At this point, there’s little question that Bush has been a horrible president. Now the question among historians seems to be who to compare Bush to :

The reasons stated by some of the historians for their choice of the presidency that they believe Bush?s to be the worst since are worth repeating. The following are representative examples for each of the presidents named most frequently:

REAGAN: ?I think the presidency of George W. Bush has been generally a failure and I consider his presidency so far to have been the most disastrous since that of Ronald Reagan–because of the unconscionable military aggression and spending (especially the Iraq War), the damage done to the welfare of the poor while the corporate rich get richer, and the backwards religious fundamentalism permeating this administration. I strongly disliked and distrusted Reagan and think that George W. is even worse.?

NIXON: ?Actually, I think [Bush?s] presidency may exceed the disaster that was Nixon. He has systematically lied to the American public about almost every policy that his administration promotes.? Bush uses ?doublespeak? to ?dress up policies that condone or aid attacks by polluters and exploiters of the environment . . . with names like the ?Forest Restoration Act? (which encourages the cutting down of forests).?

HOOVER: ?I would say GW is our worst president since Herbert Hoover. He is moving to bankrupt the federal government on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation, and he has brought America?s reputation in the world to its lowest point in the entire history of the United States.?
. . .
HARDING: ?Oil, money and politics again combine in ways not flattering to the integrity of the office. Both men also have a tendency to mangle the English language yet get their points across to ordinary Americans. [Yet] the comparison does Harding something of a disservice.?

McKINLEY: ?Bush is perhaps the first president [since McKinley] to be entirely in the ?hip pocket? of big business, engage in major external conquest for reasons other than national security, AND be the puppet of his political handler. McKinley had Mark Hanna; Bush has Karl Rove. No wonder McKinley is Rove?s favorite historical president (precedent?).?
. . .
EVER: The second most common response from historians, trailing only Nixon, was that the current presidency is the worst in American history. A few examples will serve to provide the flavor of such condemnations. ?Although previous presidents have led the nation into ill-advised wars, no predecessor managed to turn America into an unprovoked aggressor. No predecessor so thoroughly managed to confirm the impressions of those who already hated America. No predecessor so effectively convinced such a wide range of world opinion that America is an imperialist threat to world peace. I don ‘t think that you can do much worse than that.?

The guy who actually conducted the survey didn’t exactly have a favorable opinion of Bush either :

My assessment is that George W. Bush?s record on running up debt to burden our children is the worst since Ronald Reagan; his record on government surveillance of citizens is the worst since Richard Nixon; his record on foreign-military policy has gotten us into the worst foreign mess we?ve been in since Lyndon Johnson sank us into Vietnam; his economic record is the worst since Herbert Hoover; his record of tax favoritism for the rich is the worst since Calvin Coolidge; his record of trampling on civil liberties is the worst since Woodrow Wilson. How far back in our history would we need to go to find a presidency as disastrous for this country as that of George W. Bush has been thus far? My own vote went to the administration of James Buchanan, who warmed the president?s chair while the union disintegrated in 1860-61.

Who has been the biggest beneficiary of the horrible terrorism that struck our nation in September of 2001? The answer to that question should be obvious to anyone who considers where the popularity ratings and reelection prospects of a president with the record outlined above would be had he not been able to wrap himself in the flag, take advantage of the American people?s patriotism, and make himself synonymous with ?the United States of America? for the past two years.

That abuse of the patriotism and trust of the American people is even worse than everything else this president has done and that fact alone might be sufficient to explain the depth of the hostility with which so many historians view George W. Bush. Contrary to the conservative stereotype of academics as anti-American, the reasons that many historians cited for seeing the Bush presidency as a disaster revolve around their perception that he is undermining traditional American practices and values. As one patriotic historian put it, ?I think his presidency has been the worst disaster to hit the United States and is bringing our beloved country to financial, economic, and social disaster.?

Some voters may judge such assessments to be wrong, but they are assessments informed by historical knowledge and the electorate ought to have them available to take into consideration during this election year.

My favorite part of the whole article is this perfect summary of Bush’s economic policies :

Cut taxes three times, sharply reducing the burden on the rich, reclassified money obtained through stock ownership as more deserving than money earned through work. The idea that dividend income should not be taxed?what might accurately be termed the unearned income tax credit?can be stated succinctly: ?If you had to work for your money, we?ll tax it; if you didn?t have to work for it, you can keep it all.?

God, I hope we’re not doomed to repeat another Bush presidency…