Making Presidential HistoryDavid Greenberg discusses what George W. Bush's legacy will be.

(Continued from page 2)

PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND...SINGLE PAGE

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

Record low unemployment, record high stock markets and home ownership. Every time the stock market hit a new high under Clinton, it was a front page news story. Barely even a mention when it happened under Bush, and it has happened something like 35 times. If the media were more even handed, his image would be better. He got us out of the Clinton/Gore recession of the late '90s that was started after they taxed businesses into death, let china into the WTO, and brought us the dot-com bust.

History will be kind to W. ...

David Greenberg: I think this is a very partisan opinion. The recession, I believe, started in 2000, not the late 1990s, and the greater prominence of economic news in the 1990s surely had less to do with any lack of "evenhandedness" in the media than with (a) the productivity boom; and (b) 9/11.

_______________________

Jersey City, N.J.: President Bush has said that he believes God chose him to be our president at this time of crisis. Why does he think God hates America so much?

David Greenberg: Ouch! Get yourself a blog and press credentials and ask Bush at his next press conference!

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: The idea of a serious discussion about Bush's "legacy" misdirects us from the harsh reality of Bush's impact on the past six years and the here and now. The fact that the MSM likes to promote discussions like this rather than talk about the really horrific state of our nation, or what the raging class warfare that Bush has visited on our people means on a day to day basis is so disheartening.

I suggest instead you click on weta.org and watch recent Bill Moyers Journal broadcasts to find out what's going on in America. Then see if you still want to postulate whether Bush is a man of history or simply an astounding failure who has hurt and let down his countrymen to an unprecedented degree.

David Greenberg: A fair point. Although I think you're mistaken (a) in treating the mainstream media as a monolith here with a single, unfied desire; and (b) in suggesting that real-world consequences of the war are somehow lacking in the media, I agree that the current sense of polarization, of rancor, and of despair is itself an important part of what Bush has accomplished, if unintentionally. We have to judge presidents not only by the long-term consequences of their actions but also by how they make citizens in their own day feel. One reason that Nixon never succeeded in his comeback campaign is that he had such a negative impact on public trust at the time of his presidency.

_______________________

New York: David: As a historian, as a country, would we not have a better debate if we all should the proper respect for the President and dispatched with such words as "W" or "Bushies" or even "Bush?" I mean, he is the President of the United States of America so we should debate his policies, debate them loudly, but always always show the proper respect that he and this country and this office deserve!

David Greenberg: I don't agree. Although I do get repulsed by a lot of the commentary--even from those whose politics I share--what bothers me more is when that ugliness is directed toward individual journalists or citizens voicing their views. In contrast, the president, by virtue of his office, is the object of intense feelings, from admiration to hatred. It's always been that way; it comes with the territory. Besides, "W" and "Bushies" are hardly the most pejorative of terms.

_______________________

Conservatism v. Neo: I think many movement conservatives these days would quibble with your view that Bush/Cheney are "conservatives." I still think they conform more to neo-conservative (and sometimes even neo-liberal) principles. What has been "conservative" about what Bush/Cheney have done to our nation? By the way, what's the defining principle of American Conservatism, anyway?

David Greenberg: The definition of conservative is a huge question that I can't answer here. But on the whole, conservatives have favored the more aggressive, unilateral, and unrestrained use of American force overseas—like Bush and Reagan and other Republican leaders. Conservatives have favored lower taxes, especially on the wealthy, and less regulation on business. Conservatives (apart from libertarians, a rather small minority) are more ready to expand wartime power and restrict civil liberties. Conservative are less concerned with taking steps to ensure equality for blacks and women.... and so on. I think we all share a working definition of liberal and conservative. To say that "Bush isn't a true conservative because conservatism implies humility..." or ".. because conservatism implies balancing the budget..." or whatever is specious.

_______________________

Oxford, Miss.: I think the "history has yet to decide" approach to the Bush legacy is sensible in terms of Iraq, which, unlikely as it may be, could still turn out a success in the long run. BUT, when it comes to the bungling of home-based disasters like Katrina and the wide-spread corruption and secrecy of the administration policies, I'd say the die is already cast.

David Greenberg: I agree that on some issues, especially the handling of Katrina, it's all but impossible to imagine a favorable verdict on Bush emerging down the road.

_______________________

Los Angeles: You said "the chief policymakers—Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice—do not fit the neocon profile."

Can you elaborate on that? Both Cheney and Rumsfeld were actively involved with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), right? Isn't PNAC a de facto neocon policy approach?

David Greenberg: I don't see PNAC as neocon in particular. I think that by the 1990s, most of the significant distinctions between neoconservatism and straight conservatism had faded away. Paul Starr wrote an essay in The New Republic in the 1990s called "Nothing Neo" that captured this merging of the two streams of ideology under Reagan. In Jim Mann's excellent book The Rise of the Vulcans, he offers a much more fruitful way of thinking about the differences in foreign policy that emerged. They centered more on a willingness to use American military force abroad.

_______________________

PRINTE-MAILRECOMMEND...RSS

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

SPONSORED CONTENT

• The Bearded Mom
  Prudie counsels a reader whose mother's facial hair is getting out of control—and other advice seekers.
  Nov. 9, 2009
• The Closeted Groom
  Prudie dispenses advice about a fiancé who has a bisexual past—and counsels other advice seekers.
  Nov. 2, 2009
• Say Beddy-Bye-Bye
  Prudie counsels a husband-to-be whose bride wants her own bedroom—and other advice seekers.
  Oct. 26, 2009
• Search for more Chat Room, The articles
• Subscribe to the Chat Room, The RSS feed
• View our complete Chat Room, The archive