MacLean's, one of Canada's news magazines, has recently published a fairly interesting article discussing George W Bush's legacy, and whether he will be considered one of the worst presidents in US history.
Just over 16 months have passed since George W. Bush was elected for the second term that eluded his father, but already historians and pundits are beginning to debate whether he just might be the worst U.S. president in a century.
The article goes on to list a number of issues that the United States has faced, and will continue to face while under the stewardship of GWB.
But is it really possible to judge a leader as the "worst" until we've had time to reflect? The interesting point is that many historians have already passed judgement on GWB:
In 2004, George Mason University polled 415 presidential historians and found 80 per cent considered Bush's first term a failure. More than half considered it the worst presidency since the Great Depression. More than a third called it the worst in 100 years.
Although, I am not a fan of GWB, isn't it a bit early to judge? Can we really understand the significance of something or someone while we are in the midst of it?
I don't think we can judge so soon, reflection is required to truly understand the impact of a leader. As G.W.F Hegel put it "The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk."- in other words, we only truly understand after the event has passed.
What do you guys think? Can we judge GWB so soon? If so, is he the worst president in a century?