Historian Sean Wilentz grinds his anti-Bush axe at Rolling Stone in an article which concludes that George W. Bush may be the very worst president we've ever had. Far be it from us to dispute the learned judgment of a Princeton historian, but might professor Wilentz be substituting ideological prejudice for objective judgment? In case the reader is inclined to wince at such presumption, this seems also to be the opinion of others who know far more history than do we.
At any rate, the things for which Wilentz indicts Bush seem either trivial or patently false, and he inexplicably ignores those things upon which history is most likely to judge his success. For example, he's prepared to consign Bush to the dustbin of history for the NSA spying business, for lying about WMD in Iraq, and for the Valerie Plame affair, but these are tempests in teapots for which Bush has been, or will very likely be, exonerated. He criticizes Bush for being divisive, but the Democrats, in a snit over the 2000 election, have made division their sole domestic policy over the past five years. Mohatma Ghandi could not have wooed the petulant Democrats after that disappointment. Wilentz points to Bush's low approval ratings as proof that he's doing a terrible job, but these are in fact a consequence primarily of two things -- a relentless and tendentious media campaign to destroy his presidency by accusing him of, and blaming him for, anything they can, and rising gasoline prices.
Wilentz ignores completely what his colleagues in the future likely will not: Bush has liberated 50 million people from almost unimaginable oppression, more than any single president in history - indeed, more than any other man in history. He has successfully presided over an economy that was in recession when he took office, was further rocked by 9/11, Katrina, and Rita, and which today is bounding along as the envy of the rest of the world. Furthermore, the war on terror has been a success. Most of al-Qaeda's top leadership has been killed or captured, and they're on the run everywhere in the world. We do not have bin Laden, to be sure, but he's afraid to show his face for fear that there's a predator drone flying figure eights overhead ready to launch a hellfire missile with his name on it. It's worth noting, too, that there has not been a single terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. He has also implemented a medicare plan that looked at first like a disaster, but which some analysts are beginning to think may be better than they first thought.
Compared to these achievements the faults of which Wilentz accuses him would be piddling were they fair or accurate, but for the most part they are neither.
Bush has had failures, but they're not what Wilentz condemns him for. He has failed to curtail spending, to secure our borders, or to fix social security. These are not all his fault, but he must take some of the blame for them. Even so, he has three years left. If he can get just one out of these three, if medicare doesn't bankrupt us, and Iraq and Afghanistan remain stable, he'll be considered by historians as one of the better presidents ever to sit in the White House. If he gets two out of three, solves either the Iranian or the North Korean nuclear problem, keeps the Afghans and Iraqis pacified, if our economy continues its healthy trend, and there are no further attacks on our soil, he will be regarded by historians, even at Princeton, as perhaps the greatest president in our history.
These are admittedly big "ifs," but the point is that it's awfully premature to be proclaiming him a total failure. Such a judgment cannot be a purely scholarly conclusion, but must rather be an attempt to promote an ideological agenda which involves destroying George W. Bush.
Bush's enemies are consumed with a passionate hatred for him that is astonishing to behold, and his successes simply stoke that hatred to ever higher levels of intensity. If things do turn out for this country as we hope they will, the haters will be driven completely to the brink of madness. That Bush should achieve a place in the upper tier of presidents will push them to the breaking point. Yet is that not what every sane person should be hoping and praying for? Should we not be praying for success in the Middle East, security at home, a disarmed Iran and North Korea, and a healthy economy? It's tragic that so many would rather see these things not come to pass than to see Bush get credit for them. I think Sean Wilentz might come close to being one of those who just doesn't want to give the president any credit and he's willing to jeopardize his professional reputation and credibility in order to avoid doing it.