Surprise Surprise: Historians Don't Like Bush
An informal survey of 109 historians has shown that 98% of them believe the Bush presidency has been a failure, and 61% rate it as the worst in history.
The reasons? "Invading Iraq, 'tax breaks for the rich,' and alienating many nations around the world."
Well, considering that Iraq is on the verge of being a functioning democratic power in the Middle East, that the tax cuts have demonstrably given us an era of prosperity, that the Bush administration has effectuated a number of free trade agreements that have brought us closer to nations around the world, and that people around the world have been electing leaders who are friendlier to America, I would have to say these are extremely positive aspects of the Bush presidency.
Then, why would historians rank President Bush as the worst for reasons that are highly arbitrary, and thus appear merely partisan in nature?
Back when I was a student at Cornell University and a member of The Cornell Review, I took it upon myself to investigate the political affiliation of professors in various departments. I found that in the History Department, two professors were registered Republicans, while 26 were registered Democrats or Greens.
Nuff said.
Paul Ibrahim
in Academia, George W. Bush, Cornell
|
1 Comment
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (1)
I don't know if he'll come out as well as Reagan did, but Bush's reputation will improve with age. Unlike, say, Carter, who is not just the worst president ever (the single good thing he did was appointing Paul Volcker), but "History's Greatest Monster".