At 05:44 AM 3/30/2004 -0800 Richard Baker wrote:JDG said:By whom? Under the usual standards that Presidents rate such things, I expect that he will be placed near or at the top of one-term Presidents if he loses re-election.
Regardless of Bush Jr's merits, he surely doesn't compare favourably
with Bush Sr, who skillfully managed the crisis in the global order
caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union and even fought a war against
Iraq with the backing of most of the rest of the world (and even with
French troops!).
But that last point is not one of the criteria on which Presidents are
usually judged. That is, we usually do not judge our Presidents by the
popularity of their policies in France and Syria. (both part of the first
Gulf War coalition)
At any rate, a similar case for George W. Bush's first term would be:
"skillfully managed the crisis caused by September 11th, led a
spectacularly successful War in Afghanistan (it is worth remembering how
much doubt surrounded the Afghan campaign in mid-September of 2001), and
fought a war in Iraq to completion with the support of the vast majority of
the world's industrialized democracies."
This surely compares quite favorably in the eyes of history to George H. W.
Bush's term. In addition, George H. W. Bush will certainly be remembered
for presiding over the mildest recession in modern US history, despite
taking office following the popping of an asset bubble, and maintaining
high levels of overall employment, GDP growth, and productivity growth
during that time. (Bush will also benefit in these ratings because
budget deficits tend not to be considered as very important in these
ratings. For example, Franklin Roosevelt rates extremely highly by
historians, despite creating Social Security.)
<snipped>
Successfully leading the coalition that defeated the Axis Powers during World War 2 has a great deal to do with FDR's high rating.
john
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
