Ranking Bush

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Earlier today, I mentioned that Eric Foner ranks Bush the worst president ever, while Douglas Brinkley considers him the new Hoover, another "case study on how not to be president". Well, there's more. Michael Lind, David Greenberg, and Vincent Cannato have also contributed to the Post's "What Will History Say?" series.

Lind ranks Bush the fifth worst president, behind Buchanan, Johnson, Nixon, and Madison.

Greenberg argues that Bush isn't as bad as Nixon. (Not yet.) And it may be "premature" to "consign him to the bottom tier of presidents".

Cannato suggests that these "worst president ever" considerations are "too often ideology masquerading as history". Perhaps, in some cases, but how can Cannato claim that "tax cuts, the No Child Left Behind Act, [and] the prescription drug plan" have been "domestic policy successes"? The first is unabashed plutocracy, irresponsibility and injustice at a time of endless war, soaring budget deficits, and economic insecurity; the second is all rhetoric, a hollow shell of a program; and the third is massive, industry-friendly bureaucracy. There's nothing wrong with "humility," nor with letting "years pass" before passing judgment, but I doubt that Bush will leave "a mixed record". The record we have now suggests far worse.

Whether Bush is the worst or the second worst or the fifth worst, he has been a terrible president. Historians are writing about him already, but I suspect that his presidency will only seem worse with time.