With George Bush's administration ending on January 20th, 2009, the lame duck status of the President becomes ever more clear. The President's last State of Union was pretty much a yawner, with understandably few new programs or ideas. It's always dangerous to predict how history will remember a President, but this favorite parlor game of Washington has begun. There is a year left in his Presidency, and there is always the chance that some unexpected event may radically change his place in history, but it appears unlikely that Bush will be able to initiate the change himself. Much of Bush's staff has burned out and left to write their inevitable "tell all" books and with Bush facing a stalemate with a hostile democratic majority in Congress, he seems to be destined to limp to the finish line - little more than a caretaker of the office until the new President takes over. It is true that, like Clinton, his one last ditch effort to broker peace in the Middle East has been initiated, but most critics see it too little, too late. And, so, here is my best guess on how history will view our 43rd President: George W. Bush.

Most Presidents that come to mind most immediately are war time Presidents and our current sitting President seems see this as his legacy. Statements like his February 8, 2004 Meet the Press statement: "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind". I think most will agree that if Bush only gets a brief mention in history books, it will be about that G.W.'s tenure during 9/11 and his response to it. But if we drill down farther we see a much more varied record.

Psychologists may dwell on an attempt to live up to his father's greatness. His father, H.W. Bush was an accomplished athlete, scholar, successful businessman, and respected statesman. Bush spent most of his life trying to live up to that ideal, and it wasn't until a mid-life crisis, when he found religion and put away the bottle, that he discovered his own path. It could be postulated that his rejection of his father's advice in regards to Iraq and his susceptibility to the siren song of the Neo-Conservatives could be G.W. Bush's assertion of his own individuality. Furthermore, psychologists will likely to spend time examining his rush to judgment - taking in limited information and depending on 'gut feel' for decisions as well as his prioritizing a person's character as a "good guy" and loyal friend over a clinical evaluation of the person's qualifications and aptitude. One could write volumes about the effects in Iraq, in the administration, and how this affected international alliances such as those of Russia's Putin or Pakistan's General/President Musharraf. But let's move beyond the psychology of George W. Bush and let's examine the factual accomplishes on both the domestic and international front.

Karl Rove dominated Bush's domestic policy. His five major initiatives were: Senior Drug Benefits, No Child Left Behind, Faith Based Initiatives, Social Security Reform, Immigration. Of course, Rove was trying capture large voting blocks to create a permanent Republican majority. Not that there is anything wrong with this, after all this is what democracy is all about. His initiatives were hoping to capture (in order) seniors, parents, the Religious Right, younger voters, and the Hispanic vote. The Drug benefits have been criticized by the left as being a give-a-way to drug companies and for the donut hole in coverage and criticized by the right for enacting the largest single entitlement program since the Johnson era. No Child Left Behind has received criticism by both parties as being an unfunded federal mandate (states' rights, anyone?) and causing teachers to 'teach to the test'. There was a lot of hype about Faith Based Initiatives, but this largely fizzled. Social Security Reform and Immigration withered on the vine - attacked by the both the left and right who had different ideas on how to go about it. So on the domestic front, you have two "wins" (No Child, Drugs), one tie (Faith), and two losses (Social Security Reform and Immigration). Of these, the two wins were singles, not real homeruns. The Drug Benefits will likely stay for good, since it is so tough to take away an entitlement program - although with much gripping from all. The President is trying to get renewal on No Child Left Behind (we at Party of Common Sense believe that program is a good first step towards accountability in our schools). He might be able to trade this for the SCHIP program, but we'll see. On the economy he created tax cuts, which aren't unique among Republicans and will likely be rolled back or re-upped depending on whose in power. America's deficit grew from $5.6 trillion to $9.3 trillion and the dollar has been devalued worldwide. Going into a recession in his last year can't help his image as being too liaise-faire on businesses and creating a free-for-all environment that enabled the housing bubble. If he's known for anything that he initiated, it may be the courting of the religious right and perhaps the beginning of a trend to break down the separation of church-and-state. Note that this trend may, or may not, play out over the years. Obviously, 9/11 will dominate his biography in the history books, but it will likely focus on the over reaction in our response to 9/11: Guantanamo, wireless wiretapping, extraordinary renditions, etc... He will likely doge the full responsibility for these actions due to the acknowledgement that the general population got wrapped up in the moment (much in the way the WWII internment camps for Japanese Americans are now looked up on with distain, but with a certain understanding as to why they were generally accepted by Americans at the time).

As we turn to examine his foreign policy, we see nothing but failure. In our War on Terror, a failure of strategy and tactics has cost us almost 4,000 soldiers with 30,000 seriously wounded and $1 trillion dollars. In North Korea, we broke our treaty with them, allowed them six years of mass production and testing of nuclear weapons before China intervened to revert back to the same deal as Clinton. The international opinion of American has fallen year after year and now is so low as to be compared to Bush or congress' approval rating. We've fiddled while Global Warming continued. We partnered with Pakistan and Russia, while democracy has been in retreat. These foreign policy failures will likely dominate his legacy regardless of the smaller wins in the domestic front. I really struggle to see a scenario that could emerge where Bush could be seen historically as being prescient. Perhaps, if Iraq actually becomes a success and democracy does spread throughout the Mideast. However, if we are attacked again by Al Qaeda Bush will be blamed for not getting Bin Laden and losing focus in Iraq. If Iraq falls apart, Bush will be accused of the "you-broke-you-bought-it" problem. If Iran, North Korea, or China rise in power, Bush will be blamed for getting sidetracked with Iraq. The bungling of the war will likely be blamed for a loss of prestige overseas and the growth of the Islam-o-Conservative movement.

Ironically, one of his lasting legacies will likely be one that was unplanned and that Bush almost sidetracked: his appointment of two strong Republican-minded judges has swung the court from the left to right. It may be in the years to come that we see 'judicial activism', a rallying cry of the right for so many years, being taken up by the left. This change could almost be an accident of history, with the judges being picked by his party over President Bush's own selections of judicial lightweight and personal lawyer Harriet Miers and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. By all accounts, these individuals are 'good guys', well meaning and affable, but never having spent time as a judge or been heavily involved in constitutional law. With lifetime appointments the impact that our these judges have on our highest court will likely be felt in the next several decades.

As we head into elections for the next President, even his own party is distancing themselves from Bush's legacy. Unless something happens, he'll likely leave office with an approval rating barely above President Nixon's. Far from being a "uniter", the Bush era will end with one of the most partisan and divisive Presidency in history. Time will tell, and with 20-20 hindsight, we will see if Bush was ahead of his time and prescient, or bungled though eight years of disaster. Either way, there is no denying his place in the history books.