Which President will history treat kinder, Bush Jnr or Clinton?

[Big Blue Machin]

I am a moderate republican, and I am reading Bill Clinton's autobiography. I was recently struck by a question in my mind, which was which president will be treated kinder by history.

Clinton: Balanced the budget after 8 years of cutting from a massive deficit. Cheated on his wife but no man is perfect. And cheating is not illegal, but immoral. During his tenure as president, his domestic priorities included efforts to create a universal healthcare system, to improve education, to restrict handgun sales, to balance the federal budget, to strengthen environmental regulations, to improve race relations, and to protect the jobs of workers during pregnancy or medical emergency.His domestic agenda also included other themes such as reforming welfare programs, expanding the "War on Drugs", and increasing law enforcement funding. Internationally, his priorities included reducing trade barriers, preventing nuclear proliferation, and mediating the Northern Ireland peace process and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.


Bush: Increased deficit to a large amount. Dedicated tax cutter. Spyed on Americans, through a grey area wiretap program. In 2003, the United States and a multinational force took military action in Iraq, overthrowing and eventually capturing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. However, the war has lasted far longer than the administration's original estimate of 6 weeks to 6 months. Bush has also signed into law a Medicare prescription drug plan and tax cuts at all income levels. Federal spending in constant dollars increased under Bush by 26% in his first four and one-half years.Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy as chief sponsor, which aims to close the achievement gap, measures student performance, provides options to parents with students in low-performing schools, and targets more federal funding to low-income schools.

 

[Kagom]

I see Clinton getting kinder treatment. I'll let you know in 10 years.

 

[Big Blue Machin]

That's an interesting avatar.

 

[jillian]

Interesting question.... in part:

How does any president's reputation sink so low? The reasons are best understood as the reverse of those that produce presidential greatness. In almost every survey of historians dating back to the 1940s, three presidents have emerged as supreme successes: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. These were the men who guided the nation through what historians consider its greatest crises: the founding era after the ratification of the Constitution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression and Second World War. Presented with arduous, at times seemingly impossible circumstances, they rallied the nation, governed brilliantly and left the republic more secure than when they entered office.

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. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

 

[jillian]

I am a moderate republican, and I am reading Bill Clinton's autobiography. I was recently struck by a question in my mind, which was which president will be treated kinder by history.

Clinton: Balanced the budget after 8 years of cutting from a massive deficit. Cheated on his wife but no man is perfect. And cheating is not illegal, but immoral. During his tenure as president, his domestic priorities included efforts to create a universal healthcare system, to improve education, to restrict handgun sales, to balance the federal budget, to strengthen environmental regulations, to improve race relations, and to protect the jobs of workers during pregnancy or medical emergency.His domestic agenda also included other themes such as reforming welfare programs, expanding the "War on Drugs", and increasing law enforcement funding. Internationally, his priorities included reducing trade barriers, preventing nuclear proliferation, and mediating the Northern Ireland peace process and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.

Not a bad record, all told, particularly given that he had investigations distracting him for 8 years which no other president ever had to face.

Bush: Increased deficit to a large amount. Dedicated tax cutter. Spyed on Americans, through a grey area wiretap program. In 2003, the United States and a multinational force took military action in Iraq, overthrowing and eventually capturing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. However, the war has lasted far longer than the administration's original estimate of 6 weeks to 6 months. Bush has also signed into law a Medicare prescription drug plan and tax cuts at all income levels. Federal spending in constant dollars increased under Bush by 26% in his first four and one-half years.Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy as chief sponsor, which aims to close the achievement gap, measures student performance, provides options to parents with students in low-performing schools, and targets more federal funding to low-income schools.

Some additional observations:

Tax cuts benefit predominantly the top 1% of wage-earners and he's the sole leader in history to cut taxes during wartime, thus creating deficits that will take generations to pay off.

Medicare prescription drug plan has been confusing to seniors and been noted to be a "gift" to drug companies.

No Child Left Behind is an unfunded mandate which Kennedy says he was duped into, expecting Congress to fund it at Bush's urging. Bush didn't urge, Congress didn't fund. The effect of the law has been to put undue pressue on high-performing schools which have no additional funding to meet increased attendance....thus making the highly perfoming schools perform less well. And yes, it's Congress that allocates funds, but Bush has stated repeatedly that his administration works out the numbers with Congress.

And there's the stellar performance of FEMA after Katrina which, while not solely the fault of the administration due to failures at the state and local level, it did highlight the incompetent leadership in the Federal Agency and the error of making it part of the Department of Homeland Security.

oh...and there's the president's refusal to reconsider decisions which turn out to be mistakes....such as leaving Rumsfeld in his post. Now, everyone makes mistakes and no one expects the president to be any different. But the failure to change course in the face of such mistakes doesn't reflect well and will likely hurt any legacy he might have had.

So.... can you guess where I stand on this issue?

 

[Stephanie]

rollingstoners.com? :teeth:

 

[Big Blue Machin]

Not a bad record, all told, particularly given that he had investigations distracting him for 8 years which no other president ever had to face.

It was a witch hunt for Ken Starr. He threw people into jail just because they wouldn't tell him lies about Clinton.

 

[jillian]

rollingstoners.com? :teeth:

Maybe in the '60's

 

[Stephanie]

Maybe in the '60's

on!

 

[jillian]

on!

Heh!

 

[Redhots]

I suppose that depends on whose doing the writing, doesn't it.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

History does have a way of getting screwed up, so there is no telling. In school, I learned that Washington was the first President, Paul Revere yelled "The British are coming", and that the Civil War started because of slavery. None of this is true, of course. So in reality, Redhots is correct, it depends on who writes the book.

 

[Avatar4321]

History does have a way of getting screwed up, so there is no telling. In school, I learned that Washington was the first President, Paul Revere yelled "The British are coming", and that the Civil War started because of slavery. None of this is true, of course. So in reality, Redhots is correct, it depends on who writes the book.

So Washington wasnt the First President and the Civil war wasnt because of slavery?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

So Washington wasnt the First President and the Civil war wasnt because of slavery?

nope,

John Hanson of Maryland was elected " without dissent" in 1777 as "President of the United States in Congress Assembled." He was elected under the Article of Confederation. This did not of course hold the same power as President Washington, but nonetheless it held the same title. He was refered to as Mr. President.

The issue of slavery was only an issue as an economic issue. The North didn't go on a moral campaign to end the bondage of men, but rather the South seceded on the premise that when states feel that the federal government is acting in way that can be considered unconstitutional, then that state can therefore nullify just behavior and become its own country. You can thank John C. Calhoun for alot of this thinking, but Thomas Jefferson was more at fault than any. He authored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that began this train of thought that the states could "throw of" anything that they didn't like.

 

[jillian]

The issue of slavery was only an issue as an economic issue. The North didn't go on a moral campaign to end the bondage of men, but rather the South seceded on the premise that when states feel that the federal government is acting in way that can be considered unconstitutional, then that state can therefore nullify just behavior and become its own country. You can thank John C. Calhoun for alot of this thinking, but Thomas Jefferson was more at fault than any. He authored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that began this train of thought that the states could "throw of" anything that they didn't like.

Ummmmmmmmm....not really.

While it's true that slavery was an economic issue, when the south tried to secede because of being told they had to get rid of their slaves, the government had to respond. The south wasn't about to be told what to do by a bunch of yankee yahoos....

and voila...the civil war.

No one sends their kids to die because of an "unconstitutional" act of government (assuming you think states' rights was the constitutional mandate). The "unconstitutional" act has to have a real life effect that people find worth dying for... the south's economy was based on slave labor... no slaves, no wealth....

to read your telling, you'd think it was the "war of northern aggression".

Also, the concept that the states could throw off anything they don't like -- hasn't that been used on this board as a way to claim that the executive branch has as much right to gauge constitutionality as the Court? Silliness then, silliness now....

To get back to the subject at hand, we're talking about presidential greatness. The people who seemed to have achieved that were, in fact, all of the things that the article said. They truly were "uniters, not dividers, unlike the current occupant of the White House who says the words and then makes the most divisive choices possible.

I think history is going to be very unkind to GWB.

 

[Annie]

Ummmmmmmmm....not really.

While it's true that slavery was an economic issue, when the south tried to secede because of being told they had to get rid of their slaves, the government had to respond. The south wasn't about to be told what to do by a bunch of yankee yahoos....

and voila...the civil war.

No one sends their kids to die because of an "unconstitutional" act of government (assuming you think states' rights was the constitutional mandate). The "unconstitutional" act has to have a real life effect that people find worth dying for... the south's economy was based on slave labor... no slaves, no wealth....

to read your telling, you'd think it was the "war of northern aggression".

Also, the concept that the states could throw off anything they don't like -- hasn't that been used on this board as a way to claim that the executive branch has as much right to gauge constitutionality as the Court? Silliness then, silliness now....

To get back to the subject at hand, we're talking about presidential greatness. The people who seemed to have achieved that were, in fact, all of the things that the article said. They truly were "uniters, not dividers, unlike the current occupant of the White House who says the words and then makes the most divisive choices possible.

I think history is going to be very unkind to GWB.

If you are speaking about the Emancipation Proclamation, that happened after all the states that were going to secede, had. If not that, what are you referring to?

 

[Annie]

There were many issues that led to sectionalism, some of the roots of which are found in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, especially regarding the apportionment of the representatives to the House and Senate.

The early causes are also rooted in population/economies. The Northeast had more cities, while the South was most definately rural. The North from the getgo, developed early industries; while the South and Southeast found gold in tobacco and cotton, which slavery allowed to really expand.

These regional differences caused nullification to raise it's head with the Embargo Act during Jefferson's administration. The problem with tariffs though was evident earlier.

As the country expanded West and South, a delicate balance started with the Compromise Bills/Acts/Compromises through the middle to late 19th C. Of course this harkened back to the whole Constitutional Convention arguements on apportionment by population.

There also was some pressure from foreign lands on the issue of slavery:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...OR+19th+"abolition"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10

The concurrent rise in rationalism and the emergence of The Second Great Awakening, coupled with increasing leisure time for the elite in the Northeast, contributed to the growth of abolitionist groups, which wrote prolifically in magazines, journals, and newspapers.

So while slavery touches all of these events/ideas, main cause? No. Not until Lincoln issued the Proclamation, three years into the war. I do believe it can be compared to the 'excuses' like 'Saddam killed his own people'. War presidents often have to find alternatives when things are not going well, for Lincoln, that really was through 1863, even beyond.

Note also, the Proclamation only freed the slaves in the Confederacy, where he had no power to enforce. Those held in 'border Union States' held onto their slaves until Reconstruction.

 

[Gunny]

Ummmmmmmmm....not really.

While it's true that slavery was an economic issue, when the south tried to secede because of being told they had to get rid of their slaves, the government had to respond. The south wasn't about to be told what to do by a bunch of yankee yahoos....

and voila...the civil war.

No one sends their kids to die because of an "unconstitutional" act of government (assuming you think states' rights was the constitutional mandate). The "unconstitutional" act has to have a real life effect that people find worth dying for... the south's economy was based on slave labor... no slaves, no wealth....

to read your telling, you'd think it was the "war of northern aggression".

Also, the concept that the states could throw off anything they don't like -- hasn't that been used on this board as a way to claim that the executive branch has as much right to gauge constitutionality as the Court? Silliness then, silliness now....

To get back to the subject at hand, we're talking about presidential greatness. The people who seemed to have achieved that were, in fact, all of the things that the article said. They truly were "uniters, not dividers, unlike the current occupant of the White House who says the words and then makes the most divisive choices possible.

I think history is going to be very unkind to GWB.

Oversimplified.

Slavery WAS an economic issue. Abolitionists were an extremist fringe group. IT was just a convenient and usefull tactic for the North to try and toss morality into the issue after the fact.

Look at some of the Northern laws in regards to blacks from the day. They are repressive and "Jim Crow" as it gets.

The fact is, rich northern industrialists wanted to control the government and the economy, and were being checked by a bunch of "backwards-assed Southerners."

Oh, btw, Lincold "freed the slaves" following the Battle of Antietem as a tactic of war rather than any moral concern. His thinking was it would cause insurrection and draw front-line troops off the battlefield to provide rear-area security. He only freed slaves in states in rebellion.

And lastly, it truly was a war of US imperialism (War of Northern Aggression). The states entered into a voluntary agreement to try as an experiment, "the United States." Nothing legally precluded any state from withdrawing if they so desired.

The US took by force of arms what they could NEVER win in a courtroom today.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Ummmmmmmmm....not really.

While it's true that slavery was an economic issue, when the south tried to secede because of being told they had to get rid of their slaves, the government had to respond. The south wasn't about to be told what to do by a bunch of yankee yahoos....

and voila...the civil war.

No one sends their kids to die because of an "unconstitutional" act of government (assuming you think states' rights was the constitutional mandate). The "unconstitutional" act has to have a real life effect that people find worth dying for... the south's economy was based on slave labor... no slaves, no wealth....

to read your telling, you'd think it was the "war of northern aggression".

Also, the concept that the states could throw off anything they don't like -- hasn't that been used on this board as a way to claim that the executive branch has as much right to gauge constitutionality as the Court? Silliness then, silliness now....

To get back to the subject at hand, we're talking about presidential greatness. The people who seemed to have achieved that were, in fact, all of the things that the article said. They truly were "uniters, not dividers, unlike the current occupant of the White House who says the words and then makes the most divisive choices possible.

I think history is going to be very unkind to GWB.

Show me where the US government tried to tell southern states to get rid of slaves. Your source has to a position of power and the act has to be sanction by one of the three branches of government. This didn't happen. Abolitionists were a small minority. Actually more northern citizens were for slavery because of their close ties with the southern economy. I refer you to Garrison and the Broadcloth riot in Boston as an example of this.

Sending kids to die is a fairly recent way of looking at war. Lincoln didn't see the Civil War as sending kids to die, he saw it has sending soldiers to preserve the Union.

The issue of states throwing off anything they don't like has been around since Jefferson wrote the Legislation that tested it in the 1790's. It was later employed by Calhoun in South Carolina to in the 1830's as a way of lowering the tariffs on imported goods. This appeasment did more to cause the Civil War than slavery ever could. The South wouldn't fight a war to protect slavery as morally virtuous, but they would fight to protect their economy in order to stay free of Northern oppression.

Like I said before, It will be up to whomever write the History books. I mean Jefferson gets a good rep and he was the most hypocritical man to ever take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

[Big Blue Machin]

An interesting comparison for which president would be treated better in history: Richard Nixon vs George W.