Next on Mount Rushmore

As regular readers know, I sometimes like to make arguments for positions I don’t hold, just to test my viewpoint. Today I will argue that President George W. Bush will be regarded by historians as among the best presidents ever, and might get a place on Mt. Rushmore.

Reiterating: This is not my view.

To judge the greatness of a president, you are allowed to consider only his top priorities. For example, no one remembers Abe Lincoln’s position on, well, anything except the Cvil War. For the purposes of choosing a greatest president, you can round up all the little issues and toss them away.

For example, while critics might say restricting government funding for stem cell research is boneheaded, history has its own way of evaluating things. If no stem cell breakthrough based on human embryos ever happens, despite all the private funding, President Bush’s position will seem irrelevant to history. If a privately funded research group makes a breakthrough, it will also make Bush’s opposition of public funding seem irrelevant. People might argue that public funding would have made it happen faster, but that issue will seem trivial over time.

The same can be said of all the smaller disagreements President Bush’s critics have with him. In a hundred years, they will not be part of what historians use to judge him. So let’s look at the big stuff.

President Bush famously promised to do something about the Axis of Evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. That was a top priority. How’s he doing so far?

Iraq didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction, but by restricting inspectors, it acted as if it did. That is almost as dangerous as having a nuclear weapon because it causes your neighbor (Iran) to build its own nukes, just to be safe. It turns out they were doing just that.

Recently we learned that Iran stopped its nuclear bomb program in 2003. That’s about the same time the U.S. was disemboweling its next door neighbor based on the suspicion of having a nuclear weapons program. Iran probably noticed. History will credit President Bush for removing the threat of nuclear war from the Middle East.

North Korea has also discontinued its nuke program, thanks in part, history might acknowledge, because when the U.S. invaded Iraq, it went after the leadership first, including sons. That’s the sort of thing that gets your attention if you are a dictator. As with Reagan’s Star Wars defense plan, the U.S. under President Bush seemed crazy enough to attack North Korea. The threat was entirely credible. That, plus China’s pressure, neutralized North Korea.

Meanwhile, Libya surrendered its nuclear ambitions without even being asked. Credit President Bush for that one too.

Terrorism was a priority during the Bush administration. History won’t blame him for the first attack on 9/11, but it certainly might credit him for the fact no other attacks happened during his two terms. That’s a perfect record on homeland security.

Also, as I have argued before, the war in Iraq might turn out to accidentally be the death of Al-Qaeda. By showing a willingness to attack Muslims, any goodwill the organization had gained by attacking the United States began to erode. Iraq became flypaper for terrorists. They came in to Iraq, pissed off the locals, and the locals exterminated them in large numbers. While the number of wannabe terrorists might have increased, you only have to kill the smart ones near the top several times before management is comprised of mostly the dumb ones by default. History might record that Iraq was the turning point in the war on terror. Al-Qaeda bet everything on Iraq, and lost. President Bush did indeed “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here.” While it didn’t happen exactly the way he envisioned it, history might credit him for moving the fight and winning it.

Then there’s global warming. Assuming it’s real, the only solution is massive improvements in alternative energy. Thanks to oil being over $100 a barrel, every time you read the news another huge corporation is installing solar panels in the desert, or synthesizing algae for biofuels, or harnessing the wind. President Bush is a free market guy, and the free market seems to be stepping up. Success in these alternative energy movements is not assured, but it seems likely, given all the venture capital flowing in that direction. History will record that President Bush and his free market views saved the world from global warming.

The economy isn’t great, but it isn’t bad enough to detract from President Bush’s place in history. The same is true for crime, health, pollution, education, and any number of problems that won’t factor into his legacy one way or the other.

What do you think?

Comments

[Peter]

"...
it should be pretty obvious that most of us here in the good Ole USA don't give a shit about the "European Perspective." Perhaps that will change once you actually take charge of your own security and take your fair share of world policeman duties instead of just deploying your soldiers in non-combatant roles while letting your betters (Americans) do the fighting and dying. And, on a continent where you are letting your Muslim population riot in the streets every weekend and impose shari law on swaths of your territory you shouldn't be mocking anybody.

As for the quality of leadership, as you continent gave us Chirac, Schroeder, and Berlusconi I would be awful quiet about spouting off on how great your candidate slates are.

Posted by: Dave | December 12, 2007 at 09:59 AM

"

damn, and i thought the rest of the world had no good reason for thinking americans were arrogant pigs. sigh.

[Peter Stern]

Things that George Bush will be remembered for in a bad way:
1. Appointing incompetant people to key positions... Alberto Gonzales to Autorney General and "Brownie" to lead FEMA... on New Orleans: "You're doing a hell of a job Brownie". 'Nuff said.
2. Mispronouncing names of officials from other countries
3. Lying. There ARE Weapons of Mass Destruction there, I tell you. If I say it enough times, maybe it'll become true.
4. Rendition... basically outsourcing torture.
5. Guantanamo Bay... Not respecting international prisoner conventions.
6. Letting the Bin Laden family leave the United States without questioning them after the 911 attacks. In every other criminal investigation I see, usually the police want to interview the family members of the alleged criminal. So why not in this case, eh? If the Bin Ladens had no knowledge of the 911 attacks, then why were they in such a hurry to leave? This is the single biggest rat that I smell in the 911 attacks and the military action that followed.

[morry]

Stop arguing the other side! My brain is like a damned sponge and it starts agreeing with anything that isn't obviously complete bullshit. I have an agreeable personality which means I am unable to hold a viewpoint when calm semi-rational arguments are presented. I don't want to believe Bush will be remembered as a good president. Please please please argue the other side so I don't have to go kill my brain with alcohol. Again.

and don't do it again or I post a strongly worded comment.

[Matt Nemmers]

"Bush will go down in History as the first son of a President to become President." ~ LA Clay, December 10, 2007 at 08:37 AM

Guess we don't have too many history majors in here...

[Dave]

Mike B:

"A little European perspective: Bush is considered to have disgraced America and Americans are mocked for electing him and still not getting rid of him. A man with his credentials would not even be an outsider candidate in any election over here."

Uh Mike, it should be pretty obvious that most of us here in the good Ole USA don't give a shit about the "European Perspective." Perhaps that will change once you actually take charge of your own security and take your fair share of world policeman duties instead of just deploying your soldiers in non-combatant roles while letting your betters (Americans) do the fighting and dying. And, on a continent where you are letting your Muslim population riot in the streets every weekend and impose shari law on swaths of your territory you shouldn't be mocking anybody.

As for the quality of leadership, as you continent gave us Chirac, Schroeder, and Berlusconi I would be awful quiet about spouting off on how great your candidate slates are.

[jim]

Well, you've converted me. I didn't think that much of your president, but now I see he was right all along. You are so perceptive, Scott.

[Dave]

To Baleroin:

Part 1

Speaking of idiocy, did you read your own post?

"Wow...no wonder so many people in the rest of the world hate and fear us. I can tell you that the Iraq war IS not worth it. The imposition of our social and political systems on other people is not the solution to our security problems, especially not at gunpoint."

Well, if YOU say the war in Iraq isn't worth it, I guess that just ends the arguement doesn't it?

Although it is in vain since you have already convincingly ended the issue with your superior argument, I will try. When I was over in Iraq training the Iraqi army and having daily political conversations with Iraqi army officers and civilian officials of all ethnic and and religious stripes, they uniformally told me that they wanted a democracy, and they wanted to make it work out. The problem of course is that they don't know how at this point. They would often ask me how long it would take for them to become a functioning democracy, and my response would be 100 years.

"Our internment of the japanese didn't remotely compare to the attempted extermination of European Jews going on at the same time, but that doesn't justify it in any way. Just because someone did something worse at some point provides no basis for doing something wrong"

I didn't say it did. I said that this country had suffered far greater civil liberties infringements than that which were done by the Patriot Act and civil liberties are quite alive and well, thank you.

[Dave]

Part 2

To Baleroin:

"Responding to the last sentence there, that's really stupid. If our winning is counter to other countries' long term interests, then an American "victory" will damage our standing. We've shown that we are willing to invade a country on shaky pretexts and that we will stay until we are satisfied no matter how much damage it causes to everyone. That could well act as a deterent to other nations acting counter to our interests, but in no way will that help build good will."

So, countries that lose a lot of wars are greatly respected around the world? Like France? We are the 911 to the world, nobody else. People bitch about us, but they call us when they are in trouble. And, in most of the world, folks respect a winnner, even if they win at your expense.

I am sure this is all too nuanced for you, so let me break it down a bit more.

In Ancient Greece, there was a small island inhabited by Medians (I think that was the name). They Medians were long term allies of the Spartans, having fought along side them in several wars, but the Medians were a rather weak city state in comparrison to the Athens, Sparts and some others.

The Medians found themselves being beseiged by Athens. The Athenians came and offered the Medians generous surrender terms, namely that the city would be saved and that Mediana would survive. The Medians told the the Athenians that their allies the Spartans would come and fight with them. The Athenians responded that Sparta was a pragmatic place and wouldn't become involved in this dispute because there really wasn't a lot of upside to them fighting a war with Athens to help this small ally. But the Medians refused to surrender.

Athens continued the seige, sparta refused to help Mediana, eventually Mediana surrendered. Athens killed all of the men and boys over 3 or 4 and enslaved all the women. Mediana ceased to exist.

If you can't figure out the relevency of this story, I am not going to break it down for you.

"Straw man fallacy, you assign views to liberals (the most idiotic one a desire to spend money like a druken sailor) and then associate some portion of Bush's stupidity with that. Most of the overspending has come from military budgets (although not even enough there to do an adequate job) or a lack of focus on what is important domestically because the Bush movement was busy pushing war issues."

I said Bush has expanded the welfare state and expanded state control on education. Are those not things that liberals have customarily supported?

As for you statement that most of the "overspending" (weasel word alert) has come from miltary spending, that really isn't the case. In reality, the program with the greatest rise has been Medicare, going from 217B in 2001 to 422B in 2009 (estimate). That is a raw increase in dollars of 205B and a rise of 49%. Defense went up by $182B, which was a 38% increase. Furthermore, if you look at Medicare, the greatest increases started in 2005 - when the new entitlement started. Since that point the expenditures have risen by 128B (compared with 37B for defense). Also, National defense went from 16.4% to 17.1% of federal outlays. Human resouces (Education, Medicare, Social Security, ect) went from 64.1% to 66.5%. Do you still want to pay this game, or will you just admit you don't know WTF you are talking about?

As for your argument of "what was important domestically" behing thwarted by the Bush's war diversion, since we have now proven that the greatest increase has gone to folks that used the new perscription drug benifit, do you say that drugs for old people shouldn't be a priority (I will say that as I am a heartless conservative).

You coming back? I will make you even more my Beeotch

[Roger]

Youtube videos of Bush's gaffs will keep his legacy in the crapper. Search for "presenile dementia bush" on google or youtube you find some interesting info. If anything great comes from his 8 years as president he wont get much credit once he is diagnosed with Alzheimers. Bush was actually articulate in the mid 1990's.

[Robin]

Didn't it just turn out Iran WASN'T working on nuclear weapons?

[Steve]

What do I think? After this post, I think the new Mrs. Adams has driven you to heavy drinking already (and while I'm no friend of our simian president, I'm more opposed to Democrats).

The problem with the theory is the inflation in the cost-of-living sector, coupled with a national debt that, if you look at all of our "off balance sheet" debt (such as future medicare/social security payments), adds up to not nine trillion dollars -- a staggering sum in and of itself -- but more like 50 trillion!

[Ian McJ.]

One word: Katrina

[636]

Who’s attacking whose hallucinations of someone else’s argument now?

Also, for argument's sake, nice use of the "Tom Clancy out"/Deus Ex Machina on this week;s strips.

[fred]

i see many people's heads spinning around like megan in the exoorcist. this is funny stuff.

[Bob]

A very compelling case! I'll be back in ten years to check if it's turned out that way.

[Rick Blomquist]

I feel like I am on the Titanic. Looking good, living good, isolated from the world, while megalomanics of the world are dancing in the ballroom we are sinking slowly into the frigid abyss. Yay life!

[Stomper]

Whoops, sorry Mark. Hard to tell irony in print.

--Stomper

[Brian]

Fascinating.

Were you ever in marketing?

Brian

[Mark]

Methinks Scott be right.

Given that (and OK the figures are a little rubbery) 49% of Umericens voted for him, post realisation that he does actually have the IQ of a hamster, I'd expect that these people will overlook his extraordinary failings, and cherish them good 'ole day when Dubya was at the helm.

Because, sure as shootin' since the electorate hasn't got any smarter, and the system still remains the same, the next il presedente will be just as bad, if not worse.

That's the shining feature of Government which exists solely to represent funded lobby groups.

[ID]

Somebody's got a secret crush on Bush, come on admit it...
It's okay, I got one too!

[Sam Thornton]

The only way George W. Bush will be remembered as a great President is if it is finally proved that it was he who killed Kenny.

[Dave]

These comments are incredible! Many of you attribute much more influence and power to the presidency than really exists.

Some of you are just about on the right track - it's the economy stupid! Your collective perception of the economy is amusing.

People think that their 'issues' are more important than anything else. You claim to look at the big picture and then you comment on minutia. It's like trying to use micro-economic terms and concepts to explain macro economics. Quite frankly it makes you all appear to be moist robots.

Good luck - I can't wait until you emerge from your cocoons.

[Dan W.]

Free William, I quote from Wikipedia:

"In 1947, Japan adopted a new pacifist constitution emphasizing liberal democratic practices. The Allied occupation ended by the Treaty of San Francisco in 1952 and Japan was granted membership in the United Nations in 1956."

And (from the "Politics of Japan" page):

"Political parties had begun to revive almost immediately after the occupation began. Left-wing organizations, such as the Japan Socialist Party and the Japanese Communist Party, quickly reestablished themselves, as did various conservative parties. The old Seiyokai and Rikken Minseito came back as, respectively, the Liberal Party (Nihon Jiyuto) and the Japan Progressive Party (Nihon Shimpoto). The first postwar elections were held in 1948 (women were given the franchise for the first time in 1947), and the Liberal Party's vice president, Yoshida Shigeru (1878-1967), became prime minister."

Are you saying that the US victory and subsequent occupation had nothing to do with this? Now who's hallucinating?

[Scotty Doesn't Know]

@Cyrus Uible | December 10, 2007 at 07:07 PM

No president will ever be considered great, after the advent of 24 and the effective diplomatic measures undertaken by Jack Bauer. The public telling and retelling of everyday foibles will insure that.

[Smokefoot]

Environment: Bush's free market is building large numbers of coal plants, which guarantee large amounts of new CO2 for decades. Small solar installations are dwarfed by this. Bush could have provided incentives without breaking his free market views.

Economy: There are serious problems lurking. Parts of the credit markets have stopped working completely, and banks are showing a reluctance to lend money to other banks - either because of lack of funds or because they don't trust other banks to pay the money back. The best Bush can do is hope to keep the lid on the problems until they can be blamed on the next president.