Yes, history will judge President Bush

Over the last two years, Bush Administration spokespeople have repeatedly asserted that history will judge the Presidency of George W. Bush. At first, the line was evoked as a way of deflecting important questions, as though we have to wait 50 years to decide if Iraq was a series of colossal mistakes. But lately it seems that President Bush has absorbed the mantra on a more personal level, taking refuge in the idea that although he is widely condemned at the moment, on deeper reflection and with the benefit of hindsight, historians will judge the Bush Presidency more kindly than today’s observers.  

I hate to beat a dead horse, but history will not judge George W. Bush kindly. I don’t just say this as a progressive blogger who takes pleasure in Bush-bashing. No, first and foremost I write as a history major who is rather insulted by the idea that my successors will be so misguided as to vindicate this administration. The list of disasters, failures, and crimes is too long to rehash in the course of one blog entry. Luckily, the list of arguments in favour of Bush is much shorter and more easily refuted.  

It seems the ultimate coup de grace for right wing pundits is the mantra, “Say what you will, but George W. Bush has kept this nation safe.” I love the Simpsons. The show has a way of demonstrating the obvious. In one episode, a bear wanders into Springfield. In response, the town initiates an expensive, militaristic Bear Patrol to protect Springfield from future attacks. Arguing the merits of the program, Homer tells Lisa that if nothing else, the Bear Patrol has prevented anymore bear attacks. Lisa responds by offering to sell Homer a rock that keeps tigers away. “You don’t see any tigers around do you?” Homer buys the rock. 

Yes, Bush initiated a massive, expensive series of military actions that have cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives. No, there have not been any terrorist attacks in the U.S. since September 11. But that does not make Bush right. The Bear Patrol analogy illustrates a simple point — correlation does not imply causation. A bear entering Springfield was an unusual event unlikely to recur. The fact that there have been no other terrorist attacks during the Bush Presidency does not mean that the Bush Presidency prevented terrorist attacks.  

Second on the list, Iraq. If Iraq becomes a stable democracy, Bush’s suuporters say, his decision to invade will be vindicated. First, Iraq likely won’t become a democracy. At best, what we can hope for in Iraq is a soft dictatorship ruling a loose federation of Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. Even if Iraq were to become a democracy, history would not change the current condemnation of the war. History will not forget that the war was started not in the name of democracy but on the pretext of non-existent WMD. History will not forget the disastrous de-Baathification strategy. History will not forget Abu Ghraib. If Iraq becomes a stable, peaceful, democratic country, history will record that it was despite George W. Bush, not because of him.

Third, Harry Truman. Poor Harry Truman. In life, he had to constantly battle a Republican Congress and in the past year he has been invoked by Republicans seeking to justify not only Bush but Sarah Palin. In arguing in favour of Palin, despite her thin resume, Republicans noted that Truman was elected to office with nothing on his resume but running a failed haberdashery (I know, I thought it was a made up word too). Of course, the fact that Truman served as a US Senator and played an integral role in overseeing expenditures during World War II to ensure the government was not wasting money on pork barrel projects as had happened during the First World War is often overlooked. Most fatal to the Palin analogy is that Truman was an avid reader who could recount from memory the biographies of Roman Caesars and once recited 1,000 years of Korean history to General McArthur and the Joint Chiefs during the Korean War, whereas when asked to name a newspaper she read on a regular basis Palin’s only response was “all of em.” And yes, Truman’s approval ratings were low when he left office, but then he left after more than two decades of Democrats in the White House. Most importantly, Truman was President through two victorious wars that were both responses to aggression.    

The greatest failing of the argument that history will judge President Bush more kindly is that it ignores an adage of the field — newspapers are history’s first draft. Doubtless, the draft will be adapted and additions made as archival documents are released and new insider accounts come to light. But the basic narrative is set, the Bush Presidency is at the very least the most disastrous since Vietnam. Arguments to the contrary will not be the result of hindsight, one of history’s great tools. They will be the result of one of history’s great weaknesses — revisionism.