NationStates Jolt Archive

When Bush is dead and gone (or, at least gone), how will history books remember him? What issues will end up being listed in the chapter on the 2000's?

I think that the history books will cover:

- 9/11
- Iraq
- Plamegate
- Katrina
- The PATRIOT act

And might cover:

- Gitmo
- The Gonzales 8
- Kyoto

Remember, even things that seem significant today are likely to be cast to the wayside by historians.

When Bush is dead and gone (or, at least gone), how will history books remember him?

Barely.

Barely.

You think? His Presidency seems like one that will be remembered for 9/11 and Iraq, certainly.

When Bush is dead and gone (or, at least gone), how will history books remember him? What issues will end up being listed in the chapter on the 2000's?

I think that the history books will cover:

- 9/11
- Iraq
- Plamegate
- Katrina
- The PATRIOT act

And might cover:

- Gitmo
- The Gonzales 8
- Kyoto

Remember, even things that seem significant today are likely to be cast to the wayside by historians.

The history books will cover modt of those, but the general collective memory/culture tends to remember one, maybe two outstanding events and uses those to define a president. Lincoln = Civil War, emancipation; Nixon = Watergate; Carter = Iran hostages, the un-Nixon; Bush I = Iraq I, Berlin Wall fell - you get the idea.

Iraq, and maybe Katrina, will define Bush II. The others will be sidenotes.

You think? His Presidency seems like one that will be remembered for 9/11 and Iraq, certainly.

I'm pretty sure Iraq will be remembered as fairly minor, mainly because we're going to try and forget it like we did with Vietnam, screwing over the many thousands of vets who come home wounded.

And 9/11 is barely remembered nowadays. Hell, you barely hear about Katrina now, and it's only been a little over a year.

Well, for roughly 6 weeks after he dies he will be remembered for being a god among men, a hero who dared to stand against an unjust system.

Then reality will sink in.

Well, that's what happened with Reagan.

Election 2000
Iraq/Afghanistan
Economic recovery
Roberts and Alito
Election 2004

History books will probably treat 9/11 as a greater issue than the Bush Administration's response, and spend a few pages on the election controversy in '00.

Election 2000
Iraq/Afghanistan
Economic recovery
Roberts and Alito
Election 2004

History books will probably treat 9/11 as a greater issue than the Bush Administration's response, and spend a few pages on the election controversy in '00.

Speaking of the Bush Administration's response to 9/11, do you think that history books will bring up the fact that the Whitewater investigation into Clinton's land deals got more funding then the 9/11 investigation?

Iraq, and maybe Katrina, will define Bush II. The others will be sidenotes.

I'd call Katrina a big maybe.. how often do you see natural disasters included in presidential bios in history texts? I can't recall any from my school days.

Speaking of the Bush Administration's response to 9/11, do you think that history books will bring up the fact that the Whitewater investigation into Clinton's land deals got more funding then the 9/11 investigation?

I don't expect they would. In any case, the dollar amount spent funding the 9/11 commission isn't the same as the dollar amount law enforcement spent investigating the hijackers, their financial histories, travel records, etc. That amount was probably far greater than the expenses of the later congressional inquiry. The comparison to Whitewater doesn't fit.

Speaking from a perspective outside the USA, I think he will be remembered for being an irredeemable tool.

Specifically, he will be remembered for the disasterous Iraq invasion, his squandering of the goodwill towards the USA post Sept 11 and the abuses of civil/human rights (Guantanamo, CIA abductions of suspects, torture, Abu Graib, etc) done in the name of the defence freedom.

The history books will be talking about GW Bush for a very long time. Only because so much has happened on his watch. But time will tell how the overall view is of him.

9/11
Stuffing of the ballot boxes in 2000 and 2004
War in Iraq
Gitmo

It begins with yodh, and ends in qeph.

It begins with yodh, and ends in qeph.

What? :confused:

What? :confused:

Seconded.

He'll be remembered as the president who was in office on 9/11, possibly the response after but even today many have already forgotten who carried out the attacks.

The denying of all science if it interfered with big money or his "religious" base.

The inability to prepare for the social needs of an aging population.

His inability to talk. At least that will be what common people will remember.

The massive debt of Reagan, Bush 1, and the even more massive debt of Bush 2. This will bring down the economies of the world and when economies go down wars follow.

Iraq.

You think? His Presidency seems like one that will be remembered for 9/11 and Iraq, certainly.

If he's lucky, he'll be remembered as the most inept president in US history. Warren G Harding's progeny (assuming there are any) are the happiest people in the country because he's off the hook now. If he's really lucky, he'll be a footnote in the history books and the space will be devoted to what happened to the country, because if there's any real time devoted to him, he'll be looked at as the greatest dumbass ever to inhabit the office.

The defining issue will be the Iraq war.

Katrina, guantanamo, &c will fall away - wars are rare and we remember them well.

Those who were alive and old enough during his misadministration will remember his shameful oratory and general air of stupidity and arrogance.

I hope he's remembered for his manipulations of the public and congress by way of false intelligence, the cronyism in his administration, his inappropriate grab for more presidential power and most of all, trampling the constitution into the ground.

I'd also like to see him get pied before he leaves. :)

The denying of all science if it interfered with big money or his "religious" base.

The inability to prepare for the social needs of an aging population.

I hope he's remembered for his manipulations of the public and congress by way of false intelligence, the cronyism in his administration, his inappropriate grab for more presidential power and most of all, trampling the constitution into the ground.

I think that in 100 years these will be more prominent in the history books than 9/11 or Iraq.

I think that in 100 years these will be more prominent in the history books than 9/11 or Iraq.

The anti-science thing can be remedied 100% in a year under a better administration, and the failure to prepare for the elderly is a problem that has been well understood for a very long time and ignored by several administrations.

The Iraq war is the second vietnam, and vietnam defined a generation's relationship with the government and the military - Iraq will probably do the same.

Wars stand out more clearly and both deserve and get more attention in history books than any other subject, because they are the most profound and consequential use of national power.

People should understand, most presidents that were unpopular during their presidency generally are seen better several decades down the road. Such as Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford etc.
In the first several years after Eisenhower's presidency he was comapred to Kennedy and the way he was compared made him look bad. But in later decades people focused on other things and not the comparison with Kennedy.
Johnson was VERY unpopular during his presidency. Especially because of Vietnam. Since then people have focused on his positives such as him bringing in the various legislation that was proposed during Kennedy's presidency and not his handling of Vietnam.
Nixon is still not regarded highly because of Watergate but people are looking more at his positives, such as getting out of Vietnam, althought it took him longer then it should of. Opening up relations with China is another plus.
Ford too, his pardoning of Nixon wasn't very popular when it happened, and still many disagree with it now but historians understand the reasons for it.
By no means am i a Bush supporter and i didn't vote for him in 2000, and i'm not saying he'll be regarded in the same league as Washington, Lincoln or Roosevelt. But he won't be in Harding's category either. In say 50 years, i think we will see his ranking average somewhere round the mid twenties.

I think that in 100 years these will be more prominent in the history books than 9/11 or Iraq.

His administration will probably go down in history as the last stand of the bioconservatives, just like it has marked the end of neoconservatism as a viable and desirable political stance.

Given how unpopular and foolish his positions are, I would be surprised if the next few years see the complete reversal of his scientific policies and major expansions of government support in fields like stem cell research. His anti-scientific arguments are the same tired ones that have prolonged human suffering for longer than it should be, and I imagine people are tired of it and will only reject it further as the potential of the technologies restricted by his administration develop further.

What? :confused:

Seconded.

Yodh, reh, alef, qeph - Iraq.

The anti-science thing can be remedied 100% in a year under a better administration

But that still depends on US innovation. It's not like other nations aren't striving to catch up in key areas.

I worry about Asian biotech...they don't have the Judeo-Christian moral hangups that the U.S. and Europe do.

and the failure to prepare for the elderly is a problem that has been well understood for a very long time and ignored by several administrations.

Well I happen to think the economic effects will make this faliure even more historically noteworthy than anything else Bush has done. It's definetly true that Bush isn't the only one who hasn't done anything...previous presidents are as much to blame, and don't forget Congress!

There are aging/demographic issues in Europe, Japan and China as well. Things don't exactly look like they'll get better anytime soon.

Regarding the Iraq war...I think the coming schism in Islam will be more prominent in future history books. Iraq might be for that schism what Poland was for WWII...but I don't suspect the U.S. will hang around forever if Islam is intent on sectarian conflict.

Time will tell...

His administration will probably go down in history as the last stand of the bioconservatives, just like it has marked the end of neoconservatism as a viable and desirable political stance.

One can only hope...especially in regards to resource consumption.

I simply don't think the Western industrialized style of living is sustainable ecologically, and certainly not for the whole planet's population. There will be an economic and social correction...and just what that correction will consist of is probably beyond anyone's prediction.

One can only hope...especially in regards to resource consumption.

I simply don't think the Western industrialized style of living is sustainable ecologically, and certainly not for the whole planet's population. There will be an economic and social correction...and just what that correction will consist of is probably beyond anyone's prediction.

Definitely. Aside from conservation, which can ultimately go only so far, technological advances are the only way we will be capable of improving our living standards in to the future. We need to develop alternative energy sources, dramatically improve the efficiency of what we have, and encourage the use of the natural environment as well as possible in order to keep improving our living standards as well as those in other parts of the world.

Our current way of life is not sustainable in any way and will have to change to accommodate our needs as a society. There is no other option.

I mean, imagine the economic and social benefits of a treatment that is capable of slowing or reversing aging, or one that can grow genetically custom-tailored replacement organs, or one that can cure most known diseases, or the developing mind-machine interfaces and cybernetics that offer incalculable health and economic benefits. These things could turn problems like aging and genetics-related diseases, and by extension the labor shortages, in to things of the past, greatly improving the future of our economy and the lives of those who participate in it.

Unfortunately, this Administration has a habit of blocking important fields needed to continue that progress under the guise of religious morality even though it often translates in to political pandering with dubious theological or moral grounds. Thankfully, this research goes on in other parts of the world and hasn't been appreciably slowed, but if we don't maintain the cutting edge we will miss out on the economic opportunities that these emerging fields offer us.

If we don't do it, someone else will, and that might mean the difference between creating millions of high-tech, high-paying jobs here as opposed to in Asia or Europe. Our economy can't afford to lose its technological edge, since this knowledge economy thrives on innovation for its very existence.

By no means am i a Bush supporter and i didn't vote for him in 2000, and i'm not saying he'll be regarded in the same league as Washington, Lincoln or Roosevelt. But he won't be in Harding's category either. In say 50 years, i think we will see his ranking average somewhere round the mid twenties.
Nah--he'll be seen as the equivalent of Caligula or Nero. Sublimely incompetent. In all those other administrations you mentioned, there were positives to look back on and mitigate the damage. Kennedy had the Cuban Missile Crisis. Johnson's New Society lifted significant numbers out of poverty. He also followed up on Kennedy's space plans. Nixon opened up China and gave us things like the EPA. Ford didn't completely suck, though he did us no favors by pre-emptively pardoning Nixon. Carter brought conservation to forefront even though we didn't follow up on it, and he appointed Paul Volcker to be Fed Chairman, and his inflation policies set Reagan's economy up for success.

But really, what good has come out of Bush's presidency? Poverty is at its highest rate in 32 years. The gap between rich and poor is widening. We're in an unnecessary war in Iraq. He didn't pay attention to the people who warned him terrorism would be the greatest foreign policy issue he'd face. His economy has benefited the top 1% of people at the expense of the bottom 50%. And he's destroyed our national standing in the world.

I didn't even get into the gutting of privacy rights, Guantanamo Bay, torture, or signing statements, you'll notice.

So what good can he be remembered for? What positives can mitigate his terms in power? How can he salvage anything that could be called a legacy?

But really, what good has come out of Bush's presidency? Poverty is at its highest rate in 32 years. The gap between rich and poor is widening. We're in an unnecessary war in Iraq. He didn't pay attention to the people who warned him terrorism would be the greatest foreign policy issue he'd face. His economy has benefited the top 1% of people at the expense of the bottom 50%. And he's destroyed our national standing in the world.

I didn't even get into the gutting of privacy rights, Guantanamo Bay, torture, or signing statements, you'll notice.

So what good can he be remembered for? What positives can mitigate his terms in power? How can he salvage anything that could be called a legacy?

*applause*

The reasons opinions change about presidents is because over time we see how their actions affected the future, we will see in 10, 20, 50, years how bad Bushs bad points affect us. I do support no child left behind, and his actions after 9/11 in going after Afghanistan were good, althought it would have been better if he didn't make that one positivel look insignificant compared to the big negative of going to Iraq. But yeah, my point is we will have a picture of how bad his bad choices are when we see how they affect us in the future.

But really, what good has come out of Bush's presidency? Poverty is at its highest rate in 32 years.?

To be fair, though, since the poverty rate 32 years ago was almost the lowest rate of any year in that entire time frame except for a couple years in the early 1970's and the year 2000. I mean, the poverty rate is still far lower than it's been for most of the past few decades.

Even so, that's not something to be proud of; a poverty rate that hasn't changed for 32 years is still a poverty rate that hasn't changed for 32 years.

To be fair, though, since the poverty rate 32 years ago was almost the lowest rate of any year in that entire time frame except for a couple years in the early 1970's and the year 2000. I mean, the poverty rate is still far lower than it's been for most of the past few decades.

Even so, that's not something to be proud of; a poverty rate that hasn't changed for 32 years is still a poverty rate that hasn't changed for 32 years.

The last significant change in the poverty rate came, I believe, during the Johnson administration, when he took it from the low 30s to the high teens if memory serves. Ever since then, you're right--it's bounced between 14 and 19, and that may be a natural bottom. Jesus was probably right when he said the poor will always be with us. But under Bush, it's moved pretty consistently in the wrong direction, with more and more people entering poverty every year, and that shouldn't be a surprise. Bush has always talked a good game on compassion, but he's never actually done anything about it, and his real attitude was caught perfectly in that scene from Fahrenheit 9/11 where Bush is speaking at a fundraiser and says "Some call you the elite. I call you my base." The christian thing is an act and always has been, and it's no mistake that his policies have favored the very wealthy and have fucked the poor.

Speaking from a perspective outside the USA, I think he will be remembered for being an irredeemable tool.

Specifically, he will be remembered for the disasterous Iraq invasion, his squandering of the goodwill towards the USA post Sept 11 and the abuses of civil/human rights (Guantanamo, CIA abductions of suspects, torture, Abu Graib, etc) done in the name of the defence freedom.
Couldn't have put it better myself. His administration will likely go down as an architect of a badly-planned and badly-managed war in the Middle East.

as the treasonous president who drove the final nails in the coffin of the u.s. constitution. the same treason raygun also committed blugeoning it to death and nixxon having made his excuses for 'suspending' and otherwise ignoring.

and of course making the world 'safe' for torture and brutality when world wide peace was all but on the verge of breaking out in the year 2000.

i suppose the vested intrests of sycophant 'historians' will continue to protect the truely guilty, unless they're brethren in crime should somehow fall from grace.

untill that happens, the real motivation and even means behind the excuses for a serious of disasterous and completely gratuitous military actions will continue to be debated, much as are the untimely deaths of kennidy and others in an earlier era.

if you wish to find where a tyrannt is burried, look to see which directions peasants point when making water in the field. i love that line. it's from a very interesting story. but at any rate, i think everyone who takes a piss outdoors in the woods, will be pointing in the direction of bush's grave for a very long time

=^^=
.../\...

Matt Groening will re-edit all Futurama episodes and replace Nixon's head with Bush's head. *nods

Matt Groening will re-edit all Futurama episodes and replace Nixon's head with Bush's head. *nods

Maybe in the new episodes, they can do a fight between Nixon and Dubya, with Agnew's body and Cheney's body tussling on the side.