Just the other day I was chatting with a Carpetbagger regular via email about [tag]Bush[/tag] and his concern for his “[tag]legacy[/tag].” It’s a word that the media liked to associate with [tag]Clinton[/tag] — who reportedly spent much of his second term concerned about how [tag]history[/tag] would remember him — but my friend and I agreed that this president is far more concerned with history’s judgment than he lets on.
Right on cue, U.S. News’ Kenneth T. [tag]Walsh[/tag] reported this week:
Even though he doesn’t like to admit it, Bush is privately giving considerable thought to his legacy. He tells friends he defines himself as “an [tag]idealist[/tag] about goals and a realist about means.” He wants to be remembered, says a senior adviser, as “a [tag]champion[/tag] of [tag]freedom[/tag] abroad and [tag]ownership[/tag] at home”–freedom particularly in [tag]Iraq[/tag] and ownership by everyday Americans of their houses, small businesses, and personal accounts for education, healthcare, and retirement. Bush aims to leave behind a series of institutional changes, aides say, that cannot be easily “unraveled” by his successors or future Congresses, such as massive tax cuts, the new prescription-drug benefit under Medicare, and a commitment to stable democracy in Iraq. Last week, Bush entered the fray over immigration, another big issue, with a well-received address to the nation in which he called for strengthened border security, a large “temporary worker” program, and a system to give millions of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
Saying it and doing it, however, are two very different things. Bush’s effectiveness appears to be at its lowest ebb, with only about a third of voters approving of his job performance–one of the worst ratings in presidential history. His reputation for competence has been battered, his image as a straight talker compromised.
I can appreciate the political circumstances and personality quirks that led to “Bush’s [tag]Bubble[/tag],” but it’s hard to imagine how the president can be at all optimistic about future historical analyses of his terms in office.
A “champion of freedom”? No, I don’t think so. Bush embraced a philosophical love for spreading democracy from the barrel of a gun after all of his many other rationales for war in Iraq fell apart. For that matter, the president decided that he’d be a crusader for the liberty that only democracy can provide — but his concerns for democratic institutions has always been hollow.
While [tag]President[/tag] Bush vows to transform Iraq into a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, his administration has been scaling back funding for the main organizations trying to carry out his vision by building democratic institutions such as political parties and civil society groups.
The administration has included limited new money for traditional democracy promotion in budget requests to Congress. Some organizations face funding cutoffs this month, while others struggle to stretch resources through the summer. The shortfall threatens projects that teach Iraqis how to create and sustain political parties, think tanks, human rights groups, independent media outlets, trade unions and other elements of democratic society.
As Les Campbell, who runs programs in the Middle East for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, said, “The commitment to what the president of the United States will say every single day of the week is his number one priority in Iraq, when it’s translated into action, looks very tiny.”
And then there’s “ownership at home”? Strike two. Bush’s “ownership society” crashed and burned, as his drive to privatize Social Security, among other things, flopped badly and set his presidency on a decline from which it is yet to recover.
As for the “institutional changes,” Bush has simply served as a model for future presidents of what not to do.
Legacy? Bush? I’ll just let [tag]Sean Wilentz[/tag] summarize the issue: “George W. Bush’s presidency appears headed for colossal historical [tag]disgrace[/tag]. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very [tag]worst[/tag] president in all of American history.”