Well a lot have happened since early 2005 so these same historians may have different takes (presumably unfavorable) on Bush now. That said, I agree it's still too early to judge a sitting president in a historical context as there are almost three odd years left in his presidency.
About the only significant impact that a president can have on the economy is in terms of fiscal policy, in which the current administration has been a catastrophic failure on an unprecedented level. Of course, this won't be a problem till later or, after the Bush administration is "history".
"I do think that historians must always be careful that their history writing doesn't become infected by their politics. The minute you start with a political idea and try to find a version of history that affirms it, you're a bad historian. A good propagandist, maybe, but a lousy historian." --Sean Wilentz http://his.princeton.edu/people/e55/sean_wilentz_intervi.html
now that you mention it, i see what he's saying... i was looking past this current administration with his statement though. i'm not convinced that another terrorist attack would bloster the ratings for bush though. wouldn't another attack just prove that the patriot act is a failure, and render anything that he tries to claim about national/homeland security false?
here's more: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=65000623 Apparently, back in November 2000, Sean organized the "Emergency Committee of Concerned Citizens 2000", which spent more than $125,000 buying ads in the New York Times urging a "revote" in Palm Beach County, hoping to steal the election and install Al Gore in the White House. Sean Wilentz: Historian, or Partisan Hack?
Awesome. Like clockwork. A ninety million word article, this one actually calmly examining the Bush admin... texxx attacks the publication, calls liberals angry and crows "scoreboard" and basso goes straight for the impugn the character of the writer card. Still no response to the arguments, but hey, what did I expect? Actually Chance's response was pretty great.
I've asked you a thousand times how the President can control the global economy and you haven't put in a satisfactory response ever, you just mumble something irrelevant about tax cuts (amazingly, future tax cuts have retroactive effect too in the theories that you have outlined. I find the possiblity of retroactive incentive time travel far more interesting than any of yoru economic blather and would love some elaboration on that aspect.) So really I don't know if I owe you any explanation on this. But anyway, why deficits matter is generally realized by anybody who has taken an introductory level macroeconomics class, which is why the vast majority of economists generally agree. Sure, there are some wing-nut fringers out therre who think that you can run an infinite deficit forever and not lbe any worse for it, but they really have no credibility and aren't worth addressing. Did you take one or not? If not I will elaborate some more. If so then there's no need for me to continue.
i already told you, he discredits the entire article by saying that historians are generally liberals... he's a liberal histortian trying to write history, not tell it. a history professor i had back in 2002 said you can't get a real gauge of history until its about 25 yrs out, i tend to agree.
too early to tell. I don't want to judge his "reign of power" untill he has been out of office for a while. But, I think he sure as hell isn't one of the best. I've only been alive for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. I'm too young to remember Reagan's Eight years. I don't remember Bush's first two or three years. I only have Clinton, and Bush II to judge, and I think clinton did an excellent job.
This from the guy that posted, as evidence that the writer was a partisan hack, a quote about Gore trying to steal the election. You apparently take partisan hack jobs super seriously as they comprise every linked or quoted article you post here. I read plenty of partisan stuff, from both sides. I read virtually every linked article on realclearpolitics -- a site whose editorial staff are obviously wingers though the links are from both sides -- daily. But partisan (or editorial) writing represents considerably less than half of the articles I post here. Would that it were so with you. The RS article is anything but a call to arms. In fact, it is downright dispassionate. Every single person that reads or writes about politics or history has an opinion and the vast majority of them probably vote too. So what?
