What do you think the Bush or Blair legacy will be in 15 years? Will they be remebered fondly, with animosity, as an "ism" (such as "Reaganism") or detested as an aside by the general press, ergo by the general populace?
The ego of any President or Prime Minister dictates that they really want to leave a positive legacy. Often this means that in spite of what they did at the time, or how popular they were (ie, huge voting numbers or re-election) their "legacy" can be quite independent from that. For example, Nixon is generally regarded to be an ass, a criminal and deeply unpopular in spite of a massive sweep of states when re-elected. Reagan was given an odd euphamistic blowjob after his death (and Nancy apparently was Sainted) and what his legacy will be in future was staunchly defended. Thatcher had huge election victories but already she is painted (rightly or wrongly, depending on your persuasion or sobriety) as a mad old bitch.
So what of Bush and Blair? I detest the "Bush = Hitler" thing as it's just insulting. And the Blair poodle thing is a tad silly too. But will Bush be remembered, as he thinks, as a heroic Churchillian defender of America (the ideal and the nation) or a warmongering dildo? Something in between? Dumb as a turnip AND an evil genius? What about Blair - tax-happy who means to do well, Conservative in disguise or saviour of the United Kingdom?
For me, Bush will not be allowed to be remembered for anything positive. Can't happen - too many enemies. And consider that when the 15 British sailors were giving their "we were treated poorly" speeches on tv this week that my initial gut comparison was to Abu Ghraib, he won't go down in memory that well. His biggest comparison over the years has been Hoover - and even Hoover has new admirers. AS for Blair, time will tell with him. Brown has been an awful awful Chancellor and that might rub off. And the enormous rise in retarded legislation and taxation is just mind-boggling. But he has done some good at home.
Any thoughts?
They tried maybe abit to hard, whether they failed or not only history will tell. At least you could say they tried to do something.
Ronald Regan is always thought of with great affection here. It puzzles me as to why. They say he brought the cold war to an end but if you look at it the USSR was imploding anyway, he just happened to be in the seat at the time.
With the end of the cold war the world became a more unstable place as despots and dictators jockied for position and a new world order.
You have also only to look at the arms to iran etc etc etc. People want to gloss over those issues and paint a rosie picture.
The problem is that history belongs to those who write the history books.
I don't see how Bush and Blair can be spun to look good, but as you say, Reagan is made to look wonderful although he lied and cheated, surely things that qualified as high crimes. IMO, the difference is that Reagan was known as the teflon president, even during his time in office, dirt didn't stick to him.
At long distance, the histories of the crusades all lead to the conclusion that the very conception of quick and lasting victory is false. I can't think of a place in the world where a short occupation brought a lasting change of political system.
thats whats wrong in some sense, some work on a long term memory, others work
on short time memory, both need to work mid term memory to come to any agreement.
There are positives for both Blair and Bush about their time in Office, if you look at it from a non political point of view and taking all the PC hype out the works.
I personelly thing Mrs T done more harm to the British persona than Blair ever done.
But think what she done needed to be done in some ways, put like many political figures took it abit to far, thus damaging what she had actived.
Maybe the answer is that we only let people in power come up with one good idea and then they have to leave lol
There are positives for . . . Bush about their time in Office,
Name some. :?:
Moo you could say how he brought the world together after 9/11. The aid he gave to all the countries after the tidal wave. Just to name some. But cuz we all suffer from short term memory loss we tend to only remember bad things.
Whats, that old news paper saying? only bad news sells. No one is interested in the good news side. That is reflected in our society today. People ignore the good to hammer home the bad.
The UN is meant to be the worlds moral compass, but they do sweet F. A whilst the city is burning around them.
AS I have said I don't believe anyone really gives a s**t about anything much these days, just as long as it does not effect them and what they want.
Sad really. Only have to look at global climate change to realise that. Those people that do not care now, will be saying "why did'nt someone do something"
sick society really
I haven't thought much about Bush's legacy. I think we're still too much in the heat of the moment. I have thought a lot about Blair though.
I think it very much depends on what happens afterwards.
It doesn't seem that long ago to me that Bill Clinton was considered a liability by Democrats who wanted him to disappear while the party re-invented itself. It wasn't just the Lewinsky factor either. With Al Gore as leader, with a whole new set of priorities, they wanted Clinton to go away and hide under a rock.
Look at him now.
Now he's senior statesmen, hero, still apparently a sex symbol. Democrats wistfully now remember him as the good old days etc. I was standing about a metre away from him at the AIDS conference here in Toronto and you'd think a rock star had entered the room. Part of it is undoubtedly comparing his great charisma and oratory abilities (I've always thought it was Clinton, not Reagan, who was and is "the great communicator) in comparison with the inarticulate George Bush. Even "wooden" Al Gore has reinvented himself.
And the point made about Ronald Reagan is true here, I just remember a bumbling guy with little attention for detail.
In British terms, in my lifetime MacMillian was treated with far more disrespect after he left No. 10 than the fawning reverence he was accorded while PM. But this was largely due to changing times and being tirelessly lampooned by Peter Cook.
Wilson was treated pretty neutrally I think. Same with Callaghan. Although, Denis Healy, at one time one of the most despised Chancellors in British history, largely blamed for devaluing the pound and putting the country's economy into the dumpster, rose Pheonix-like in the late 1980s with some (superb) memoirs and emerged as a very respected senior statesman, talked about as the greatest Prime Minister Labour didn't have.
I think the jury's still out about Thatcher. She's adored in the States of course but I think the British are still getting the taste of castor oil out of their mouth and are still trying to work out whether it was for better or for worse. Thatcher, in any case never made herself loveable, which is precisely what some people liked about her.
I think there will be more of an outpouring for her after her death.
John Major, completely ridiculed in office (most cruelly by Steve Bell in The Guardian depicting him in perennial grey airtex Y-fronts) has emerged as quite a lively likeable figure, seemingly unscathed by his time as PM. However, he hasn't had to worry much about leaving a legacy since he left office. His main achievement has been to write a book about the social history of cricket. I remember, his steady, calm, statesmanlike handling of the first Gulf War, but few people do.
Blair, I suspect may have a future rather like Clinton's in that the British people may wonder what they wished for (David Cameron perhaps?). Both men are superb communicators and often (as depicted in 'The Queen') caught the mood of the nation perfectly.
His plans are rather similar to both Clinton's and Thatcher's, to become a draw on the lucrative U.S lecture circuit and a Blair Foundation is reportedly on its way.
I think however with Clinton, one of the reasons he's still loved is precisely because there's a bad boy aspect to him, a real twinkle in the blue eyes. Wheras with Blair there's too much of a prissy, lecturing Cliff Richard feeling about him for people to ever become too nostalgic for him. His government was also so full of spin, it will also always have a duplicitous air hanging over it.
As to what Blair's legacy will be I think it will be permanently changing the Labour Party from a socialist, union-dominated party to a middle-of-the-road, middle-class institution. Some would say the work was done much earlier by John Smith and even the SDP. But it was Blair that actually did it - and for three terms! So seismic was this achievement that those close to Margaret Thatcher say that she very much doubted her own legacy. She apparently said in more depressed moments that her main achievement, however accidental, was to make Labour electable.
I
Wilson was treated pretty neutrally I think. Same with Callaghan. Although, Denis Healy, at one time one of the most despised Chancellors in British history, largely blamed for devaluing the pound and putting the country's economy into the dumpster, rose Pheonix-like in the late 1980s with some (superb) memoirs and emerged as a very respected senior statesman talked about now as the greatest Prime Minister Labour didn't have.
.
I think if people understood the issue they'd have given Healy a better evaluation and understand that devaluation was a hangover of the war, due in large part from the American demands for repayment on their lend/lease program, because we wouldn't back them in Vietnam.
As for Bush, the major issue that'll define Bush's presidency will be when the American 'World Trade Center' blew up and the subsequent revenge labeled "War on Terror" It's such an overarching issue that anything else good or bad will sink under its weight.
somebody posted it correctly already * its who writes it *
many things change politically in this world and sometimes very quickly . making the history of those who held high posts like president open to many takes on what actions where right .wrong . forsighted ,or stupid .
some folks "either party" will NEVER give credit to a past president of the opposition what ever the outcome turns out to be . and wil always excentuate the negative .
Remember who occupies the white house is decided by the small 20% of votes who use there voice at the polls ,they are the few who can be objective and decide issues free of party affiliation , 40% will always vote republican and equally so another 40 % wil always cast for democrats .
writing history as least in the very near future will be the same .
Well what a coincidence
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6557439.stm
Well, I think if somebody is egotistical enough to say their legacy will last, whilst they're still in office, it doesn't bode well in reality. This smacks of desperation. And I somehow doubt people ten years in the future will be talking about Blair as the man whose NHS reforms almost arrived or the PM who tackled anti-social behavior.
Spinning into the sunset.
I think that it is impossible to determine anyone's legacy until years later. What seems important now may not seem so significant years later whilst something we haven't even noticed may be world changing years later.
Certainly, it seems at this point, and from this side of the atlantic, that Blairs biggest impact will be on the middle east as a result of Iraq.
However in 1997, simply getting Labour into power was a legacy in and of itself.
Also, any legacy is in the eyes of the beholder.
Some here will tell you all the great things Maragaret Thatcher did.
As a Yorkshireman, looking at the mining communities she destoyed and the lasting effects of running down public services, my perception of her legacy is somewhat less favorable.
In 1997 I had hoped Blair and Labour would address these things. Right now I have an overriding sense of a missed opportunity...
MAYBE in the distant future william clinton will be known as the
BLOW JOB president
and george bush wil be know as the
BLOW HARD president .
Jj guys lol lol lol lol lol lol