George W. Bush loses the 2004 election. Is he remembered better or worse than OTL?
- Thread starter dw93
- Start date
Paul V McNutt
Banned
It depends on why he lost. Does Hurticane Katrina come a year early? President Kerry probably withdraws the troops from Iraq, so there is less of a national trauma.
Just by rule of averages, he'd be remember better comparatively to the OTL. He wouldn't have the 2005-2009 baggage. However, he'd still have the 2001-2005 baggage, which was enough to make half of America dislike him, and the people that disliked him intensely disliked him.
I argue Bush's legacy would be his own. Maybe we'd get some question of what would have happened if we reelected Bush, but I think 2001-2005 would be viewed based on it's own merits and place in time. Bush has circumstances unique from whatever Kerry would be doing; that whole Cheney and Rumsfeld and Karl Rove, torture, "loose-lips-sink-ships" Neocon thing was an entity unto itself. What Kerry would really be dealing with is an inherited Iraq War and the issue of a potential housing bubble collapse/Great Recession in 2007-2008. The former is something easily linked to Bush. The latter could be wholly put on his shoulders, and that is the biggie.
which would not be that good considering all the messes that was waiting him in 2005-2008 which would culminate in a massive financial crisis.
The issue is how the economy is handled in 2005-2008. I don't see Kerry waving a magic wand of foresight. However, it is fair to say the economy would not be treated the same way under Kerry as under Bush, even if it lacks major reforms. There's also reforms and activities Bush oversaw that may not possibly occur. For example, reforming bankruptcy law in 2005 to make it much harder for the average person to file. Bush assumed these were reckless people racking up credit card debt and recklessly spending, thus racking up consumer debt. In reality, consumer debt was largely based on necessary purchases, and credit card debt is based on that plus giving people more credit cards when they couldn't pay off the other one, and then yelling at poor people that they were irresponsible.
Retrospectively, there may be attempts to reform his image as something decent. However, it is critical to remember what America was like in 2004-2005. Already, about half of America disapproved of Bush, and the people that did not like him really, really did not like him. There was very little "meh" and a lot of burning hot hate. Also bear in mind that a Bush that loses in 2004 is essentially like a one term Richard Nixon minus any of the good parts. Helping Africa is the only good part. The bad part is anyone who disagreed with administration policy being considered an "enemy" and being treated as such, with all that entails.
Last edited:
I think the GOP would be less willing to run away from his Presidency ITTL if they run away from it at all, as I remember most Republicans in 2004 saw Bush as the greatest thing since Reagan, I can see that feeling amongst Republicans holding true going forward (at least for the decade or two that followed Bush's TTL defeat), many of them then and today, never forgave Bush 41 for breaking the tax pledge. Democrats would more or less view him as they do now in OTL, with moderates and independents having opinions of Bush that are mixed.
Better, no contest.
Kerry and the Democratic Party dodged a bullet in OTL by not winning the poisoned chalice of 2005-2009. Katrina wouldn't have gone better. There is a serious chance of an early drawdown of the Iraq War being bungled and looking even more like a defeat. The financial crisis will still happen.
We might see an earlier Tea Party. A Republican comeback in 2008 looks inevitable, possibly with...W.
Kerry and the Democratic Party dodged a bullet in OTL by not winning the poisoned chalice of 2005-2009. Katrina wouldn't have gone better. There is a serious chance of an early drawdown of the Iraq War being bungled and looking even more like a defeat. The financial crisis will still happen.
We might see an earlier Tea Party. A Republican comeback in 2008 looks inevitable, possibly with...W.
I'm in agreement about the 2004 election being a poisoned chalice in hindsight, and I say that as someone, who at the age of 11, passed Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers out to people while Trick or Treating in a George W Bush costume on the Halloween before the 2004 election.
An early Tea Party is a possibility, and while I think a GOP comeback is possible in 2008, just like in "A Different Path" by Pericles, the Dems would bounce back in 2010 and 2012.
You ask some really provocative questions.
Kerry will probably withdraw from Iraq and Bush's legacy will hinge on how that goes. If it becomes a stable country, it hurts Bush. If it goes to hell and you see the rise of an earlier ISIS like situation the Republicans could say, "Kerry did not let us finish the job and look what he created." Of course domestic events that will still happen, Katrina and the financial meltdown, will hurt Kerry and not touch Bush. Of course the response to Katrina will be different, perhaps better!?!
Another thing worth noting is that if Kerry wins the election by, say, a narrow win in Ohio (which seems like the simplest change), there's a good chance Bush wins the popular vote, in which case Bush might (and it's a big might given how he won in 2000) be seen as having been cheated out of office.
H.W. Bush had much worse approval ratings than W. Bush and his legacy is much stronger than it might've seemed in the waning days of his White House.
If nothing dramatically changes and Bush, who was near 50/50 in approval/support as it gets, loses, I could see his legacy being quite similar to his father's - with 9/11 and the response being remembered similar to the Gulf War (high-water mark) and his ultimate undoing being the economy. Iraq would be a different factor, of course, but it wasn't near as unpopular in 2004 as it would become in 2006.
Iraq would, a lot more than OTL, come to dominate any discussion of his legacy. It'll get the a lot of the blame for why he lost to Kerry and there's no time for him to enact the surge to salvage some of the war in the eyes of the public. Other than no child left behind he'll likely only be remembered for his response to 9/11 and his legacy on foreign policy and the war on terror.
But on the other hand all of the things that happened between 2005 and 2009 will be blamed on Kerry rather than himself. Bush won't have to deal with Katrina, or the spike in gas prices, or the blowing up of the housing market, or towards the end of his term the worst recession in recent economic history. Neither will he get tangled up in trying to privatize social security or push through immigration reform.
So on the whole better.
But on the other hand all of the things that happened between 2005 and 2009 will be blamed on Kerry rather than himself. Bush won't have to deal with Katrina, or the spike in gas prices, or the blowing up of the housing market, or towards the end of his term the worst recession in recent economic history. Neither will he get tangled up in trying to privatize social security or push through immigration reform.
So on the whole better.
Bush may get a lot of blame on the economic crisis now and opinions on Iraq are on the low ebb because the WH decided to let our old enemy regrow in Syria and reinvade Iraq.
But, honestly opinions are quite fluid, I have the feeling that Bush will get a very big re-evaluation over time because of his second term which was quickly frankly far better in terms of leadership and decision making turn the first.
Bush's was a vastly better President in his second term then first and this will come off much better over the next 20-30 years as the history gets re-written.
Opinions on the Iraq War are bad because it was poorly conceived, poorly justified, and poorly executed. That will be the case 50 years from now.
Yah, I actually read the polls that says what people think over time. Six years ago which is a long time, though a very short time in the grand scheme of history support for the war was turning around as it was undeniable at the time America had won the war though much longer and more expensive then they wanted Iraq very well at that time looked and Obama's own VP called Iraq a success.
Funny how total disengagement and letting the next door country totally immolate in sectarian war and letting a terror state grow in Eastern Syria which was made up of America's most subborn enemy from last decade thousands of Americans died to put down can upend things.
Either Iraq survives which now is more likely then not in which case I can't see Hillary repeating Obama's mistakes as she didn't support them in regard to Iraq in the first place and Iraq goes down in the popular conciousness much more like Korea as a too expensive war we screwed up with and still gained something out of or it breaks apart into endless war as people think it has right now in which case current views don't change and it's the moden Vietnam in the public consciousness.
The problem is the enemy is not the Vietcong, they are still going to be attacking the West 4-5-6 years from now. Who is going to be the West's go to ally in rooting out their terror cells in the Middle East? It won't be Saudi Arabia.
I disagree with that. Outside the Iraq surge, his second term was an absolute failure - maybe the worst second term of any modern president.
There was the government's response to Katrina, which, while not fully the fault of his administration, still dominated much of his early second term presidency. That response, or lack thereof, in a heavily black city, didn't play well - and time won't change that. It'll always be remembered as a blemish for the country, both at the state and federal level.
Bush was unable to pass immigration reform, despite a groundswell of Democratic support in 2007. Support included Bush, Harry Reid, Arlen Specter, Ted Kennedy, John Kyl, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. He helped craft the bill and it failed even with its bipartisan support because the President couldn't round up enough of his own party's support to get it through.
Despite the surge's success, there is still a strong question about whether Bush had any viable exit strategy out of Iraq, which has proven itself in the last few years. There was still no end game for the U.S. and while many Republicans bemoan the fact Pres. Obama followed through with pulling out troops, the idea that the United States could continue high troop levels in the region, sustain that, is just not realistic. Iraq will always be an issue, especially with the growth of ISIS over the years, and I doubt history will be kind to Bush in that regard.
Moreover, while Bush doesn't deserve a brunt of the blame for the economic meltdown, he was president when it happened - and not just into his presidency, either. This isn't a situation where the bottom fell out just mere months into his first term, like, say, with Herbert Hoover, rather it happened at the end - which makes it that much more difficult for him to escape blame. Sure, there are many reasons the economy collapsed but Bush will be at, or near the top, in every reference solely because of how ingrained his presidency was in the recession.
Most of all of Bush's best defining moments happened in his first term - his tax cuts, Medicare Part D, his initial response to 9/11. Granted, Iraq was a first-term blunder, and something that will follow his legacy forever, but much of the damage of Iraq came in his second term.
He also failed with Social Security reform in his second term, which really got things off to a rocky start as it was his first major legislative push of that second term. Then there was scandal. From Valerie Plame, to wiretapping, to the aforementioned Katrina.
None of that will bode well for the history books. A one-term Bush avoids all of that, though. In the end, I think Bush will be remembered very similar to Carter and, let's be honest, despite the passing of time, Carter is still considered, by both Americans and many historians, a failure of a president. Fairly or not.