PAUL KORING
From Monday's Globe and Mail
January 19, 2009 at 4:41 AM EST
WASHINGTON — A failed presidency, two unfinished wars, an economic mess unmatched in decades, America's reputation sullied and most of his party, the nation and the world glad to see the back of him. When George W. Bush boards the big blue-and-white Boeing 747 that will fly him back to Texas tomorrow, the conventional wisdom will deem him among the worst of presidents.
"It's safe to say that President Bush is going to be seen as the very bottom rung of American presidents," said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at the James Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University [edit: The worst excuse for an historian I can think of, if you've ever read his books.]
Former president Jimmy Carter - whose own single-term presidency ended in a mess and who is hardly an unbiased observer - is even more blunt. "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," he said.
Yet history tends to soften the harshest of early judgments. Even Richard Nixon, who after the Watergate scandal became the only president ever to resign in disgrace, has been partially rehabilitated by the passage of time and sober second thought.
Could it happen to Mr. Bush?
His admirers think so. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum expects the "assessment of history will be surprisingly positive."
It all turns on Iraq, which far more than the economy, hurricane Katrina or anything else defines the Bush presidency.
"The burden that Bush cannot escape is that there are wars of necessity and wars of choice. ... He can claim the toppling of the Taliban was a war of necessity, but clearly the war in Iraq was a war of choice," said Brian Michael Jenkins, author of Will Terrorists Go Nuclear? and senior adviser to the president of the RAND Corporation.
Two years ago, Iraq was an unmitigated disaster. The war had gone disastrously wrong, with thousands dead, the country on the verge of civil war, Mr. Bush's reputation ruined and international alliances damaged.
But it may be far too early to judge the long-term consequences of Mr. Bush's decision to attack Iraq in 2003. If in 10 years Iraq is "democratic, pro-Western, a political inspiration in the region and a partner of the U.S. in confronting other regional powers, such as Iran," Mr. Jenkins said, then Mr. Bush's legacy will require a major reassessment.
It has happened before.
Other wartime presidents have left the Oval Office mired in equally low approval ratings. The bloody, bitter, unpopular and inconclusive Korean War left Harry Truman ranked rock-bottom among presidents. But his reputation has been restored by history and the plain-speaking Mr. Truman has become one of the most admired presidents of the last half of the 20th century. The revised view of Mr. Truman - on whose watch the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe, who confronted communism and was tough enough to fire the most popular of generals - didn't even begin until more than a decade after he went home to Independence, Mo.
"Truman is the patron saint of failed politicians," Mr. Brinkley said. Mr. Bush often mentions Mr. Truman, as though hoping he, too, may benefit from a revised assessment. It remains a long shot.
"Not too many escape the rare club of truly failed presidents," Mr. Brinkley said. For Mr. Bush, "the only possibility is for a democracy and civil society to really take hold in Iraq. That would be a major accomplishment and would start floating his boat."
The long-term outcome in Iraq matters not just because it is central to shaping the early assessments of Mr. Bush, but because its future may shape the region. Iraq, a still-fragile democracy in a rich, multi-ethnic society, has the potential to take a leadership role in the Arab world. That is in contrast to the other contenders for Arab-world leadership: oil-rich Saudi Arabia, ruled by a benevolent but rigid monarchy; or impoverished Egypt, which has an authoritarian government.
On his last visit to Baghdad Mr. Bush had shoes flung at him by an Iraqi. It was a vile insult, but also an ironic testament to the nascent freedom in a country ruled for decades by Saddam Hussein's notoriously brutal regime. No shoe-thrower, certainly not one shown on television and widely applauded by an angry population now free to voice its views, could have existed in the former regime.
For Mr. Bush's critics, the shoe-tossing Iraqi was still more evidence that he is a hated failure even among those his war had supposedly liberated. To those who believe his reputation may rise, the thrown shoe was a marker of freedom.
For some, Iraq as an ally in a strife-torn region might be enough to recast the value of Mr. Bush's war.
"The most significant outcome would be the development in Iraq of a peaceful democracy that served as a base camp for the United States, rather like Guam and Japan have served as outposts ... for decades," said Douglas Bland, chairman of defence management studies at Queen's University School of Policy Studies in Kingston, Ont.
Prof. Bland suggested a thriving democratic Iraq could emerge as a model in the Arab world, an eventuality that could make good Mr. Bush's much-ridiculed vow to sow democracy and freedom in a region mired in repression and authoritarianism.
But Iraq, although quieter in recent months, is by no means certain of a peaceful model future. "An Iraq that descends into a sea of anarchy ... in other words an Iraq that looks like a huge Somalia ... right in the middle of the Middle East won't polish his reputation," Mr. Jenkins said.
Although only 62, Mr. Bush has said he won't live long enough to really know history's verdict on his presidency. |
