Foner: 1 Bush: 0

Written by

rightIt’s official, at least according to Professor Eric Foner: George Bush has already earned the honor of becoming the Worst President Ever. Foner’s in-class remarks hit the printed page and the web today with an editorial in the Washington Post’s Sunday Outlook section and a post on DailyKos, where it’s up to 473 comments as of 6:00 PM. Not that original, but perhaps more edifying than your typical anti-Bush invective. 

Tags: ,


  1. Wait for it...  

    What's the over/under on Fox news picking this up?

    I say 3 days.

  2. Yep  

    They're going to have a field day with this. Oh well.

  3. DHI  

    I thought it was interesting that he pointed out the variety of ways in which Bush has done a terrible job with the presidency. I did not, before reading the article, think he could be worse than Johnson, Buchanan, or Pierce, but now I think it might actually be under consideration (although Foner may be a little hasty in his conclusion)

  4. I thought  

    HISTORIAN implied that he was an expert on HISTORY not contemp. events

  5. well  

    it doesn't take an expert to figure this out.

  6. Anonymous historian would have many years of experience from which to draw inference, and therefore, quite a bit of expertise from which to make this evaluation.

  7. Sprinkles  

    Can we have Foner and Alma doing "YMCA" please?

  8. More like  

    More like Eric Phony-er

  9. the Man  

    There's an old saying that goes something like, "Only a fool would make a judgement about history without waiting 20 years"

    Bush is bad, no doubt. But I think it would be very premature to rank him ahead of Buchanan or Johnson at this point in time

  10. I agree  

    Much as I love Foner, I think he's jumping the gun a little irresponsibly. His whole point with Johnson is that once people are removed from the immediate political situation, our evalution of the President may change once we see the big picture. He sort of acknowledges this when he says that Bush may be viewed very differently in 2050. If that's the case, let those historians think about it. To make this judgment now, with Bush still having time in office, is both partisan and shortsighted. Don't fall into the trap, Professor, you're better than that. Don't give the right reasons to dismiss you as a partisan left-wing nut instead of seeing you for the incredible academic (I'd like to think) you are.

  11. assapopoulos  

    as foner mentioned in the article, a significant amount of time is necessary before judgements can be made, probably between 10 and 30 years. for example, right now, we have commentators and experts saying that we are losing the war; that we have lost the war; that we are winning the war; and that we have won the war, but the iraqis need to "step up". However, no one would say we won in vietnam, or lost in world war ii.

    additionally, the final legacy of a president may rest on decisions that at the time seemed comparatively minor, such as trade agreements or funding for a certain project, like the internet.

    right now, the iraq war seems (to me, at least) like a terrible mistake, but i do not think it impossible that my opinion could change in the future.

    time will tell, not eric foner.

  12. of interest  

    This seems like it's part of a commissioned series by the Washington Post, of editorials by historians on how Bush fits into the whole presidential-ranking thing:

  13. reader  

    if there was a teacher that was this pro-republican he would be fired or not allowed to speak up...what a sad little hypocritical school

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.