Dog Bites Man

Fred Hiatt concedes that George W. Bush is a bad president but manages to lavish undeserved praise on him anyway:

But valuable strands of policy also may end up strewn in the wreckage, victims (in varying combinations) of President Bush's ineptitude, inconstancy and unpopularity. Among these are what Bush called compassionate conservatism, now moribund; American promotion of democracy abroad, now flailing; and accountability in elementary and high school education, losing ground as it approaches a major test in Congress.

The editorial goes on to note, correctly, that compassionate conservatism never actually existed since it "was an early casualty of Bush's fiscal policy, which tilted the tax code toward the wealthy at a time of rising inequality, forced the government to devote increasing sums to pay interest on the national debt and ensured that less and less would be available for social programs for the vulnerable." The editorial also notes that Bush has not, in fact, promoted democracy and his alleged agenda on this score "has had little success: Iraq and Afghanistan remain at war, tentative gains for democracy in the Mideast have been reversed, and autocracies in the former Soviet Union, China, Iran and elsewhere are emboldened." On education, meanwhile, the main legislative forces behind No Child Left Behind -- Ted Kennedy and George Miller -- are chairing the relevant House and Senate committees and none of the Democratic presidential candidates favor ending the school accountability provisions whose continuation Hiatt is worried about it.

There's just no story here. The Bush administration has almost no positive legacy, and on those areas where good things have happened (NCLB and AIDS funding are the two I can think of) Democrats show every sign of wanting to continue the positive and perhaps make some improvements around the margin. It's an inconvenient reality since I, too, would rather demonstrate independent thinking and cleverness by identifying some hidden downside to Bush not being president, but there's nothing there.

Comments

I'm a big fan of what he's done to daylight savings time. Credit where due.

Posted by dan | July 2, 2007 11:02 AM

I still like the tax cuts too, I'll take more please.

Posted by Dave S. | July 2, 2007 11:18 AM

Well, the one obvious upside to having Bush as president is that neoconservatism has been discredited, and conservatism in general has had a political setback.

But, this is sort of like saying that the upside of having Hitler in power was that Nazism was discredited.

Posted by Jim W | July 2, 2007 11:19 AM

I think later generations will concur that Bush's most valuable contribution to American culture was the Do Not Call list.

Unfortunately, its name may also serve as an apt, polyvalent motto for the Bush years: don't use the phone, it may be tapped; don't call the experts for help, just do what feels right in your gut; and, as all Americans will be saying come the start of 2009, "Hope you enjoy Crawford, Bushie; don't call us, we'll call you."

Posted by lampwick | July 2, 2007 11:20 AM

Yes, the Do Not Call list baby.

Posted by Korha | July 2, 2007 11:28 AM

It's convenient for Hiatt to talk about NCLB in the most basic, abstracted terms. NCLB boosters seem to suffer from the same pathologies that boosters of the immigration bill showed: they assume that, because there's broad consensus that there is probably some conceivable set of reforms that would be desirable, the bill that actually gets passed must be good as long as it has a passing similarity to some of the proposals people favored. Because they Got Something Done, I guess. And sure, NCLB is a great law as long as you're starting from the premise that there's no such thing as a bad high-consequence federal school accountability law.

Matt, earlier posts you've made seem to suggest that you're pretty aware of all the ridiculous structural flaws in NCLB. I wonder why you're willing to put it in the "positive legacy" column.

Posted by aeroman | July 2, 2007 11:34 AM

"The Bush administration has almost no positive legacy, and on those areas where good things have happened (NCLB and AIDS funding are the two I can think of) Democrats show every sign of wanting to continue the positive and perhaps make some improvements around the margin. "

AIDS funding has been better than the Clinton years. Much more should be done, of course, but one should also recognise Bush is doing this against the wishes of his hard-core base. Same with immigration.

2000-2008, Iraq not longer a dictatorship, Afghanistan no longer under the Taliban, harboring al Qaeda, Syria kicked out of Lebanon, Ukraine ousts corrupt Russian-linked autocracy, etc.
A lot of this stuff was beyond Bush's control or he had little influence, but still I think the partisan anti-bushies are a little too partisan in their cherry-picking and distort the true picture.

Posted by Peter K. | July 2, 2007 11:47 AM

I think that his greatest contribution has been to prove once and for all that the people who act all spiritual and servile to the entity formerly known as God are all full of shit.

Posted by gregor | July 2, 2007 12:09 PM

The Bush administration has almost no positive legacy

You forgot Mars!

Posted by william | July 2, 2007 12:11 PM

Medicare Part D and the NCLB are as consequential as any of Bill Clinton's legislative accomplishments.

Also, EGTRRA included the most significant pension reform in twenty years, including the creation of Roth 401(k)s, huge increases in annual contribution limits to IRAs (from $2k to $4k, or $5k for those over fifty), 401(k)s (from $8,500 to $15,500), etc.

Posted by Harry | July 2, 2007 12:17 PM

A little while back, a reporter asked Bush what he thought his legacy would be. After a pause, Bush said: "Compassionate conservatism".

Seriously? "Compassionate conservatism"? Let's see... he did set up the Office of Faith-Based Operations, but only a fraction of the promised money ended up where it was supposed to.

NCLB? The best that can be said about NCLB is that at least it didn't do any real harm (unlike most of Bush's other policies). Most studies find that NCLB hasn't made any noticable difference, good or bad, to the educational system (with many states misrepresenting test scores to meet the unrealistic goalposts set by NCLB).

AIDS funding? Well, I can't quibble with giving more funding to AIDS study & relief, but keep in mind Bush allocated very little "new" money to AIDS funding, rather he shifted money from other, existing disease programs.

From a conservative viewpoint, perhaps you could say Bush's only real lasting legacy is the further rightward tilting of the SCOTUS by the appointment of two rightwing hatchetmen. That would be the same SCOTUS that, just last week, came out for Segregation & against free speech. Conservatives may see this as a positive thing, but "compassionate conservatism" it's not.

Bush is casting about for a legacy, & I gotta say, he's coming up dry. What Bush doesn't seem to understand -- & you'd think we would -- is that legacies are like nicknames: you don't get to pick your own. History, not GW Bush, will judge & determine GW Bush's legacy &, somehow, I don't think history will be kind.

Posted by raff | July 2, 2007 12:22 PM

I think he's actually done a little bit to fight human trafficking. On a scale of 1 to 10, that could boost him up to a 2.05 (with all scores below 2 reserved for those who order a full-scale nuclear assault upon our own country.)

Posted by Njorl | July 2, 2007 12:24 PM

Seems like I read somewhere that much of the AIDS funding was for abstinence-only programs. At the very least, I would be suspicious of anything that seems positive about this administration until I knew more.

Posted by 14All | July 2, 2007 12:26 PM

rampant cheating, teaching to the test/curriculum narrowing excluding anything other than reading and math, demoralized teachers working on their own time trying to get the lower-testing kids to pass, budgetary punishing of already poorly funded schools and school systems, federal authority and federally set priorities replacing those of local schoolboards and what they deem best for their own kids, and the reflexive republican fetish of "accountability" enshrined in the public schools forever, and that fetish spreading to higher education as well (in the priorities of college accreditation boards)---remind me whats so successful about NCLB? sheesh. aeroman gets it.

Posted by forkinit | July 2, 2007 12:34 PM

Cry me a river, forkinit. The reality is that as long as there is a one standard deviation gap in average IQ scores between blacks and whites, no reform will get average black academic performance to match average white scores. But since politicians are supposed to maintain the fiction that everyone has equal abilities, it made sense for Bush to try to hold schools that take federal money accountable for closing the academic achievement gap. It's not as if the old Dem strategy of throwing money at education with no accountability achieved great results.

Posted by Harry | July 2, 2007 12:43 PM

The editorial goes on to note, correctly, that compassionate conservatism never actually existed since it "was an early casualty of Bush's fiscal policy, which tilted the tax code toward the wealthy at a time of rising inequality, forced the government to devote increasing sums to pay interest on the national debt and ensured that less and less would be available for social programs for the vulnerable."

Gee, and all this time I thought that "compassionate conservatism" never actually existed because it empty campaign catch-phrase rhetoric to help the stupid fuck get into the White House (mission accomplished, by the way).

Posted by ed | July 2, 2007 1:20 PM

Such short term memories! As I remember it, our confident POTUS, looking at the world in 2004, pinpointed with his amazing eye our national tragedy - steroid use among baseball players - and made it the centerpiece of one of his many magnificent state of the union addresses. And look where we are today - nobody is talking about that rampant steroid use. Mission once again Accomplished, Mr. President. Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

And some have dared to say that he isn't among our very greatest presidents.

Posted by roger | July 2, 2007 1:43 PM

Medicare Part D and the NCLB are as consequential as any of Bill Clinton's legislative accomplishments.

Maybe, maybe not, but both are terribly flawed. They're consequential pieces of legislation, but not in a positive way.

Posted by John Emerson | July 2, 2007 2:10 PM

I suspect, whether we like it or not, that Bush's economic record will look pretty darn good a few years down the road.

Posted by right | July 2, 2007 2:35 PM

Re: "It's not as if the old Dem strategy of throwing money at education with no accountability achieved great results."

Do you prefer the new Repube strategy of throwing money ($1 trillion and counting) into the ridiculous Iraq war, with no accountability?

Posted by Jim W | July 2, 2007 2:39 PM

Re: "I suspect, whether we like it or not, that Bush's economic record will look pretty darn good a few years down the road."

I suspect that, compared to Bush's record in other areas, you're right.

Posted by Jim W | July 2, 2007 2:41 PM

right, I suspect it will look golden - for the wealthiest ten percent. Otherwise, it looks pisspoor - and no distance will ever make it look more than pisspoor. It is the end result of the politics of inequality that was set in motion under Reagan, the first economic upturn that did not benefit the majority of Americans. Even Reagan's boom lifted the "small boats" - Bush's, however, was designed to benefit the few, and functioned perfectly.

Posted by roge | July 2, 2007 2:45 PM

"manages to lavish undeserved praise on him anyway"

Could it have something to do with the fact that his employer WP is a major beneficiary of No Child Left Behind? WP company Kaplan has received big govt contracts for No Child Left Behind.

And another thing; shouldn't WP reveal its conflict of interest when covering Bush's NCLB policy?

Posted by DonB | July 2, 2007 2:53 PM

"I suspect, whether we like it or not, that Bush's economic record will look pretty darn good a few years down the road."

Rise in the number of people living below poverty. Growing gap between the rich and poor. Trillions of dollars of debt. Rising trade deficits. Jobs outsourced overseas. Stagnant wages.

Other than that it has been "darn good".

Posted by DonB | July 2, 2007 2:58 PM

"AIDS funding has been better than the Clinton years."

That's because the GOP controlled Congress rejected Clinton's request for more AIDS funding.

Posted by DonB | July 2, 2007 3:11 PM

"I still like the tax cuts too, I'll take more please."

The so called "tax cut" is charged to your family's credit card. You and your children will be paying it back with interest for generations to come.

Posted by DonB | July 2, 2007 3:14 PM

"Do you prefer the new Repube strategy of throwing money ($1 trillion and counting) into the ridiculous Iraq war, with no accountability?"

Great analogy, JimW. Following your logic, we should cut off funding ($trillions so far, including state and local taxes) for the ridiculous idea of compulsory education for ghetto black and Hispanic kids, since it's clearly not working.

Posted by Harry | July 2, 2007 3:39 PM

2000-2008, Iraq not longer a dictatorship, Afghanistan no longer under the Taliban, harboring al Qaeda, Syria kicked out of Lebanon, Ukraine ousts corrupt Russian-linked autocracy,

The comedy stylings of Peter K -- brought to you for free here at Atlantic blogs!

Sorry, I have to laugh so I don't cry.

Posted by mq | July 2, 2007 3:45 PM

Harry,

Great idea. Its a two-fer. In addition to saving money, we can use all those uneducated darkies as cannon fodder for the next grand adventure the neocons dream up.

Posted by Jim W | July 2, 2007 3:54 PM

JimW,

Don't parade your ignorance. Most of the African American young men who fail out of high school can't score high enough the military's AFQT to get in.

Posted by Harry | July 2, 2007 4:15 PM

I can feel your disappointment. All that cannon fodder. So close, and yet so far.

Posted by Jim W | July 2, 2007 4:18 PM

Don't you feel dirty after that projecting, JimW? Go donate a few bucks to Obama's campaign so you'll feel better. President Obama will solve the problems of black America for you.

Posted by Harry | July 2, 2007 5:21 PM

The Bush administration quietly created a better political and economic relationship with India, who I think will succeed the United States as a world power by the middle to end of this century in the way that the United States succeeded Great Britain. If that happens, the progress made in these years will be seen as a fairly important achievement.

Other than that, on issues that anyone cares about in the here-and-now, a complete, unqualified failure.

Posted by robsalk | July 2, 2007 5:24 PM

Harry, it was a fair cop on Jim W.'s part to call you on being a racist. I would think that you would agree. At the center of racism is the belief that one race is intrinsically inferior to another, right? So be proud. Put on those white robes and the hood with pride. Don't bow to that PC correctness, now. There's nothing more distasteful than a bigot who desperately wants liberal respect. Even the white citizens councils look down that half and half sensibility.

Posted by roger | July 2, 2007 5:29 PM

I don't like the tone in the comments of Harry, but we should also not excoriate someone who suggests that perhaps there are intrinsic differences in characteristics of different ethnic groups, or differences between genders, or whatever. I know obviously there's a lot of empirical debate on that question, but what if it's true? There are policy implications that flow from the fact, which could still be consistent with liberal goals.

Posted by nbt | July 2, 2007 5:54 PM

"At the center of racism is the belief that one race is intrinsically inferior to another, right?"

You are asking me to define racism at the same time you accuse me of it? Let me respond in any case.

"Inferior" is overly general, not to mention gratuitously invidious. It's more accurate to say that different racial groups differ in their average abilities. This is empirically unassailable. By every objective measure (SATs, MCATs, IQ tests, etc.) blacks under-perform whites by a large margin (and whites under-perform Northeast Asians by a smaller margin). Are these achievement gaps due to inherent factors? I don't know, but it seems reasonable to assume they are at least partly inherent.

Does that make blacks "inferior" to whites, or whites "inferior" to Northeast Asians? I don't believe in making such value judgments based solely on intelligence or academic ability.

I also don't any race. If you still want to call me a "racist" for acknowledging that there are differences in ability between different races, I can't stop you, but all you are really doing is stigmatizing anyone who looks at reality objectively.

Posted by Harry | July 2, 2007 6:21 PM

The sentence above should have read, "I also don't hate any race." I have so little hate in me I accidentally left out the word "hate".

Posted by Harry | July 2, 2007 6:23 PM

Re: I think that his greatest contribution has been to prove once and for all that the people who act all spiritual and servile to the entity formerly known as God are all full of shit.

When did Bush act that way? His "spirituality" is, at best, two feet wide and a micron deep. And as far as being subservient to God, haven't you noticed that God always seems to want exactly what Bush does?

Posted by JonF | July 2, 2007 6:48 PM

Harry is a genteel racist. He doesn't hate the darkies. He just wants them to recognize their subhumanity. How could anyone recognize any hatred in that?

There ain't no such thing as "race". (Amusing that he would include Obama as an African-American. Barack Obama has not a single African-American ancestor.)

As Heinlein said, however, there do exist subhumans, defined as those who can't do math. This group happens to include everyone who reads and believes The Bell Curve.

Go back to your cave, Harry.

Posted by eyelessgame | July 2, 2007 8:29 PM

"000-2008, Iraq not longer a dictatorship,"

Yay for illiberal ethnic democracy!

"Afghanistan no longer under the Taliban, harboring al Qaeda,"

The Taliban has re-grouped, Bush let OBL get away and the problem has spilled over into nuclear Pakistan.

"Syria kicked out of Lebanon,"

Syria continues to kill political enemies in Lebanon. In addition, the Cedar Revolution was partly inspired by Al-Jazeera's broadcasts of the Orange Revolution. Bush contemplated bombing AJ.

"Ukraine ousts corrupt Russian-linked autocracy."

The biggest outside supporter of the Orange Revolution was Poland. So how does your list help Bush? Why not just credit Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin with all of this while you're at it?

Posted by Reality Man | July 2, 2007 11:47 PM

"There ain't no such thing as "race"."

Even The New York Times doesn't believe that foolishness anymore: "Humans Have Spread Globally, and Evolved Locally" (June 26, 2007). Why do you?

"As Heinlein said, however, there do exist subhumans, defined as those who can't do math."

So you agree with Heinlein that the racial groups that do the worst in math (i.e., blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans) are subhuman? And I'm the racist? Pot, meet kettle.

Posted by Harry | July 3, 2007 12:06 AM

To the extent that different races (or ethnic groups, if you prefer that term) have different IQ scores that are based on genetic or prenatal differences, the obvious response is not to try to close an achievement gap between them, but rather to improve achievement within the same group.

I don't believe our education system is so good right now, that any of these groups are doing as well as they could do. I mean, the goal isn't to have every group performing equally, but rather to the best of their potential.

Posted by Jim W | July 3, 2007 9:25 AM

What JimW said. Unfortunately, political correctness required the NCLB to have an emphasis on closing gaps between blacks and Hispanics, on the one hand, and whites and Asians, on the other.

Posted by Harry | July 3, 2007 9:31 AM

'Why not just credit Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin with all of this while you're at it?"

Actually China has been propping up genocidal, authoritarian regimes like Sudan, Burma, etc., etc.

Posted by Peter K. | July 5, 2007 12:00 PM