Whilst Americans have this rather odd veneration for the institution of their Presidency, the present incumbent is much on the nose. The opinion polls rate him poorly. Even that aside, many people pour scorn on the intellectual capacity - some would even ask what intellectual capacity? - of George W. That he isn't all that bright has been demonstrated in many ways during his presidency.
Steven Casey is senior lecturer in international history at the London School of Economics and Political Science. In a talk at the Lowy Institute he assessed George W. Based on that talk the SMH published an op-ed piece on Casey's score-card for the US President:
"As the Bush presidency approaches its final year, George Bush and his allies are turning their minds towards the verdict of history. How will historians judge him? Will they be kinder than contemporaries? The answer, it is clear, will be a resounding no.
True, historians will not carry the same baggage as the partisans of today. They will have the benefit of distance. But, ultimately, they will compare Bush to other war presidents of American history. And this is very bad news for Bush.
It is tempting to begin with the easy analogy. The only other 20th century president from Texas, Lyndon Johnson, has been given low marks for his Vietnam record. Like Bush, he plunged the US into war on a flimsy pretext, then saw his opinion ratings slide as the conflict bogged down in a debilitating stalemate, before handing over the whole inconclusive mess to his successor. Historians have judged Johnson harshly; surely they will mete out the same treatment to Bush.
Yet in one crucial area, this analogy breaks down. As a war leader, Johnson's central flaws were at the tactical level: he tried to micromanage the fighting. For all his faults, Bush will never be indicted on this score.
Bush's flaws are much graver. They have been at the strategic, rather than tactical, level. Whereas Johnson inherited the Vietnam mess from Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy and could see no easy way out, after September 11 Bush operated from a strategic clean slate. It was his responsibility to set the basic direction for the so-called war on terror. And it is here that his record compares most unfavourably with his predecessors."
Steven Casey is senior lecturer in international history at the London School of Economics and Political Science. In a talk at the Lowy Institute he assessed George W. Based on that talk the SMH published an op-ed piece on Casey's score-card for the US President:
"As the Bush presidency approaches its final year, George Bush and his allies are turning their minds towards the verdict of history. How will historians judge him? Will they be kinder than contemporaries? The answer, it is clear, will be a resounding no.
True, historians will not carry the same baggage as the partisans of today. They will have the benefit of distance. But, ultimately, they will compare Bush to other war presidents of American history. And this is very bad news for Bush.
It is tempting to begin with the easy analogy. The only other 20th century president from Texas, Lyndon Johnson, has been given low marks for his Vietnam record. Like Bush, he plunged the US into war on a flimsy pretext, then saw his opinion ratings slide as the conflict bogged down in a debilitating stalemate, before handing over the whole inconclusive mess to his successor. Historians have judged Johnson harshly; surely they will mete out the same treatment to Bush.
Yet in one crucial area, this analogy breaks down. As a war leader, Johnson's central flaws were at the tactical level: he tried to micromanage the fighting. For all his faults, Bush will never be indicted on this score.
Bush's flaws are much graver. They have been at the strategic, rather than tactical, level. Whereas Johnson inherited the Vietnam mess from Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy and could see no easy way out, after September 11 Bush operated from a strategic clean slate. It was his responsibility to set the basic direction for the so-called war on terror. And it is here that his record compares most unfavourably with his predecessors."
Comments