In a Boston Globe editorial, here’s an accurate and true description of Bush’s accomplishments during his Presidency:
By recklessly cutting taxes, President Bush has enriched the wealthy and neglected the poor, sent the federal budget deficit to record heights, and imposed a colossal financial burden on the coming generation. He has revived the culture wars by flaunting his Christian faith and by promoting traditional values. He has undermined public schools by supporting school choice. He has eroded the wall of separation between church and state by seeking federal funding for faith-based charities. He threatens to reverse decades of progress in civil rights by packing the judiciary with right-wing extremists. He has alienated our European allies with his crude cowboy diplomacy and provided a legitimate basis for anti-Americanism around the world. And he has knowingly deceived the American people in a matter of grave national importance by resting his case for war against Iraq on trumped-up charges about weapons of mass destruction.
But then the author, who I’m embarrassed to say is a professor at my college, goes on to defend Bush’s Presidency. Bush has a poor history of leadership before the Presidency (ran two corporations into the ground) and a terribly poor Presidency as described above. Isn’t that enough to accurately judge someone’s ability to performa a job? Or can everything be reasoned away with “what ifs and “maybes” and optimistic predictions? Only in politics.
Imagine if the average worker in the US had the luxury of performing poorly at their job, harming their employer, harming the community, causing a negative image of the company to the outside world, lying about their job and then able to expect not to be fired because their intentions may not have been as bad as their actions and consequences indicate?