about

essays past

current

other writing

other dots com

Click here if you are using Microsoft's
defective Windows Explorer browser. Why?
Posted March 14, 2003

Worst President, Current Term

Wirkman Virkkala

Helen Thomas has made her mark on the American presidency, publicly interrogating every president from JFK on. But her recent remark that the current president is the worst in all American history is what may mark her own career most deeply. The historical record of the current Bush administration hasn't been written yet, so we don't know how History will treat Ms. Thomas's statement. I'm betting on a rather favorable nod from good ol' History (that personification of an imaginary consensus of judgment), but then I'm known for betting on long shots.

Jesse Walker offers a more balanced perspective on Ms. Thomas's statement in particular, and Bush-hating in general. I'm impressed with Jesse's even-handedness — something usually lacking in journalism about presidents — but am nevertheless chagrined that he doesn't get to the heart of my hatreds for the two most recent presidents: how each, in his own way, sought to undermine the institutions that I believe are the sole source of honor for our nation-state. I regard both gentlemen as betrayers of a great and too-often-maligned tradition. And I regard both as deeply suspect in the personal morality department, too. This being the case, I think Jesse is just a bit too harsh on both the Clinton-haters and the Bush-haters.

Now, my biggest problem with the bulk of the Clinton-haters and the bulk of the Bush-haters is the same: the partisan nature of their hate. Few Bush-hateres hate Clinton with anything like the same intensity; few Clinton-haters take the logic of their hate for the two-term president and apply it rigorously to the new president.

On the matter of Clinton and Bush, I take a little pride in hating both. However, in defense of those Bush-haters who hate Bush more than Clinton, I offer three reasons to hate Bush more:

1. Bush's warmongering is far more dangerous to America's remnant of a republic than anything Clinton ever did.


2. Bush is increasing government spending far more than Clinton managed, and is cavalierly throwing aside all of the hard-won Clinton-era habits of balanced budgeting.


3. Bush is demonstrably less smart than Clinton — at least in the book-smarts, memory-smarts, language-smarts category — and is thus far more offensive to people like me who value intelligence. (Don't you find it hard not to be ashamed of a culture that honors dunderheadedness with the highest office in the land?)

These three reasons justify, I think, hating the current president at least a bit more than the previous.

There's an additional reason, too: philosophical anarchists* should learn to reflexively despise the biggest danger, and can only afford to wax sentimental and humane towards those politicians who, by being out of office, can no longer do much damage. So there should be a natural tendency of decent men and women to always hate — and even underestimate the value of — any sitting president. (The classic case of this is surely Lysander Spooner's open letter to Grover Cleveland, the most honorable president of the last half of the nineteenth century.)

And as for Helen Thomas: I forgive her for a reasonable hyperbole. It is obvious that her heart's in the right place.

Click here for this site's general fair-use permissions statement.

Text-based menu: about  ||||  essays past  ||||  current  ||||  other writing  ||||  other dots com & net & org etc.  ||||  classic texts