. The tax cuts passed, and we soon afterward got our national emergency (the terrorist attacks) and the recession. In little time, we went from a record surplus to record deficits. It can be argued that the tax cuts made the 2001 recession milder than it otherwise might have been, but they also made the long-term problem of an increased national debt much worse. This president, who preached the Republican mantra of small government, greatly expanded the government’s spending and power. Maybe Congress should be held responsible for some of the increased spending, but President Bush did not veto a single bill during his first term.
Recessions are part of the business cycle, and I do not blame President Bush for the fact that a recession occurs on his watch. However, his policies are responsible for making existing problems worse. Regardless of whether tax rates go up or down, increasing government spending is really a tax increase, and reducing the government’s ability to pay for the spending programs amounts to sending an ever increasing I.O.U. to our children. To his partial credit, Mr. Bush attempted in 2005 to reform social security, which is headed for a demographic time bomb in the coming years. He had a sensible suggestion regarding slowing down the pace of benefit increases in the future. Unfortunately, when he had his one good opportunity to accomplish meaningful social security reform, he made the mistake of insisting on a partial privatization of the program, and he wound up accomplishing nothing. This was a squandered opportunity for an important and positive accomplishment by President Bush.
Mr. Bush has displayed a hostile attitude toward financial regulation, with unfortunate results that should not come as a big surprise. The banking and mortgage crises occurring near the end of his presidency are not entirely his fault, but the Bush policies aggravated the problem.
There are several other aspects of Mr. Bush’s presidency that may be less significant than the issues discussed above, but which also add to the negative side of the ledger. He fired federal prosecutors for not being sufficiently partisan in their jobs, which are supposed to carried out in a non-partisan manner. He famously said in a speech that “we are addicted to oil,” but his energy policies did nothing to address the problem of the “addiction.” From a national security standpoint, the U.S. continues to have an unhealthy dependence on oil, which leaves us vulnerable to the whims of some hostile foreign governments. Any time a situation called for a scientific study, Mr. Bush made sure to stack the deck, in order to make sure that the panel concluded what he wanted them to conclude. His approach is the antithesis of the principle of scientific inquiry. I honestly do not know whether or not global warming is as big a problem as Al Gore suggests, but it does appear to be a bigger problem than Mr. Bush has ever cared to acknowledge. The longer the problem is put off, the more drastic the consequences will be. Mr. Bush has been an advocate of free trade, but he has supported steel industry and farm legislation that violate trade agreements (to be fair about it, most recent presidents have supported free trade in theory more than in practice). In addition, he has been consistently hostile to all international organizations, regarding them as infringements on American sovereignty, and he did not see fit to make an exception for the World Trade Organization. Although it is not a popular cause, free trade is in the general interest of the American people. Mr. Bush seems to understand this, but he never spent much effort promoting it. That is too bad, because with a recession facing us, and Democrats in solid control of Congress, expansion of trade opportunities within the next several years looks very unlikely. Back to the Middle East, it may not have been possible for President Bush to solve the problem between Israel and the Palestinians, but he never made much of an effort in that area, and the situation there is worse now than it was when he became president eight years ago.
In summary, although our verdict on the George W. Bush presidency for now must be regarded as tentative, it is hard for me to see a realistic possibility that his presidency will be regarded as anything but a failure. He claimed that he would pursue a “humble” foreign policy, but instead his record on foreign affairs was the most arrogant in memory. He ordered an invasion of a country that had not attacked the U.S. or its allies, nor was it an imminent threat to do so. The consequences of this totally unnecessary war have left America weaker (economically, militarily, diplomatically) than it would otherwise be. During the Bush presidency, America has been less respected by the rest of the world than at any other time in several generations. This is important, because the world is continually becoming more interconnected. Our country is still the most powerful in the world, but in dealing with other countries in the future, our power to persuade will be far more important than our power to coerce. Mr. Bush talked of the conservative virtues of limited government, but his actions were the opposite of his expressed intentions. He had the federal government overrule the states when a state decided on a policy that was not to his liking (medical marijuana, for example). One of his major goals, with the enthusiastic assistance of Dick Cheney, was to strengthen the presidency by claiming that it is not subject to constraints by the law, or by actions by Congress or the courts. These extreme interpretations of presidential power may well have the effect of weakening the presidency. That is what happened following similarly imperial claims of presidential power by Richard Nixon. I am not judging Mr. Bush harshly because his goals and priorities might be different from mine. Instead, I am saying that he is a failed president because he failed in terms of his own stated goals.
