rating gwb

Since I finished the ratings game book I was reading I decided to finish it further by putting up a preliminary rating of GW.

Character: 2. This would be somewhat higher because it seems like he suffers from the same delusions that Reagan did (the whole god loves America thing), which makes some of his poorly implemented policies at least understandable (not justified, explained). But the trouble here is rampant cronyism, a series of minor to major scandals, and the basic deceptive use of language. When Hollywood is making movies with weird titles and political themes, something is amiss. What exactly is rendition protocol? Or enhanced interrogation? The plus side was he never ran anyone over in a drunk driving accident like say Pierce or had a former fiancee disappear under mysterious circumstances like Buchanan. I suspect he at least got into politics because it was the family business and thought he was supposed to/do something good (whatever good was). That's a positive.

Vision: I'm not quite sure how to rate this one. I think he has something like a vision so it should be a 4...but he's so poor at communicating that it isn't really clear what he's trying to accomplish or if he was trying to accomplish some of it before he got in office. I'll go with 3. I could go lower because it also doesn't seem like he's totally in reality with what he has accomplished either. This is not necessarily surprising as there are plenty of Presidents who implement policies with 'good intentions' and don't quite understand what they've accomplished. Assuming their intentions will be carried out isn't the same as executing the office.

Competence: 1. This can rise, if any of his policies ever turn out better than I think they will (esp the foreign policy). What he was good at was ramrodding things through that he wanted, with the exception of privatized social security and immigration reforms. Tax cuts, the war (both of them), NCLB, etc. The fact that almost all of it was obviously bad policy didn't matter (although immigration reform would have been decent). What he was bad at was managing events through his surrogates..or picking good surrogates who would manage events for him. I can think of maybe two people in his cabinet over the entire 8 years who were at least remotely decent (including his VP, who wasn't). That's usually a hallmark of incompetence; have poor advice..even worse, seek only advice that secures what plan you want in the first place. Part of how JFK got through the Cuban missile crisis was having a variety of options from hawks, doves, and things in between. Bush basically has a lot of people telling him what he wants to hear.

Economics: 2. He would be higher, except there are a number of things that happened on his watch that aren't very useful for economic growth (and hence, we're in a hampered growth period). The regulation sleepwalk on housing for example, and the devaluation of American currency from massive deficit spending and inflation. Tax cuts weren't a terrible idea, and in part they were useful for a time. It's possible he'll drop to a 1 after his term once it becomes clear how much damage was done, but the fact is the economy isn't doing terribly (as we've been told), it's just different. I'd also have to see precisely what sort of ratings system was used on the raw data by the author. There was for example GDP growth after recovering from an early recession, but the budget was mismanaged badly along the way. FDR has a similar record. With lots of things going on, some very good, many bad. 3 sounds good. 2 sounds more accurate though.

Civil Liberties: 1. I wouldn't call him the worst record here in history. But it's pretty ugly. Patriot Act, FISA, wiretapping, torture, 'enemy combatants', excessive security checkpoints at airplanes, bizarre FCC guidelines, blurring of faith and state (essentially a lack of freedom of religion). He reminds me of Adams the First. I guess if one includes the expansion of liberties to Iraqis, this is much higher...except the cost of that has been all these meaningless restrictions at home.

Foreign policy: 1. There are big issues here that could make it higher or lower in about a decade. While he clearly had a plan of sorts, it wasn't a very coherent plan or particularly useful strategy to implement. There was too much brawn and no brain in it. Strong-arm diplomacy is America circa 1900 in Latin America (See TR's revolt in Panama and the 'Banana Republics'). We never really used it during the Cold War until Reagan directly did so with Russia. I guess it worked ok then, but we're not dealing with a single nation or organization to fight against now..so why it would work now makes no sense. Not to mention that the two countries I would have targeted were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which were supposedly allies during all this mess. If it's up to me, this is a 1...but to be somewhat objective there are some improvements as a result of his actions. I'm not sure whether to attribute them to some sort of master plan though. So 1 it is.

And no, this overall rating (2) doesn't put Bush as the worst US President in history, just in the bottom 5. His 'hero' Truman comes in the top 10, for good reasons (his only problems being some crony scandals and petty firings, plus poor economic policies). Bush comes in around Van Buren and other such luminaries as Nixon, Hoover, and Andrew Johnson.