Just The Two Of Us

Can we agree that neither Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush should be considered the worst President of all-time?

The anti-Bush crowd despises Dubya for the same reasons the anti-Clinton crowd despises Bubba: Bush and Clinton are regarded by their critics as arrogant, unscrupulous men who lucked their way into power. The left will always argue that the Supreme Court handed the 2000 election to Bush; the right will always argue that Ross Perot handed the 1992 election to Clinton.

Bush and Clinton are both flawed Presidents: the latter clearly lied under oath in the Lewinsky case, and the former failed to reach his potential as a great President. However, it’s hard to argue that either man deserves consideration as the worst Commander-in-Chief ever.

Was Clinton really worse than Lyndon Johnson, who mishandled Vietnam and who wasted trillions of dollars on an unjust, unnecessary quagmire known as the War on Poverty? Was Clinton really worse than Jimmy Carter, who ruined everything he touched between 1977 and 1981?

Similarly, was Bush really worse than Richard Nixon, who viewed the Constitution the same way O. J. Simpson viewed his ex-wife? Was he really worse than Gerald Ford, who gave us “Whip Inflation Now” buttons and (God help us) John Paul Stevens?

I didn’t like Clinton’s Supreme Court appointments, or his attempt to blame Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing, or his numerous campaign-finance scandals, but he did get a few things right, most notably the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement and the 1996 welfare-reform effort. Had he not repeatedly lied to the American people, and had he pursued a truly centrist platform during the first two years of his Presidency, he would have been seen as one of our better Presidents.

Much of the Clinton Administration was a circus: the bizarre actions of the Civil Rights Division of his Justice Department, Al Gore’s claim of “no controlling legal authority,” Jocelyn Elders’ curious opinions on abstinence, Janet Reno’s unconscionable actions in the Elian Gonzalez case. Yet Clinton cannot honestly be considered the worst President ever.

Neither can Bush. Yes, the case against Bush is long: No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the absolute refusal to control the borders, the Harriet Miers fiasco, the Dubai Ports World deal, the numerous problems involving the prosecution of the Iraq War. Yet Bush has also had his high points. The national economy, while currently experiencing tremendous strife, has been uncommonly strong for the majority of this decade. Bush appointed two exemplary judges to the Supreme Court. In addition, while it may be a cliché at this point, his controversial national-security actions have indeed prevented a second 9/11-sryle attack.

Like Clinton, Bush squandered his potential for greatness. There was a time between late-2001 and late-2004 in which people talked about Bush as though he could potentially surpass Ronald Reagan as a great President. No one’s talking that way now. Bush has had an absolutely miserable second term: his party lost control of the House and Senate, he lost control of his domestic agenda, and—prior to the surge—he lost control of the war.

When Bush leaves office, the left will celebrate for days on end, just as the right did after January 20, 2001. Then the rejoicing will end, and Bush will likely settle into history alongside his father as a President who could have been great, but missed the mark.

Of course, I think 43 is better than 42, though neither man was as great as 40. Clinton was never truly tested, never forced to face the limits of his courage and spirit; that’s why he never rose above mediocrity as President. Bush was tested by 9/11, and passed with flying colors—but on his second test, Iraq, his scores weren’t as high as they needed to be.

Yet neither man flunked. Clinton was ultimately defeated by his own hubris, but he was not as incompetent as Carter, nor was he as reckless as Johnson. Bush never sank to Nixon’s depths, and never embarrassed himself as extensively as Ford did.

It was wrong for the right to regard Clinton as the worst person ever to step foot in the Oval Office, and it’s equally wrong for the left to view Bush the same way. We’ve seen better, and worse, leaders of the free world. Clinton and Bush never matched the magnitude of the office—but history shows that very few men can.