The Legacy of George W. Bush

I want to look back and take stock of George W. Bush’s impact and future legacy. I disclose that I was on the Obama train but I supported Bush in both of his elections. I guess this essay may assert to the majority out there that, historically, Bush wasn’t as bad as it seems now. And to the tiny minority of you who still support the man, I want to demonstrate that he certainly wasn’t all good. As our country is currently engaged in two wars and the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, a liberal Democrat won a landslide victory to lead his party to an even greater majority in the executive and legislative branches for a different direction in leadership.

Drew emailed me this pic to illustrate his joy over the change in governance. He represents the historic 80% approval Obama enjoys upon entering office.

Legacies

George W. Bush’s approval ratings fell to as low as the high 20s before rising to the mid 30s recently – the standard bump a president gets before leaving office. There has been much talk about Bush’s sour legacy. Bush himself has attempted to mediate this image in recent weeks. It would be hard to make the argument that his legacy will be as bad as current public opinion despite the statement from noted historian, Ludacris, that Bush was “the worst of all 43 presidents.” However, the Bush review will not be all-positive despite his wildest ambitions.

Presidential legacies, by nature of being determined by the masses, are subjective and irrational. Many presidents aren’t credited for their substantive effects. JFK’s and LBJ’s legacies illustrate this perfectly. JFK enjoys iconic stature, a liberal champion and inspirational hero. LBJ suffers the blame for the Vietnam War. JFK was the ideological spearhead for civil rights and is remembered as such, but LBJ pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress and signed it. He took advantageof the political climate after JFK’s assassination and pressured his fellow Southerners into supporting the legislation. LBJ gets little credit for civil rights yet he bears responsibility for the Vietnam War, which ironically was a stage where JFK and his administration planted the seeds and made the early commitments. There were over 10,000 US military personnel in Vietnam before LBJ was ever sworn in. I once saw an episode of Dave Chapelle’s show, another noted historian, where he implied that the blame for Vietnam rest with Richard Nixon, the president who appointed a peace negotiator before actually being inaugurated in 1969 and ultimately ended the war. So we can see that public legacies are not always based on thorough research or objective opinion.

Bush achieved approval ratings as high as the low 90s and as low as the high 20s. Presidents who achieved such high approval as Bush are an elite club, almost as elite as the presidents who achieved such low approval. Harry Truman experienced similar extremes, his highest after ending World War II by using nuclear weapons and his lowest during the Korean War. Over fifty years later, Truman is regarded as having been a good president. Will Bush enjoy the same fate? Only time will tell.

George W. Bush will be remembered for September 11 and the Iraq War, which represent his high and low points in public approval. Everything Bush did in between, his “War on Terror,” will also be a part of his legacy. September 11 was a circumstance of chance and Bush's leadership went over well with the country. He probably enjoyed a rally-round-the-flag effect but, nevertheless, approval that high will not be forgotten. A big part of Jimmy Carter’s legacy was also a circumstance of chance, the Iran Hostage Crisis. The Iraq War was not a result of chance and Bush's ensuing dismal support will not be forgotten either. Parallels to the Vietnam War have been drawn since the outset and are best illustrated by the public perception’s separating the Iraq War from the War on Terror just as the Vietnam War is barely associated with the Cold War.

Bush’s War on Terror and everything it entailed – the Department of Homeland Security, Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, etc. – is how he chose to define himself and that is how he will be remembered. What happens in Iraq determines much of his fate. While violence has calmed since the troop surge, it may spike as soon as US forces leave. If this happens and Iraq descends into sectarian violence and ethnic slaughter, or aligns itself with Iran and other antagonistic Islamic Law countries, Bush will suffer the blame. If Iraq thrives as a beacon of democracy and future ally, Bush will enjoy the credit. The smart money is not on the latter but we'll see.

Historic Impact

Historians will judge Bush based on more than what they remember off the top of their heads. Three main aspects of his presidency will be the focus, all of which played a big role in his War on Terror.

Preemptive Doctrine – The most debated Bush policy will be his doctrine of preemption. Bush Doctrine, as it is sometimes called, asserts that preemptive strikes are justified to prevent future aggression. In other words, the United States can invade and even overthrow foreign governments which had committed no acts of aggression against the US, but are perceived to pose a threat in the future. With the exception of tacit support for hushed coups, this is new ground for America.

The Taliban in Afghanistan had not committed any crimes against the United States but they refused to turn over someone who did: Osama Bin Laden. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, a preemptive war to overthrow this Islamic Law regime was not a difficult sell to the public. It didn’t seem preemptive since America was simply reacting to being attacked. The Taliban wasn’t complying with justice so they had to go. Iraq, however, was a tougher sell. Saddam Hussein’s government had no ties to Islamic terrorism and was on the verge of bankruptcy. The Bush administration made a shaky case that the Iraqi government had “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) and that a preemptive strike was necessary to ensure the future safety of the United States by creating a democracy in the Middle East. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has proven divisive and increasingly unpopular. Both wars of preemptive doctrine were justified with the intention to prevent problems. Future American attitudes and international law will determine whether this doctrine - war with the intent to prevent - will persevere.

Expansion of Presidential Powers – In what seems to have been priorities of Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and under the justification of fighting the War on Terror, Bush has expanded the powers of the executive branch beyond their reach in previous administrations. The Patriot Act allowed for warrant-less wiretapping, rendition, and unprecedented executive privilege. Bush has utilized the signing of statements to clarify how he interprets new legislation passed by Congress. Critics assert he uses his signed statements as a way to enforce only what he wants. Members in Congress are calling for this power to be rolled back and a restoration of checks and balances. How Obama handles his transition in that office will have a great influence on the future of the executive branch.

Enemy Combatants Policy – In order to justify an aggressive war against Islamic extremism, Justice Department lawyer John Yoo developed the legal framework for the handling of enemy combatants. This handling has included rendition, lack of due process and detention at Guantanamo Bay, and torture including water-boarding. I am not a legal expert but I believe the cornerstone of that legal opinion is that, because the enemy combatants in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere who plan war crimes against the US do not represent a recognized state and do not wear uniforms clearly identifying themselves, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them. This opinion seems to have stood up in the courts to an extent, but only with the help of the previously-mentioned expansion of presidential powers and executive privilege. Obama has already committed to closing Guantanamo Bay and, given his background in law, we can expect he will roll back the secretive and questionable tactics of the Bush administration. Still, those tactics have set a precedent and will be examined and debated for generations to come.

What Bush Won’t Be Remembered For (by the public):

*Feel free to disagree with me in the comments section.

Patriot Act – I almost included this under the impact section, but decided his real impact was the overall theme of expanding presidential power. I don’t think the Patriot Act alone will be memorable in the future because (A) it was renewed in relatively uncontentious fashion and (B) while some provisions have been discarded, most of it has held up in court.

Hurricane Katrina Response – as much outrage as it caused at the time, I don’t see this event earning much space in the history books (if it’s mentioned at all).

Department of Homeland Security – after all, Richard Nixon isn’t remembered for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Administration Scandals (Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales) – not sexy enough like Monica-gate and not incriminating enough like Watergate to stand the test of time.

Opposition to Gay Marriage and Stem-Cell Research – these wedge issues can inflame now but nobody will remember who supported which side in fifty years.

Prescription Drug Benefit in Medicare – the largest increase in federal spending in modern times didn’t meet much opposition when it was passed.

AIDS in Africa – AIDS. And Africa. Bush gave a lot. How many people care?

No Child Left Behind – the most controversial education legislation that nobody really cares about enough to see how their own Congressmen voted, much less pressure them to repeal it.

Tax Cuts – capital gains, estate tax, stimulus checks, and refunds. When's my next one?

Other Developments of the Last 8 Years:

Sarbanes-Oxley Act – in the wake of the Enron scandal, Bush signed this legislation which mandates the toughest financial reporting of publicly traded companies in the history of the industrialized world. The cost of compliance has been cited as a major reason corporations are increasingly listing on stock exchanges in other countries.

Do-Not-Call Implementation Act – everybody should remember the do-not-call list you could have opted in for to be off-limits to telemarketers.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban – “partial-birth abortion” in politics but it’s known as “intact dilation and extraction” in medicine.

CAN-SPAM Act – this disclosure-mandating legislation put out of business one successful spammer that I knew personally. Somehow, not all spam got canned.

Bankruptcy Reform – sounded like a good idea at the time to the kinds of people who don’t declare bankruptcy. It may make weathering the current financial crisis much more difficult for individuals and companies.

Secure Fence Act – this legislation mandated we build a big, long fence between us and our neighbors. Well, one of our neighbors anyway.

Supreme Court Justices John G. Roberts and Samuel Alito – the reason(s) why the religious base elected him.

Feedback

I would love for you to agree or disagree with me in the comments below. I have surely left something out. Please include it. I assume most of the feedback will claim that I am being too generous with Bush. Regardless, I hope you enjoyed my brief recap of the last eight years.