“Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties — Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush — have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures — an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities.” As seen all over the place, historian Sean Wilentz wonders aloud in Rolling Stone if Dubya is the worst president in American history.
To my mind, the only other president that even comes close is James Buchanan. Sure, Warren Harding was lousy, but he knew it (“I am a man of limited talents from a small town. I don’t seem to grasp that I am President.“), and thus didn’t go out of his way to be actively terrible like Bush has been. (Plus, for all the corruption of the Ohio gang, Harding’s cabinet also included Charles Evans Hughes, Andrew Mellon, and Herbert Hoover, all impressive in their own right.) Speaking of Hoover, both he and Ulysses Grant have been given a bad shake. Even if the Depression basically ate his administration alive, Hoover — once renowned as the “Great Engineer” — was a more innovative president (and empathetic person) than he’s often remembered. And Grant’s administrations, although plagued by corruption, at the very least tried to maintain Reconstruction in the South. (In fact, I’d argue that Grant’s sorry standing in presidential history is in a part a reflection of the low esteem in which Reconstruction was once held by the now-woefully obsolete Dunning School.) Regarding the other Reconstruction president, Andrew Johnson is assuredly down near the bottom too, but to be fair, he faced an almost impossible situation entering office in the time and manner he did, and — as with Clinton — his impeachment was a bit of a frame-job. And Richard Nixon, for all his many failings, had China (as well as the EPA despite himself, and, although it didn’t pan out, the Family Assistance Plan.) Nope, I think it’s safe to say that we may be experiencing perhaps the most blatantly inept, wrong-headed, and mismanaged presidency in the history of the republic. Oh, lucky us.
The amazing thing is that he was re-elected (though that implies he was actually elected the first time around).
I am very able to agree with you. I feel that while Hoover was stuck with an impossible situation…Bush has taken a situation that could have made him another FDR and dropped the ball.
One has to kind of feel sorry for Harding, he was over his head and terribly depressed…well his wife didn’t make it any easier .
I also feel that Pierce our 14th Pres…was pretty much a failure as well….Well he knew it when he was sober…as he was quite often drunk. One wag put it this way..”He was the victor of many a hard fought bottle”. Even Buchanan complained that the bottles of booze in the White House were too small.
But Mr.Bush has created a climate between parties and ideas that has created a vast rip…In fact, I would say that this country has not been in such a state since the 1850’s….When we were split on issues of National importance….Where will it all lead? I truly wonder. But Bush has proved himself not to be a great leader. In this age of media we need a leader who can not only lead but inspire!…..I am reminded of a comedy piece writen in the 19th century which reminds me of Bush…It was called “Music by the choir”…Part of it went..”In the choir there were those who could sing, those that thought they could sing…and then there were others!”
With the Bush era I am reminded of that quote as I see our dictates are being handled by others, not the great singers of leadership.
Best wishes