Yes, I know that I'm jumping the gun on this, seeing that he's still a current president and not an ex-president. But really, now that he's locked up the title of worst U.S. President (give or take a Buchanan or Harding), does anyone have any doubt that he's going sew up the title of worst ex-president as well?
By the way, let me give a hat tip to "Let's thank Jimmy Carter" http://www.dailykos.com/...
and the Daily Show
http://www.dailykos.com/...
for reminding me of something that I've actually been saying since 2003. Namely, that George W. Bush was an early betting favorite to be the worst ex-President (based on actions performed post-presidency) in history. It would be a natural continuation of his long record of screwups in virtually every job that he's had.
I'm not an expert in the post-presidential lives of U.S. Presidents. I know that John Quincy Adams (another son of a President who had an unpopular presidency) returned to Congress, the only President to do so. Fellow 1-timer William Howard Taft became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Carter, George HW Bush, and Clinton have all become known for their charitable works (with Carter creating an entirely separate legacy for himself outside of his political career). Even Nixon attempted to re-establish himself as a sort of an elder statesman on foreign policy.
But really -- what can we expect from Bush the younger? He's announced plans for the most expensive Presidential Libary in history while also intending to block all forms of Presidential research via his Presidential Records Act. He's made it clear throughout his presidency that he doesn't believe in any form of accountability or transparency. So apart from being a complete whitewash and spin job of his 8 years in office -- with a large helping of 9/11 exploitation and a "think tank" that will recycle discredited Conservative ideology -- what good will come of all this money?
A traveling foreign dignatary? Hardly. In most countries, he would be an unwanted pariah that will cause a security and traffic nightmare. Bush's own diplomatic skills and knowledge are so suspect, it's hard to imagine that he would have anything helpful to contribute.
Charitable works? From a man who believes in action via gesture (but no real action)? I imagine that he could ride his cult of personality among the religious right to be a front man for faith-based charities. Just as long as he wouldn't have to do any real work, or (God help anybody who offers him this) actually run anything.
Bush is going to stay consistent with the man that he's always been -- very personable face-to-face, but insufferably self-important and downright pissy when he doesn't get his way or is challenged. In some ways, Bush would have been better in the role of a figurehead king -- full of national pride, belief in his own superiority, kind words for the oppressed, and devoid of any real responsibilities. Yes, he would be a screwup in that role as well, but it does suit him a lot better than the role of a U.S. president (or even an ex-president hoping to leave a positive mark on the world, instead of a syphlitic smear).