An Historical Perspective: A Work in Progress

An historical perspective? What will my, as yet, unborn children learn about this time in history?

I don't care for this question because there is little to no way to be sure. I have opinions on it but before those are expressed, I would like to respond to specific points posed by rogue.

...almost twenty years out, [Reagan] is praised as a cornerstone of the Republican party, as every would be candidate strives to be labeled a "Reagan Republican."

Reagan is without a doubt on of the most popular Republican Presidents of all time, just as Clinton is one of the most popular Democratic Presidents of all time. But they are still widely criticized by their opposing sides of the aisle. Reagan is no more popular with the Liberals than he was when he left office and Clinton no more popular with the Conservatives. The reason for this isn't necessarily that their time in office was of particular benefit to the country, it is because the public has forgotten the crazy stuff they tried to (or did) pull off but they remember their great public personas. Nobody immediately thinks about Reagan's plan to militarize outer space by putting lasers on satellites to shoot down Soviet nukes or that he granted amnesty to illegal aliens, and hardly ever do we mention Clinton's NAFTA (which is either the greatest accomplishment for international trade in recent years or a terrible detriment to America's economy...depending on which pundit you listen to). We remember their personalities; they were likable. Everybody saw Reagan as a surrogate grandfather: Yeah, he does and say some crazy crap sometimes, but God love him, he means well. We remember Clinton as that goofy friend we all have that without fail (in a car full of guys) will say something to the effect of, "Looks like we've got Sausage Fest '06 tonight." But neither will be popular with the other side anytime soon.

...How much longer will the insurgency fight? How quickly can Iraq form a new government? Will tribal differences tear their new nation apart?

The insurgency will fight at some level as long as we stay in Iraq. We are in the difficult situation of trying to stabilize a region where we are a major de-stabilizing force. If we leave right now I can see three separate nations arising from what is now Iraq: one for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Shiites. Each with it's own, relatively stable government. There would still be tensions between the nations and possible wars, but American's wouldn't be getting killed. This is what i believe we should have worked toward when we first set about rebuilding Iraq's government: three independent nations; the idea of a unified Iraq is nice in theory but these ethnic and religious tensions permeating the country are too great to allow for true stability.

...If Bush gets a Democratic congress or a more evenly split congress, he can expect headache after headache for the next two years.

Yes, he can.

...If McCain were to win, Bush's foreign policy would be largely continued. Perhaps better managed depending on who McCain puts at DOD and State. The point is that even though the victory could be largely McCain's, Bush' s theory would be supported in the history books.

While I agree that a similar foreign policy will be carried out under McCain, I disagree that (if successful) "Bush's theory" would be validated, much less supported, by history books. Bush's policy has been executed so poorly and seen in such a poor international light that even if McCain uses the same theory (but executes it correctly and efficiently) it will not be viewed as a continuation of the "Bush theory" especially since McCain has been such a vocal critic of how the war is being waged.

...Bush is a self described "wartime President" and will be remembered as such. The failure of some of his initiatives to even get off the ground (Social Security private accounts), will be largely forgotten as will his successes on the domestic front.

Will be forgotten? They already have.

...What will be remembered is the move of the Republican Party, under Bush, away from fiscal discipline...A "Bush Republican" is one that won't tax, but he also won't hold on to the pocketbook.

Neo-conservatism: a political philosophy having little to do with anything new and even less to do with conservatism.

...Will history see him as a kinder, gentler Republican? Or as a drunken frat boy, blowing his trust fund?

I don't think you have to worry about Bush being considered a "kinder, gentler" form of anything. No other President in our time has been so antagonistic and openly disdainful to the media and any who criticize his decisions. And neither will he be remembered as a frat boy.

As I see it, there are a few possible outcomes regarding how he will be remembered:

1. Assuming McCain is elected and is successful in the Middle East, Bush will be the guy who toppled the Taliban. A lot of the Iraq mess will have been forgotten 50 years down the road. If McCain settles it in Iraq, it will be McCain's success story not Bush's. This is the best possible outcome for Bush that I see: a guy that reacted decisively after 9-11 was further involved in the Middle East but never really accomplished anything after Afghanistan.
2. If a Democrat is elected in '08 and he/she pulls us out of Iraq, Bush has a good chance of going down in history as the worst 2-term President ever. Bush would be LBJ without the social programs; Johnson (not that he was a true 2-termer) would be remembered as an absolutely terrible president had it not been for his tremendous strives in the civil rights arena and even with those he's not remembered with a great deal of fondness...'Nam will do that to you.
3. If elected and McCain or another Republican cannot settle the Iraq situation, Bush will just be seen as the first of the bad deciders, which is (in a way) better for him then being the only bad decider.

A "Bush Republican"...is that a Dirty Word?

O.k. so it's been a while since we posted. Sorry, dear readers. But three in a matter of days, you have to admit...impressive. Also there's playoff basketball on, I'm busy. Enough lollygagging though. Down to business.

A President's time in office can never truly be evaluated until after that time is over. Immediate feelings must give way to cool, reasoned judgment and examination. Reagan for instance was detested by the left (and many moderates) by the time he was leaving office. Even his base had tired of the Iran Contra scandal and eight years of "the gipper." However, almost twenty years out, he is praised as a cornerstone of the Republican party, as every would be candidate strives to be labeled a "Reagan Republican." Nixon is another example. As much as people were disgusted and angry at him in his disgrace, not many had any idea what an effect his departure would have on the office and the nation. Only time can give you perspective.

That brings us to the current President. What will his legacy be? In twenty years will pundits be talking about the stain left on the office by W's terms? Will they speak about the quagmire that is the Middle East and lay the blame at Bush's feet? Or will the next generation of conservative politicos label themselves "Bush Republicans" (and I don't mean because of their last names)? Only time can give you perspective, but we don't have time. I want to publish this this morning, so I'm going to use my imagination...and some political common sense.

The Bush Doctrine -- The single most important thing to come from Bush's time in office (be it good or bad) is this new school of foreign policy. No it's not exactly new, and no it wasn't really Bush's when he first went into office. But he and his team have made it this nation's policy. For good or bad, Bush and his legacy hinge on this. The outcome of the Iraq war, and to a lesser degree the next few years events in Iran and Palestine, will decide President Bush's place in history. For the first time in our history, the United States struck first. If we can clean up the mess, and help to foster a stable, democratic government right in the middle of one of the most intolerant, and turbulent areas of the globe, then Bush will be remembered as a hero.

In large part this is completely out of Bush's hands. How much longer will the insurgency fight? How quickly can Iraq form a new government? Will tribal differences tear their new nation apart? There's not a lot he can do about that. Also a lot depends on the '06 and '08 elections. If Bush gets a Democratic congress or a more evenly split congress, he can expect headache after headache for the next two years. If the Democrats were to take over, they will almost certainly try to impeach him. While I am sure they wouldn't be successful, it would leave a lasting sour taste in the mouth of the electorate. It would probably hurt the Dems in the long term, but it would hurt Bush badly in the short term. The '08 election also should figure prominently in Bush's legacy. If McCain were to win, Bush's foreign policy would be largely continued. Perhaps better managed depending on who McCain puts at DOD and State. The point is that even though the victory could be largely McCain's, Bush' s theory would be supported in the history books. On the other hand, if the Dems take office in '08 his policies (both at home and abroad) would be largely overturned. Chances are good that America would assume a downplayed role on the international scene, concurring with more opinions from the EU instead of setting agenda's ourselves. Bush would be looked back at as a backward thinker. A man not in step with the "World of Nations." That is unless we suffered another terrorist attack after those policies were in place.

Bush has made sweeping changes in domestic policy also. No Child Left Behind, tax cuts, etc. However, Bush is a self described "wartime President" and will be remembered as such. The failure of some of his initiatives to even get off the ground (Social Security private accounts), will be largely forgotten as will his successes on the domestic front. What will be remembered is the move of the Republican Party, under Bush, away from fiscal discipline. While small attempts are being made (mostly symbolic) to change this now. There is no doubt we are spending more as a nation under Bush than under Clinton. For the deficit hawks and the fiscal conservatives, this is one of Bush's most painful legacies. A "Bush Republican" is one that won't tax, but he also won't hold on to the pocketbook. The Republican party will probably be dealing with the fallout of this newfound split in idealology for the next couple of decades. Will history see him as a kinder, gentler Republican? Or as a drunken frat boy, blowing his trust fund? Or maybe as a man put in impossible circumstances, fighting a war, but expected to cut the budget as well. Only time will tell.

I'm sure both my compadres have a lot to add about their opinion of Bush's lasting legacy. I hope you will as well.