OK, after I wrote that, I went to Johnson's Wikipedia entry, to remind myself what my college history teachers had to say about the first US President to be impeached. The Wikipedia entry quote Foner as saying Johnson was a flat out failure at reconstructing the south, partly because Johnson was a white supremecist. Yet Foner still thinks Dubya is worse than Johnson?
Time to investigate Warren G. Harding. I feel a blog post coming on.
Thanks for stopping by again, Heraldblog. I actually don't have the knowledge of American history to judge whether Bush 43 is worse than Andrew Johnson or not. But I'm glad that the debate is focused on where Bush 43 belongs among the worst presidents.
I agree that Andrew Johnson was probably worse, but I think that Dubya has now solidified himself as worse than Harding, who I'd probably consider the second worst U.S. president to this point. While Harding was similar in many ways to Bush, in that he also indulged in the same incompetant cronyism, and regularly wrestled the English Language into humiliating submission, at least he didn't lie us into any unwinnable wars.
Via dmsilev on Kos, we have this Washington Post story by Columbia professor Eric Foner. He concludes: Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history. I'm not really sure about Professor Foner's methodology, but I'm glad to see the message of just how bad Bush is getting out there. It's funny how Bush has convinced himself that despite his current unpopularity, history will judge him as a visionary. If anything, I suspect history will judge him even more harshly than the current American public does. As the results of his failures unfold over the next several years, I think it will become more and more clear just how awful he has been.
posted by Zachary Drake at 10:08 PM on Dec 2, 2006
"Feel the love: WaPo story calls Bush "worst ever""
5 Comments -
George W. Bush is a better President than Andrew Johnson. There, I said it.
9:09 PM, December 03, 2006
OK, after I wrote that, I went to Johnson's Wikipedia entry, to remind myself what my college history teachers had to say about the first US President to be impeached. The Wikipedia entry quote Foner as saying Johnson was a flat out failure at reconstructing the south, partly because Johnson was a white supremecist. Yet Foner still thinks Dubya is worse than Johnson?
Time to investigate Warren G. Harding. I feel a blog post coming on.
9:19 PM, December 03, 2006
Thanks for stopping by again, Heraldblog. I actually don't have the knowledge of American history to judge whether Bush 43 is worse than Andrew Johnson or not. But I'm glad that the debate is focused on where Bush 43 belongs among the worst presidents.
3:07 AM, December 04, 2006
I agree that Andrew Johnson was probably worse, but I think that Dubya has now solidified himself as worse than Harding, who I'd probably consider the second worst U.S. president to this point. While Harding was similar in many ways to Bush, in that he also indulged in the same incompetant cronyism, and regularly wrestled the English Language into humiliating submission, at least he didn't lie us into any unwinnable wars.
9:48 AM, December 04, 2006
Poker Night at the White House.
7:30 PM, May 15, 2007