Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 4 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

"The Worst President in History?" Why the Question Mark?

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   4 comments
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Andrew Schmookler
Become a Fan
  (31 fans)
"The Worst President in History?" is the title of a recent article about the presidency of George W. Bush by Princeton historian Sean Wilentz published in Rolling Stone. It's a fine piece, which has deservedly made the rounds of the blogosphere. Therefore it is not to denigrate that article that I now suggest that the question mark in that title can be dropped.

Wilentz cites a poll conducted among more than 400 historians in early 2004. Already at that point, more than 80% of these historians regarded the Bush presidency as a failure.

Now factor in all that has become known about this administration in the almost two-and-a-half years since that poll was taken: how more fully disclosed are the lies leading to the war in Iraq and the blunders that assured its disastrous consequences; how incompetent the administration proved to be in the face of hurricane Katrina; how clear has become the picture of this administration's disdain for the Constitution and the law, with its by-passing of the required judicial oversight in the issuing of warrants; how shamelessly they have sought to suppress scientific and economic facts, and so forth-- a list that could be vastly expanded.

The worst presidency in history? Where's the competition?

Could it be the sleazy administration of Ulysses S. Grant, or the likewise corrupt Harding administration, with its Teapot Dome Scandal?

No, not when you observe how the Bushite regime goes beyond such superficial corruption. Certainly, the sins of this administration include the conventional pigs-feeding-at-the-trough corruption -as illuminated by the expanding Abramoff scandals - but the corruption here goes much deeper. The moral corruption of this regime -with its apparent unwillingness to hold any value higher than its own advantage-- goes beyond such parasitism to threaten the very life of the American body politic.

How about James Buchanan, the occupant of the White House immediately before the election of Abraham Lincoln and the outbreak of the Civil War?

Buchanan failed to offer the country the leadership it needed at a especially dangerous moment in American history. Surely, the carnage that followed in his wake underscores the gravity of Buchanan's failure. But Buchanan inherited a sharply divided country. He did not, like our current president, actively create division for his own political self-aggrandizement.

Can the Nixon presidency offer any serious competition, with its dangerous abuses of power?

Hardly. As former Nixon counsel John Dean said in recent days, the abuses of power of this Bushite regime leave Nixon's "in the dust." The Nixon administration had plenty of mean-spirited paranoia and resentment. But Nixon did not have the same a take-no-prisoners drive towards domination. Although he was a threat to the rule of law, Nixon didn't seek to dismantle the system he abused, like these Bushites with their so-called "theories" of the Constitution that seek to rationalize unchecked presidential power.

Consider the systematic assault that this regime and their party loyalists have been conducting on the basic structures of our democracy:

** The use of "signing statements" and bogus "constitutional arguments" to usurp the constitutional powers of the other branches;

** The flagrant violation, under presidential orders, of duly passed laws such as the FISA act, not to mention of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution;

** The violation of duly-ratified treaties banning torture and of constitutional provisions for due process;

** The K street culture of big moneyed interests buying government, even further corrupted with the requirement that only Republican lobbyists be hired;

** The rigging of Congressional districts, and other thuggish abuses of power, orchestrated by Tom Delay and his syndicate;

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Andrew Schmookler Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Andy Schmookler, an award-winning author, political commentator, radio talk-show host, and teacher, was the Democratic nominee for Congress from Virginia's 6th District. His new book -- written to have an impact on the central political battle of our time -- is (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Why Do Conservatives Like Colbert? Article Plus Critique

Mel Gibson's Rant as Profound Clue

To Anti-Obamite Lefties: It Doesn't Matter If You're Right

How Important is the Loss of Friendship?

# 8 Beliefs that Make Liberal America Weak: Barriers to the Source of Moral and Spiritual Passions

Power and Corruption: Just What Is Their Relationship?

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend