Skip to main content

George W. Bush – the worst president in American history? Incompetent bungler, befuddled ideologue, bird-brained fool, ... Perhaps the picture is even worsened by the sorry spectacle of the culprits recently appearing on television pointing fingers at everyone below them and refusing to acknowledge any mistakes.

As we get closer to Inauguration Day, a certain oral history seems to be spreading to every corner of the land, a history that goes something like this:

Once upon a time, a village idiot from Texas ran for President. The election outcome  was debatable, but once in the White House, he surrounded himself with a bad crowd, declared himself to be "the Decider" and proceeded, blinders on and with a mulish resistance to acknowledging any problems, to drive our beloved country off a cliff. The man just wasn’t up to the job. The lunatics had the keys to the asylum. And the rest, as they say, is history. So we’re sitting here now with two wars, both going badly, a greatly diminished reputation at home and abroad, an economic crisis that may end up being as bad as the Great Depression and a host of other ills. Somehow, if only a like-minded but more competent person had been President, we might still be sailing along as smoothly as we were when Bill Clinton left office.

That’s a seductive story line, and it’s hard to resist giving a good, hard, jack-booted kick to Bush and Cheney on their way out the door. But there’s just one little problem I see with this otherwise-convincing narrative: it just plain ain’t true! I’d like to suggest that all the myriad plagues visited upon our great nation during the Bush years AREN’T the result of one incompetent Decider sitting in the Oval Office. And I further suggest that the same or similar disasters would have betaken us even with a George W. Bush who was somehow magically transformed into a capable executive (who could even speak English).

So let me tell you a different story, a story that sees history written more by larger political forces than by individuals, and see if you agree with me or not that it tells a truer tale of the Bush years. I claim that

   

the disasters wrought on our nation by the Bush presidency are NOT the result of one chief executive’s incompetence -  rather, they directly emanate from the near-total structural failure of conservative political thought (when put to the actual test of governance).

Now, surely, we can all cite instances in which no amount of political ideology can ever explain away the bumbling miscalculations we witnessed (think "Hurricane Katrina"). But, on the whole, I think we can see that in case after case the series of major and minor mistakes that the Bush administration perpetrated can all be traced to the neoconservative "thought" that developed in the wake of the Goldwater defeat and built up steam (and hardened into dogma) through the Reagan years, the Gingrich "revolution" and on into the current era.

Let’s remember something. The 2000 election produced the first time in modern history that conservatives actually controlled the U.S. Government. During the Reagan years we had a Democratic Congress and a fairly moderate (though changing for-the-worse) Supreme Court. Congress went Republican in the 90s, but Bill Clinton was in the White House. When Bush and Cheney arrived, all that changed. They had a solid majority in congress (2000 – 2006), and Bush’s extremist judicial appointments soon turned the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, into a de facto Republican-leaning branch of government.

The 9/11 attacks had a profound political side effect: naturally enough, support swung behind the President, effectively giving Bush carte-blanche to respond. As fear gripped the land, neocons, supported even by compliant Democrats in Congress, got a green light to try any ideas they wanted to. And the results? While many books can, and no doubt will, be written on this, let’s just briefly glance at two areas, national security and economics. (Kossacks can undoubtedly fill in the blanks in other areas.)

Let’s start with foreign relations and national security, an arena which conservatives have claimed as their strong suit for years. What, really, is the basic conservative view of foreign policy and national security strategy? Regardless of how they characterize it, I think it can be summed up like this: conservatives have a triumphalist view of America and its place in the world. They see the U.S. as a near-perfect state which should serve as a model to be sought by all people everywhere, a super-nation standing for Truth, Justice and the American Way, which should impose its will around the globe in order to bring about a better world (an image carefully polished ever since Reagan’s invasion of Granada), an invincible power whose dictates should and must be obeyed by others, a "shining city on the hill" populated by a superior people. Because we’re superior (meaning by implication that others are inferior), institutions like the U.N. are to be ridiculed and ignored, allies can be safely alienated and, yes, a fence must rise along the Mexican border. For many conservatives, faith in this vision is rooted in or intertwined with their fundamentalist religious beliefs, so that not only are we a superior people, but God is on our side, so our mission must be divinely ordained. (Does that explain the misguided "my country right-or-wrong" attitude of so many rank-and-file conservatives?) And "W" no doubt saw himself as taking up God’s cause in his "crusade" against Islamic extremists.

And the final result of governing the country by these tenets? The "War on Terror", Afghanistan, Iraq, a thug state mentality that produced Abu Graib and Gitmo, extraordinary renditions, torture and other lawless actions, illegal spying on Americans at home, allies who don’t respect us any more and don’t wish to cooperate or help us, enemies emboldened and pursuing their agendas at the expense of our strategic interests, a constitution ignored and government divested of its checks and balances, etc., etc.

Do you believe that one lone moron, through ignorance and incompetence, is responsible for all this damage? Or are all these catastrophes merely the end result of our government putting conservative ideology into routine practice?

How about Bush’s stewardship of the economy? (Okay, I know you’re either laughing or crying, but let’s try to discuss this...) Again, we’ve been hearing the Bush story line from conservatives at least since Reagan got into office and launched "Reaganomics", or, as Papa Bush called it, "voodoo economics", the theory that we should give all breaks to the rich and let everything trickle down to the rest of us, that Wall Street fund managers should pay lower tax rates than their maids, that government should "get off the backs of industry" (which would "police itself"), that privatizing government functions was the way to improve services, that the Free Market was a magic force that would lift us all up to the Elysian Fields of economic prosperity.

I read somewhere once that Bush’s sycophants liked to flatter him when he was at his desk working. They knew Reagan was his hero, so when he talked about lowering taxes, deregulating an industry or negotiating a new free trade agreement, they said just loud enough for him to hear them, "Oh – just like Ronald Reagan", where upon the Decider would just slyly smile. But flattery aside, it’s clear that Bush’s policies weren’t of his own making – they were just a combination of recycled supply side economics and free enterprise wish list items (mostly dreamed up by trade association lobbyists).

And the end result of these policies? The only question we really have is how the resulting downturn is going to compare to the Great Depression – not as bad, about the same or, Heaven forbid, even worse.

Again, is this the legacy of one ignorant buffoon, or is it just the natural consequence of making conservative economic fantasies the modus operandi of the country? George W. may be a convenient straw man to knock over, but I think the real culprit needs to be identified and publicly humiliated.

Conservative pundits and think tankers would like us to believe that the problems of the Bush presidency are the result of flawed execution – that, somehow, if the "good" ideas of Bush & company had only been carried out better all would have been well. As progressives, we can’t let that view stand. We can’t afford to blame George W. Bush for what is demonstrably the fault of conservative thought. The truth needs to be laid bare, and people need to see that

 

the folly of the Bush years is no more nor less than the essential realization of the conservative hopes and dreams that had been developing for at least 35 years.

The central problem of conservatism has always been that it just isn’t connected to the reality of the world around us. Bush always seemed out of touch with reality because he "stood on principles", but the principles on which he stood were from another planet.

So to George W., I say an unfond "Good riddance!" – but to all progressives I say that next time you hear someone blaming Bush for our predicaments, make sure to point out to them that it wasn’t the boy-idiot who did it – it was his principles. Now is truly our golden opportunity to crush conservatism and promote progressive, reality-based policies.

Originally posted to Blue Knight on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:14 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  persuade away. I like the short version best! (7+ / 0-)
  •  George Bush IS an idiot (8+ / 0-)

    But I still blame him for his administration's failings. Most idiots are wise enough to know they shouldn't be President (with the exception maybe of Joe the Plumber.)

    Such idiots I salute. This idiot should have known better too, but born on 3rd base, I suppose he just thought he was Mickey Mantle.

    I'm Zamboni Hussein Palin, and I approve this message.

    by Bobs Telecaster on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:18:54 PM PST

  •  You are right, the conservatives screwed up the (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snootless, The Raven, grada3784, JeffW

    country, Bush Whacker was only their tool screwdriver.

    We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

    by Sam Wise Gingy on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:20:17 PM PST

  •  Blame America (9+ / 0-)

    I'd go one step further-- it wasn't just Bush, and it wasn't just the conservatives, it was a country that is all too often greedy, dishonest, uninformed and alarmingly quick to use violence.

    If Bush had merely been just an awful president, he would have been kicked out of office in 2004.  Bush wasn't a failure-- he was a complete success at being a disaster.  To reach that level of destruction, you need a) time and b) support.  He had 8 years.  And for a long time, right around 50% of the country, including most of the media.

    It's kind of like the smearing of Max Cleland in 2002-- we usually blame Saxby Chambliss, but after his shameful tactics, the state of Georgia should have made sure Chambliss would never win even an election for local dog catcher.  Instead they reelected him last year.  

  •  While your arguements have merit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grada3784, Crabby Abbey

    All policies enacted stem from the executive branch.

    And Congress was quick to genuflect to the man who would be Americas King George

    Theres too many men, too many people, making too many problems, and not much love to go round Cant you see this is a land of confusion.

    by joeshwingding on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:36:30 PM PST

  •  Big oil is not particular in their choice (4+ / 0-)

    of corporatist puppet rulers.  Hence, the bright Republican future of Sarah Palin.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:39:50 PM PST

  •  I do blame Bush. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, grada3784

    He's a freaking moron who couldn't admit a mistake or change course to avoid certain disaster.  He's an asshole who doesn't care about anyone else and is personally responsible for the death of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

    He wasn't a lone actor, but he was in charge and he approved all this crap.  So I blame him first and foremost and I hope the prosecution starts with him.

    Cheney may have been the puppetmaster, but Bush was the Asshole in Chief.  I wouldn't let him off the hook so easily with a failed ideology argument.

    Just sayin'!

  •  Accountability vs. blame (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grada3784, joeshwingding, Blue Knight

    I don't particularly care who's to blame for the messes of the past eight years, but what I would like to see is some accountability.  Not because someone needs to be punished so much as we as a nation need a full accounting of what went on so that we can see things for what they truly are and not let them happen again.

    I'm not a big fan of "let the past be the past" when it comes to war crimes and other rotten things that have gone on during the Bush administration.  We need to know what happened, and why, and how policies and laws were changed to allow these things to happen again, or to continue after the Bush/Cheney administration ended.

    Where does the buck stop?  Apparently, we've no longer got a buck, just a hot potato that's being tossed around.

    •  well put (4+ / 0-)

      I have long argued that if we don't start throwing these people in jail for breaking the law ... they will be back again.

      Theres too many men, too many people, making too many problems, and not much love to go round Cant you see this is a land of confusion.

      by joeshwingding on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:57:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We have living proof of that. (0+ / 0-)

        Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. all got their start with Gerald Ford in the aftermath of Watergate.  Their political ideology was formed by the perception that Congress usurped Executive power after Nixon's criminal behavior.  There were some who paid a price for Watergate but the fact that Nixon was let off the hook allowed Cheney and friends to think that they could come back and do the same, only more and better (worse).  One could stretch the point to what I heard Frank Gaffney say last night on Hardball.  To paraphrase, Al Qaeda thought they could attack with relative impunity because they hadn't really been struck hard after the Cole and the Embassy bombings in Africa.  (Off-topic:  If you want to see Gaffney acting odd, watch the video...)

        -7.62, -7.28 "We told the truth. We obeyed the law. We kept the peace." - Walter Mondale

        by luckylizard on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 04:41:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good post (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grada3784

    I had a similar thought around the bailout votes, specifically that Bush is just playing the Republican playbook more fully than anyone before him, with the exception of Ronnie Reagan, who is as much to blame for the current financial crisis (as well as shipping all those jobs overseas) as anyone in history.

    "If that's what Fallujah is, then what's that band with all the Mexican kids in it?"

    by iSenseChange on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:58:30 PM PST

  •  Failing Up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grada3784

    Have a look at MAD Magazine's spoof children's book in their Dec. issue about Dubya's career... called "Failing Up" by Smell Silverstein.

    Hilarious.

    Freedom of Speech/Expression is paramount, and uncompromisable, for any true Democracy to flourish.

    by Old Man Mountain on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:02:47 PM PST

  •  What happened to 'the buck stops here?' n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grada3784
  •  Why can't it be both? nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grada3784
  •  Their argument is circular (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grada3784

    Much of what is said can be put together to make this logical circle:

    1. It's not a failure of conservatism, it's that GWB was incompetent.
    1. Exhibit (a) is that he wasn't even in charge...Dick Cheney really ran things, along with his cabal of experienced conservative functionaries.

    Hmm, anyone see the flaw in this ointment?

    "I made the wrong mistakes" --Thelonious Monk

    by theloniously on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:28:07 PM PST

  •  the buck stops in the Oval Office - that's what (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Arken, grada3784

    it means to be Prez in our system of government

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:33:43 PM PST

  •  Bush was a tool (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    luckylizard, Blue Knight

    30 years of Reaganomics has done this to us - but I have to say, he was a remarkably good tool - I would compare him to the tools (knives and bunch-cutters) that I carry around as an apprentice florist, but no, that would be wrong - THOSE tools are SHARP.

    A blunt tool wouldn't work in my line of work, but I guess it works excellently in Punditland.

    Excellent diary. Thanks for this.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site