Bush vs Clinton: Is America a better place

I'd want to think long and hard on this one and gather some facts before stepping out there with a claim in either direction. Mostly, I think that what's happening now in the world and the US is NOT better than it was before. But I'm not sure I'm willing to attribute that to the decisions of either executive. I don't know how much of it is just chickens coming home to roost or the natural deterioration of things that must happen in cycles. It's no secret that I'm not a fan of GW's decision making abilities, but if it hadn't been him, it probably would have just been someone else.

I would say that the world is in much more chaos now. There are many more soldiers and civilians dead. The world has a distant mistrust of the U.S. (or at least Bush which = the same)

Americans may see it differently because they would want to defend their president whether he is right or wrong, good or bad. Us foreigners have no such allegiance.

The worst thing that I remember about Clinton was his philandering. Not much else is evident, good or bad. With Bush I remember many things. Not all of them complimentary to himself. I also think that the American economy has taken a big hit... (thanks for increasing our dollar :-) ) Jobs are dwindling and there is a lot of uncertainty as to what will happen next.

Just my 2ø worth from the outside looking in.

Better or worse
My take on the two presidencies:

Terrorism happened on both watches. I call that a tie, though the bigger events happened under Bush and tend to distort the comparison.

Under Clinton, we had a booming economy, the fundamentals of which he inherited, but he had enough sense to not muck up. I didn't really care for our Kosovo/Serbia involvement. The intern mess further degraded the political tone in Washington and fueled the rise of the radical right. Clinton (and the Republican Congress) really kept a lid on government spending and, combined with the economy mentioned above, resulted in a government surplus and the reduced government debt. Freedom of religion and the press were generally good and improved during the Clinton presidency. Anti-Americanism was generally low in Europe and the Middle East. Bush senior was better liked by those in the Middle East. Free trade gained ground under Clinton with major initiatives like NAFTA and the WTO moving forward. I consider this a plus, though others may disagree. Clinton tried to engage the N. Koreans with mixed results. In general, I think Clinton was president during a grace period where the world was resting from the cold war, so there were not a lot of foriegn challenges to test him.

Under Bush, we have a neutral economy. Bush inherited some of this since the fundamentals were weakening as Clinton was leaving and many of the exceeses of the Clinton boom years came home to roost during Bush's first term. Bush gets some of the blame though, first for outrageous government spending and for excessive tax cuts. The first tax cut was fine since we had a surplus. The second one seemed unneccessary since it put us back into a deficit situation and was not really needed to stimulate the economy. The third one was excessive and showed a lack of financial management that spooked financial markets and showed little commitment to ensuring the government has the cash to meet its obligations. Of course, spending is due to the military buildup and war costs. The war in Afganistan was perhaps the high point in the Bush presidency to date (IMO). A clear target with terrorism ties. Clinton acted indecisively wrt Afganistan. Bush did not make that mistake. The war in Iraq has been the low point so far in the Bush presidency (once agian, IMO). Even before the war, there was no tie to terrorism and the WMD story seemed weak before the first bomb dropped. The cost in terms of life, money, reputation, etc has been so out of proportion with any potential gains that I fail to see how Bush can redeem his reputation. Of course, history will tell. Bush to a great extent and the US to a lesser extent are disliked in Europe and the Middle East. Bush has no credibility as an "honest broker" in the Middle East. The US has less "soft power" because of this and less hard power because our troops are tied up. Bush has been slow to engage in other areas like N. Korea. In other areas, first amendment freedoms are under attack. Bush rarely holds press conferences and restricts attendance to his public appearances. Protesters are kept away. Protestant Christian beliefs are much more evident in public life and those who do not support that are demonized.

All in all, I would take Clinton as better for the country.

Re: Better or worse


The right would call him a spineless liberal pussy, but do you think that Cinton would have had (what the rest of us would have called) a more "diplomatic" approach to post 9/11 America?

No.

Re: Better or worse


Yes, I think we would have been more diplomatic, but I don't think he would have taken decisive action against Afganistan. I think we did the right thing in Afganistan, but we should have planned a decade long reconstruction effort there instead of going into Iraq and doing a poor job in both places.

You think Clinton would have done exactly what Bush has done?

A young woman walking in the opposite direction from me yesterday afternoon wore a Tshirt on which, "President Bush is a hazard to your health," was written.