Bush's Legacy

[Exsubmariner]

Hi all,
It may be a bit too early to be talking about it, but I have been thinking about the impact that Bush 43, whom I lovingly think of as schrub, is going to have on the Presidents, the country, foriegn policy, and the general state of the world after him. The meandering thoughts I present here are taken from a number of sources and I in no way claim to think anything original, but I would like to air my conjectures and see what people here think.

Firstly, since Schrub is so polarizing, I don't think that there is going to be a viable conservative candidate after him who promises to carry on his doctrine. While a succeeding President may echo doctrine in regards to the Middle East and the Iraq situation, I don't believe anyone will continue to try outspending Democrats when it comes to social programs. The prescription drug plan the pharmaceutical doners to the Bush camp managed to get is probably going to be it for a while in terms of social programs. I can imagine future political candidates promoting true fiscal conservatism, much in the tradition of Reagan, not Schrub.

I think the cheque on invading other countries in the Middle East is cashed. I don't believe putting soldiers on the groud is ever going to be a viable option again, politically speaking, for future Presidents. I can forsee extensive air campaigning as a viable option for military action, but invading a country and trying to put in a Democratic Government has been shown to be too expensive. Perhaps also, knowing this will lead future Presidents to emphasize intelligence policy and focus on field agents, as in the Cold War, as primary tools of foriegn policy. This will doubltess lead to more drugs and arms scandels and entrench the political process in the country in ever more vehemate prosecutions, finger pointing, and conspiracy mongering.

Also, I can see foriegn policy vascillating enourmously depending on which party is elected. The only thing I can see this serving to do is to make regions of the world more and more unstable with regard to US business and national interests. I can envision dramatic reversals on policies destablizing foriegn affairs. This will perhaps foment an isolationist movement within the country.

In short, I don't think the US is in a good way as far as the rest of the world is concerned. It may not have begun with Bush, he may have inherited it from as far back as Reagan, but I don't think his handling of his office has left the optimal amount of strategies open for future Presidents. I see things being much worse before they get better.

The next three years are going to be interesting.

Thoughts/Opinions/Discussions?

[MoreWineII]

I feel that he's awful. Truly truly awful. Probably one of the worst Presidents ever.

I'd go into detail but it's been discussed a billion times on a billion message forums. Those who still support Bush aren't going to be swayed by anti-Bush arguments...and vice versa.

[InchoateHand]

Exsubmariner,

I disagree with you on most things, but I think your analysis is more or less spot on.

Of course the long-term repercussions of Bush43 will take a long time to be fully realized, but many of the political consequences you detail are already coming to fruition. More so than 41 or 42, I think 43's Presidency will (in my opinion, negatively) significantly alter the face of politics for some time to come.

On the domestic spending front:
I think you're being too optimistic about the consequences of Bush's spending. The machinery of both parties is oriented towards getting money from lobbyists and doing their bidding (i.e. bribery). As the various scandals with DeLay, Frist, et al. show, the other "conservatives" in the GOP are not about to turn around and put a cap on truly wasteful spending. They may make a few symbolic gouges at the poor, but we will continue to see bridges to nowhere and no-bid contracts. The Democrats may decide that reform is a winning issue, as the GOP did in 1994. If they won, I'd expect things to be clean about the same length of time.

The only thing that will change this is forward-looking fiscal leadership (including a willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare, AND raise taxes), or a severe fiscal crisis, where people seriously talk about the US defaulting on its debt. Guess which one is more likely.

[Exsubmariner]

Uh oh,
I unwittingly revealed my eternal optimism. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

You do make a really good point. Perhaps each party will see a temporary opportunity for a campaign issue, but reform in that front couldn't last long. Perhaps I should revise that hope into a third party upspring which is not beholden to the special interests. It has happened in politics before, although it isn't that often. The damage done by the new deal has set the stage for government spending creep and I doubt this will ever change without some new dynamic coming into play.

I feel there are a lot of producers in this country that are tired of the high taxes levied on them by the non producers. I could see a new party....

I also agree it would take a crisis like the collapse of the financial system from over finance of loans people can't afford to pay to precipitate serious change.

Interesting. Thanks.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
I can imagine future political candidates promoting true fiscal conservatism, much in the tradition of Reagan, not Schrub.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reagan did not really carry out rentrenchment. In fact, nobody has ever really successfully done this from either party. So I think its a less about the ideology of a future GOP candidate and a lot more about whether Bush's fiscal policies will produce a situation so dire that retrenchment is the only option.

[ QUOTE ]
In short, I don't think the US is in a good way as far as the rest of the world is concerned. It may not have begun with Bush, he may have inherited it from as far back as Reagan, but I don't think his handling of his office has left the optimal amount of strategies open for future Presidents. I see things being much worse before they get better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are spot-on with this point. Future presidents may have different ideas about foreign policy, but Bush 43 has really shifted the terms of the debate about foreign policy among the US populace and the way in which other countries view America and American involvement abroad. That's going to narrow the options available in the future to presidents of either party.

[BadBoyBenny]

I think Bush has used the war on terror to concentrate power in the executive branch. Military tribunals and the like destroy the checks and balances designed in the constitution. Apart from Iraq, I think in the long term this will be the biggest part of his legacy.

[BillUCF]

To honestly look at a president's legacy you need to wait 10-20 years and see what people remember. Some Examples:

JFK: Facing down the Soviets in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the challenge to go to the moon

Nixon: A crook.

Ford: Too short to remember anything important

Carter: He sat on his ass while Americans were held hostage for over a year.

Reagan: The hostages were released before his oath into office was complete. Didn't take any crap from the soviets and demanded to tear down the Berlin wall; which happened shortly after.

Bush41, Clinton, and Bush43 are yet to be detemined...

[Cyrus]

Let me add a li'l to your input:

[ QUOTE ]
To honestly look at a president's legacy you need to wait 10-20 years and see what people remember. Some Examples:
<font color="white"> . </font>
JFK: Facing down the Soviets in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the challenge to go to the moon. Made America popular again.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Nixon: A crook. Instigated wage and price controls!
<font color="white"> . </font>
Ford: Too short to remember anything important. Bumped head a lot on airplane doors.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Carter: He sat on his ass while Americans were held hostage for over a year. American military tried to rescue hostages but failed miserably.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Reagan: The hostages were released before his oath into office was complete. Didn't take any crap from the soviets and demanded to tear down the Berlin wall; which happened shortly after. It is highly debatable whether or not the Russkies tore down the wall because the Gipper asked 'em to. Nice pomade, though.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Bush41, Clinton, and Bush43 are yet to be detemined... But Clinton economy boomed - those numbers are already in.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Beer and Pizza]

As I said in a previous post:

Truman &gt; Bush41 = the cold war presidents

Clinton = the gap president (lets call him the Neville Chamberlain of US Presidents)

Bush43 &gt; several future presidents = the new cold war (against terror) line of presidents

Like Truman, Bush43 will be more appreciated from a historical view, in his role as first of a line of Presidents who eventually defeated terrorism.