In a blazing op-ed piece The destructive policies of President Bush in the Boston Globe today, H.D.S. Greenway summarizes the colossal failure of the Bush administration:
IT IS HARD to believe how far this republic has fallen since President George W. Bush took office.
As we enter the waning days of the Bush administration, it seems likely that we will see many more attempts at chronicling the failure and hubris of nearly a decade of George W. Bush.
While I enjoy this kind of thing, I wonder if it's at all useful anymore. The failure of the Bush presidency is clear to just about everyone who is open to seeing it and I don't think getting more converts at this late date makes much difference.
Another current example of this is Oliver Stone's rush to define the Bush years before they are even finished as described in Entertainment Weekly article on the upcoming film "W.":
... he's turning his cameras not just on a living president but on one who'll still be knocking around the White House when the movie premieres late this year. As if that weren't provocative enough, Stone could end up releasing the film as early as October, at the height of a presidential campaign in which one of the major issues will undoubtedly be the legacy of the guy on the screen.
I wonder what effect, if any, this film might have on winning hearts and minds. I suspect very little since those who have not been persuaded by actual reality are, in my opinion, unlikely to be see the light based on Stone's interpretation(artistic liberty and all).
What does seem a useful though, is the kind of analysis in Laura Carlson's hypothetical scenario planning that would assure some continuity in the Bush administration's foreign policy goals regardless of Bush's personal legacy. Bush Foreign Policy: From Dynasty to Legacy.
Every outgoing administration seeks to lock in its policies and control over the system before handing the reins to the opposing camp. Whether it's stacking the courts, pardoning powerful buddies, or issuing executive decrees, the practice is as old as the hills and pretty much inevitable.
But the radical policy dictums of Bush foreign policy must not be allowed to continue. In these last weeks of the current administration, the Democrats and the public must identify and reject all administration measures that could leave a Democratic president hamstrung to make significant changes in foreign policy.
And this seems the kind of legacy we absolutely should care about: the policies that will reverberate and live on long after W. has faded from view and gone back to the important work of clearing brush in Crawford.
And just because I like the quote, Greenway concludes with the following:
And now this: a great financial meltdown coming down on his watch in the twilight hours of what history will judge as among the worst administrations in our history. When you think of Bush and his team, it's hard to believe so much harm could be done to so many by so few.
I'm interested in what you folks think about the barrage of Bush legacy analysis coming our way. Useful? Annoying? Mindless chatter?