Is George Bush the Worst President in my lifetime?

The evidence on this is getting to be overwhelming.  I was born in 1960, so that means I have lived through the following Presidents:

Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
G. W. Bush

So while Bush's rhetoric is often market oriented, the reality of his policies have been statist from the beginning.

He provided protection to the steel industry while claiming that free trade was a cornerstone of his policies.  After 9/11 he has repeatedly argued that we must defend our freedom and way of life in the West, while residing over an expansion of statist power that restricts our freedom in the name of security and undermines the rule of law,  and embroiled us in a military conflict with no clear end-game that actually makes us less secure and more vulnerable to crisis.  He spends more than Johnson did and he is willing to intervene in the economy like Nixon and Carter.  What sort of fiscal conservative and free market advocate is President Bush?

His latest proposal is for a rate freeze to stem the tide of foreclosures due to the subprime mortgage crisis.  Bad policies caused the first distortion in the mortgage market, and now policy-makers will chase after the consequences of the first distortion with new interventions causing an entirely new round of distortions.  Mises's dynamics of interventionism might be the single most important theoretical idea to understanding how the US economic system is slouching toward disaster.

So I am now more than willing to entertain the notion that George W. Bush has done more than any President in my lifetime to put the cause of liberty back with his military interventionism, domestic regulations, and economic policies.  Unfortunately, I don't think there is an easy way for us to dig out from underneath the mess of interventions he has introduced in the US and abroad.  I am now 47 years old and sick to my stomach with the idea that Ronald Reagan will be the only quasi-classical liberal President in my lifetime -- and Reagan himself had his own significant divergence between rhetoric and reality.  For reasons similar to those that Steve Horwitz raised, I cannot get that excited about Ron Paul --- though I do appreciate that he is consistently challenging the Iraq War.  My attitude toward politics remains extremely cynical, if somewhat more depressing now than ever before.  (I tend to follow the idea that you can either laugh or cry at politics and I have always more or less laughed at the buffoonery , but the cumulative effect of Bush's policies is hard to laugh at --- especially since the prospects for a post-Bush push for pro-liberty policies is so unlikely.  The prospect of the next President Clinton is scary because she will not be blocked by divided government and her ideas are 100% worse in terms of statism than even Bill's were.)

So like Mises before us, we may have to admit to ourselves that our aspirations to be theorists will be crowded out by the reality of becoming historians of a decline. Our only hope lies in the great creative and productive powers of the market economy (what is often called wrongly capitalism).  If the Smithian gains from trade, and the Schumpeterian gains from technological innovation outpace the Stupidity of Government, then the negative consequences of government intervention can be ameliorated to a considerable extent (not completely but enough that wealth will continually be produced and we will continue to experience economic progress).  But if the Stupidity of government policies curtails trade, and deters innovation -- in effect strangling the very engine of our progress -- then the decline of the US economy will not be just significant but catastrophic.  It has happened elsewhere, it can happen here. And if so, George W. Bush's name will be remembered in history but for reasons that nobody will want to be remembered!

Comments

[Adam Nobles]

The vision of the future currently unfolding is a depressing one for any supporter of liberty. Of course, the question begged is, "What can I do about it?" Since voters have discovered they have the ability to vote themselves other peoples' money, a cynical view of politics seems appropriate. While economic education is a tool of immense power, is it enough to combat the increasingly collectivist incentives created by our expanding state?

[Mario Rizzo]

Hooray for Pete!
Another, but closely related, aspect of Bush's terrible presidency is his Constitutional record. Everyone interested in Bush should read Healy and Lynch, Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush, published by Cato. It is available at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6330

Day after day we learn of new damning information like the Intelligence report stating that Iran is not working on a nuclear bomb and the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes allegedly for national security reasons -- but more likely to prevent Congressional investigators from seeing the methods applied to extract information, etc. So the issue is not only prosperity but liberty.
(Finally, was I wrong to argue that Gary Becker should turn down the Medal of Freedom from such a man? Some people said that this public act of Becker was none of my business.)

[Warren Miller]

I completely agree w/Peter. W. has been one of the most god-awful presidents ever. Here's a partial list of his transgressions from my standpoint:

1. Firing no one after the 9/11 strike on our country.

2. Firing no one after the Iraq intel bust.

3. Firing no one after the latest "disclosure" that the Iranians have (supposedly) not been pursuing nuclear weapons for over four (4) years.

4. Mediscare prescription drug plan.

5. Protective tariffs for the steel industry.

6. The Farm Bill.

7. No vetoes of budgetary items until 2007.

8. No Child Left Behind Act.

9. Asking no sacrifice of us when he took the country to war.

10. Not even discussing the desirability of a declaration of war.

11. Not ditching Cheney in 2004.

12. Not firing Rumsfeld on 9/12/2001. (Rationale: we can fight a war, or we can reform the military, but we cannot do both simultaneously. Rumsfeld was hired to reform the military. When that idea left, he should have, too.)

13. Not assembling a first-rate staff until the last two years of his presidency.

14. Not nominating Hank Paulson in 2001.

15. Nominating Bernanke.

16. Sitting idly by while Bernanke quickly gutted the dollar.

17. Not requiring Bernanke to publish M3.

18. Failing to hold a news conference every week.

19. Adopting a bunker mentality.

20. Wearing his religion on his sleeve.

21. Not attacking "static budgeting" @ the CBO.

22. Transforming the notion of principle into pigheadedness.

I could go on, but these are the things that come to my mind on the spur of the moment. He has been the greatest political disappointment I ever voted for. At least we knew that Nixon was a liar. Bush could have been one of the greatest. Instead, he will go down--and rightly so--near the bottom of the heap.

Thanks for the great work this blog does!

Warren

[Steven Horwitz]

Not a word of argument from me on this one Pete. There hasn't been a worse one in my lifetime. (And stick a link in to the reference to my Paul post - I think it needs more comments .)

But here's a serious question: in November of 2000 I thought Bush was the lesser of two evils compared to Gore. Knowing what I knew at that time, with 9/11 yet to come, I would stand by that judgment. However, with history in our rearview mirror, and as much as I loathe Algore, it is simply hard to imagine that he would have been worse.

He might have been marginally worse on economic liberty (Bush has been plenty bad), but it's hard to imagine he would have been as bad on civil liberties and empire-building. The one hesitation I have is that if he'd got his way with environmental regulation, he may well have choked off the forces of progress Pete mentions much more than W has. Still, on the whole, I can't imagine Gore being as bad - at least the Constitution would still have some meaning.

Thoughts folks?

[Greg Ransom]

When running for President Bush let it be known that he didn't think much of liberty and America's founding ideology. In his 1999 "Duty of Hope" speech Bush said this:

"We must apply our conservative and free-market ideas to the job of helping real human beings — because any ideology, no matter how right in theory, is sterile and empty without that goal."

The job of government is to help "real human beings" (as opposed to fake ones, I suppose), and the ideas of liberty and the rule of law are sterile and empty, unless government can somehow manipulate these to pursue it's real goals. Pathetic.

This is what Michael Gerson calls "Heroic Conservatism". Gerson identifies Jimmy Carter, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson as his "Heroes", so we have some idea what he means by "Heroic Conservatism". Gerson penned Bush's "Duty of Hope" speech, and much of his rhetoric in the first term. The idea here is that the 19th century rejection of the market by the Pope is the model for contemporary "conservative" thought, or so suggests Gerson. To the extent that Bush has had a "brain" when it comes to ideas, that brain has been Gerson rather than Rove. So folks who don't like the intellectual legacy of the Bush Republicans should spend some time taking apart the ideas of Gerson.

[Kevin from Local Mortgage Quest]

I can't believe what a mess Bush has got us into. Billions of dollars going down the drain in Iraq, a screwed up set of advisers, and now this credit crunch. This could be a scary next couple of years...

[jim casey]

Just curious - but why are almost all of you "Libertarians" at GMU?

[Tzvika]

My answer to the question in the title: No, He's only a close second worst to the gold-standard-abolishing, price-controls-brandishing, R.M. Nixon.

Great Blog!

[Rafe Champion]

You can all relax, our new Prime Minister has pledged to unite the world on climate change initiatives. He has written a critique of Hayek on social justice as well.

http://www.cis.org.au/Events/policymakers/krudd_lecture.pdf

[Anon]

And would Dr Boettke (just like the other phoney baloeny play anarchists at GMU) accept the Presidential Medal of Freedom from dubya? You bet he would.

[Prychitko]

Pete and Steve:

How does this square with your claims that "it's getting better all the time"? I agree with Mario, it's not only an issue of prosperity, but of liberty. The Patriot Act, to me, takes us well into a greater course of destruction than the stupid rate freeze. I honestly don't see how you guys can remain eternal optimists... my goodness, look at the administrations we've lived through, and you guys -- my good friends -- claim it is getting better all the time. (Well, as John Lennon added -- "It can't get much worse"...)

Not looking for a debate, by the way, but just chiming in and exiting as quickly as possible.

[Greg Ransom]

Libertarians and economists may have contempt for the Bush Presidency, but it's worth paying attention to the fact that Bush and the Bush Republicans have equal contempt for economists and libertarians. This contempt has several sources -- they see themselves as politically powerful and numerous, and the libertarians and economists as politically powerless; they see themselves as righteous and Christian, they see most libertarians and economists as unrighteous and unChristian (see for example, the writings of Bush speech writer Michael Gerson, who dismisses fiscal conservatives (his term) as "small minded, cold, and uninspired", among other ethical slams against them); and they see economists and libertarians as intellectual and moral inferiors, and themselves as intellectually and morally superior. It's not so uncommmon to see a Bush Republican dismiss a whole line of argument as something persuasive merely to the people working at the CATO Institute. I'm not making that up.

For a Bush Republican, it's something of a "conversation stopper" to bring a discussion to its (proper) end by dismissing it as the mere concern of a libertarian or an economist.

So libertarians and economists have their work cut out for them in trying to figure out how to have a productive dialog with this powerful block within the American political community -- if they care to participate in such a thing.

Bruce Bartlett has a good book taking a look at how Bush and his administration pushed traditional Republican economic policy making off the table. Eye opening reading.

[Mike Jones]

May I ask why you do not support Dr. Paul's Campaign Dr. Boettke? He has pictures of Mises and other Austrian economists on the walls of his office on Capitol Hill!!! He quotes Mises often and he seems to be much more aligned with libertarians than just his anti- war stance. Why no mention of his monetary policy? Why does it seem to be the cool thing to do pie in the sky academics to be so aloof about politics when this principled man tries to spread the message of freedom? Why not support the only prospect "for a post-Bush push for pro-liberty policies"? Why not support the only candidate that could actually defeat Hillary Clinton?

[TGGP]

Ron Paul is far more of a libertarian than Ronald Reagan, or pretty much any other elected politician I can think of. Is there any politician that you support more than him? I cannot think of any more deserving of it from a libertarian perspective.

[Ryan]

Great post.

[ArrowDebreu]

Jimmy Carter should also get a nod as semi-acceptable on your list. He did, after begin deregulation, reduce the number of employees in executive branch, support individual rights around the world. No one on your list is really any good, but relative to the others Carter was (and is) not bad.

As for the foreclosure rate freeze -- Roubini has a cogent defense of it. I think it raises terrible moral hazard issues for the future, but it is clear that investors and borrowers are both better off with this than with a cascade of foreclosures that collapses the real estate markets and leaves everyone with nothing.

But yes, W. Bush is the worst.

[Dan Murray]

While I agree with the critical evaluation of the George W presidency what I find depressing is the "whining" nature of the article. I believe in liberal economics. I also believe that government control of things like a police force, and army, etc..makes good sense. If you folks ever hope to generate a significant following (and I hope you do)start by offering a positive vision of what the future could be.

[Steven Horwitz]

Two replies to earlier comments:

I can't speak for Pete, but I have offered my own reasons for being skeptical of Ron Paul from what I'd label a "left-libertarian" perspective in a blog post here: http://hnn.us/blogs/comments/45044.html

And for my old friend Dave:

I think the resolution of the apparent paradox is in the forces Pete identified at the end of his post. If the gains from trade and innovation are so strong that they outweigh (on net) the awfulness of any particular president, it's certainly possible to argue that "things are getting better all the time" and that the current president is the worst since whenever. Implicit in that point is that if Bush or whomever were better, things would be getting EVEN BETTER all the time.

For me, the test of "things are getting better" claim is simple: if you could pick the time period in which your children would come to adulthood, would it be any time but the present? It takes me a nanosecond to say "of course not." Human life has never been better than it is right now, but that's in spite of the growth of the state not because of it.

And I don't just mean this in terms of material standards of living. Looking historically, slavery is gone from US society and mostly from the planet, women have freedoms they never had before, people can make choices in their personal lives without state intervention in ways they never could in the past. Yes, things like the Patriot Act are steps backward, and open the door to larger steps backward, but the secular trend is clear.

I don't think that's contradictory with calling Bush the worst president since 1960.

[Prychitko]

"For me, the test of "things are getting better" claim is simple: if you could pick the time period in which your children would come to adulthood, would it be any time but the present? It takes me a nanosecond to say "of course not."

But Steve, you must be speaking poetically here. If that's your test, as a social scientist, it's truly not much of a test. What about the parent whose kid hasn't come back from Iraq? I don't know if it would take them a nanosecond to reach the same conclusion as you. What weight should we give to that tester? So then what, we leave the question to some kind of vote? Raise your hand if you agree with Steve's answer to his simple test, raise your hand if you disagree with Steve?

Also, who gets to vote? Social scientists and clear-thinking historians, or any household that may or may not have systematically studied the past?

In short, your "simple test" might be simple, but come on, it's not a test!

And, personally, I really don't know what "if you can pick the time period..." means. That kind of question is, to me, pure nonsense. Honestly.

[Steven Horwitz]

Call it a veil of ignorance argument Dave. If you didn't know which individual your kid would be, or if your kid were the median/average individual, in what period of time would you rather they grew to adulthood if your concern was with them living long and well?

But you're right: it's ultimately not a rigorous social scientific argument. It's a poetic one. But that doesn't make it irrelevant. If it only takes me a nanosecond to say "now," that should probably tell me something about how I'd want to orient my social scientific thinking, no? If others would say "now" as well, that would be relevant, no?

Sorry if you think it's nonsense, but it tells me something pretty clear about the world being "better" today than ever before when I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to want my kids to be growing up today than any time in the past. That's all the "things are getting better" argument boils down to, for me.

For all the doom and gloom of many about how things are so much worse today than in their parents' or grandparents' generations, that question seems to me to be one way to see if people really believe that. If they wouldn't want their kids to grow up "back then," then maybe *their* implicit social science is wrong.

[G]

How do you figure Bush is worse than LBJ? Is Iraq worse than Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin lie? Is his spending worse than the Great Society? Or is there something I'm missing?

[John V]

I echo the notion that it is senseless for any self described libertarian to not support Ron Paul. I mean really! Some of you admit to having voted for W but somehow Paul is not worthy???!!

Puhlease!!!

Talk about being overly picky and impossible to please.....while making no sense.

And yes, Dr Horowitz, I read your Paul piece and commented on it at http://.freedomdemocrats.org/node/2158

And I am very libertarian, a fan of Austrian Economics and have a somewhat cultural left POV just like you. I agreed with everything you said and still support Paul 110% just the same. How can I not in light of the other choices????

Maybe you or Boetttke should run and I'll support you instead. But until then, he's my only choice.

[Peter Boettke]

G,

You ask whether it is possible that Bush has out-spent LBJ??? I provide the link to the data that says YES.

Pete

[Unit]

Let me try to come up with all kinds of fantastic justifications for the war in Iraq:

1. The US was really angry after 9-11 and wanted it'd be known.

2. The US military loses its edge if it goes too long without fighting in a realistic conflict.

3. The forces that wish for a global government (Kyoto, the UN, etc...) were getting too ambitious and the US wanted to show that it can still go at it alone.

4. Since the US government was going to go berserk anyways after 9-11 we should consider ourselves lucky that it satisfied its rage with a couple wars overseas rather than seriously clamping down on civil liberties on US soil.

Other suggestions? (I'll soon read the Chris Coyne book...).

[Steve Horwitz]

John V writes:

"Some of you admit to having voted for W but somehow Paul is not worthy???!!"

Which "you" would that be? I don't believe any of the contributors to this blog voted for W. I sure as hell didn't. I'd be shocked if Pete, Pete, or Chris did.

And there's always an alternative to supporting Ron Paul: conscientious abstention. I simply don't believe that the electoral process is the most effective way to generate real political change. I'm not going to support a candidate who I disagreements with on issues I consider serious (and who is getting support from groups I consider to be abhorrent) when the payoff is so low. There's a noble libertarian tradition of conscientious abstention. I intend to follow it.