Full Version: Making the Grade
In Zbigniew Brezezinski's treatise Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of the American Superpower, the former National Security Advisor under Carter writes criteria with which to rate presidents and their leadership since the collapse of the Iron Curtain. The primary assertion in the text is that following the Soviet Union's disillusion, the President of the United States became the de facto Global Leader and had attained unprecedented power and prestige. He uses the following to rate George H. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush and measure just how effective they were at the helm of the nation's first Global Superpower.
He gives the three a letter grade [A being the highest, through F [the lowest]], and Bush I receives a B, while Clinton earns a C, and Bush II accomplished an F rating.
And so:
1.) Using the above criteria, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II?
or
2.) Using criteria of your own, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II? Please elaborate on how you arrived at your conclusions.
3.) What is needed to solve "The Crisis of the American Superpower?"
QUOTE
1.) To manage, steer, and shape central power relationships in a world of shifting geopolitical balances and intensifying national aspirations so that a more cooperative global system can emerge.
2.) To contain or terminate conflicts, prevent terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and promote collective peacekeeping in regions torn by civil strife so that global violence recedes rather than spreads.
3.) To address more effectively the increasingly intolerable inequalities in the human condition, in keeping with the novel reality of an emerging "global conscience," and to promote a common response to the new environmental and ecological threats to global well-being.
2.) To contain or terminate conflicts, prevent terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and promote collective peacekeeping in regions torn by civil strife so that global violence recedes rather than spreads.
3.) To address more effectively the increasingly intolerable inequalities in the human condition, in keeping with the novel reality of an emerging "global conscience," and to promote a common response to the new environmental and ecological threats to global well-being.
He gives the three a letter grade [A being the highest, through F [the lowest]], and Bush I receives a B, while Clinton earns a C, and Bush II accomplished an F rating.
And so:
1.) Using the above criteria, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II?
or
2.) Using criteria of your own, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II? Please elaborate on how you arrived at your conclusions.
3.) What is needed to solve "The Crisis of the American Superpower?"
1.) Using the above criteria, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II?
or
2.) Using criteria of your own, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II?
Using my own criteria, I would rate Bush I a B, Clinton a B, and Bush II a C.
3.) What is needed to solve "The Crisis of the American Superpower?"
When there is a "big man on campus" it is always a good idea for that big man to consider the ramifications of his actions on those who do not have his advantage. Otherwise, this big man runs the risk of becoming quite the tyrant in pursuing his own beliefs.
This same big man should also reconized as should everyone else that this discrepancy will not be fully remedied. I, for example, am big man on campus at home. I take into consideration the ramifications of my actions but also recognize that I will never fully be able to erase this difference. Many times it as much about the "little man's" unrequited envy as anything else. And what can I do about that?
or
2.) Using criteria of your own, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II?
Using my own criteria, I would rate Bush I a B, Clinton a B, and Bush II a C.
3.) What is needed to solve "The Crisis of the American Superpower?"
When there is a "big man on campus" it is always a good idea for that big man to consider the ramifications of his actions on those who do not have his advantage. Otherwise, this big man runs the risk of becoming quite the tyrant in pursuing his own beliefs.
This same big man should also reconized as should everyone else that this discrepancy will not be fully remedied. I, for example, am big man on campus at home. I take into consideration the ramifications of my actions but also recognize that I will never fully be able to erase this difference. Many times it as much about the "little man's" unrequited envy as anything else. And what can I do about that?
1.) Using the above criteria, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II?
Bush 1 I would actually rate an A, Clinton, since he pretty much continued the same policies, and so dramaticaly upped our stature in world standing, I would rate an A+, while GW would be an F-, if possible, as the most incompetant leader in US history, but in foriegn and domestic leadership.
That being said, I believe that Brzezinski's ideas should be taken with a major grain of salt, considering he supported going into Vietnam, the second largest military and political blunder in US history next to the currect Iraq fiasco. History has proven him horribly wrong on more than one occasion.
or
2.) Using criteria of your own, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II? Please elaborate on how you arrived at your conclusions.
Bush 1 and Clinton were both very savvy policy wonks, very smart, very educated and experianced. They understood real politik, and they understood the global setting in front of them. They were also not ideologues, bent on reforming the world to thier utopian imagination. Between those two, there is no equivilent of the Pax-Americana neo-conservative thought, more like, pragmaticism mixed with the politics of staying in power by satisfying thier power bases only to the degree neccessary for them to get the job done. They were both comfortable in diplomacy AND military power. They made good decisions, most of the time, and, if thier actions were to be found in error, they changed strategy.
GW has none of this- he is a complete boob. Seriously deluded ego-maniac. I believe Vincente Fox called him "the cockiest man I have ever met"- and why not? He has never, in his entire life, had to bear any responsibility for his actions, because Daddy would rescue him. There is absolutely nothing good to say about GWs foriegn behavior- he is just the worst in US history, bar none.
3.) What is needed to solve "The Crisis of the American Superpower?"
Easy- so easy that it boggles the mind. Stop being the super-power. There is no need for empire for the US. There is no need for us to MAKE ourselves targets. The rest of the world can function alright without us, as it did for millenia before us. We need to stop being the worlds policeman, and we need to check our cultural egos.
Being a superpower will never make us a better nation, when we use that power to oppress and kill others. Others nations hate us not because of our freedoms we enjoy, but because we come into thier countries like a bull in a china shop, kill and maim hundreds of thousands, and usually for no other reason that to keep corporate profits high.
Stop supporting terrorists would be an excellent first step. From the Contras to the Muhjahdeen, we have supported and abetted some of the worst monsters this world has ever seen.
We need to get our collective heads out of our fourth point of contact and grow up, stop being a bully and an angry adolecent with a gun, that every fears and hates.
Bush 1 I would actually rate an A, Clinton, since he pretty much continued the same policies, and so dramaticaly upped our stature in world standing, I would rate an A+, while GW would be an F-, if possible, as the most incompetant leader in US history, but in foriegn and domestic leadership.
That being said, I believe that Brzezinski's ideas should be taken with a major grain of salt, considering he supported going into Vietnam, the second largest military and political blunder in US history next to the currect Iraq fiasco. History has proven him horribly wrong on more than one occasion.
or
2.) Using criteria of your own, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II? Please elaborate on how you arrived at your conclusions.
Bush 1 and Clinton were both very savvy policy wonks, very smart, very educated and experianced. They understood real politik, and they understood the global setting in front of them. They were also not ideologues, bent on reforming the world to thier utopian imagination. Between those two, there is no equivilent of the Pax-Americana neo-conservative thought, more like, pragmaticism mixed with the politics of staying in power by satisfying thier power bases only to the degree neccessary for them to get the job done. They were both comfortable in diplomacy AND military power. They made good decisions, most of the time, and, if thier actions were to be found in error, they changed strategy.
GW has none of this- he is a complete boob. Seriously deluded ego-maniac. I believe Vincente Fox called him "the cockiest man I have ever met"- and why not? He has never, in his entire life, had to bear any responsibility for his actions, because Daddy would rescue him. There is absolutely nothing good to say about GWs foriegn behavior- he is just the worst in US history, bar none.
3.) What is needed to solve "The Crisis of the American Superpower?"
Easy- so easy that it boggles the mind. Stop being the super-power. There is no need for empire for the US. There is no need for us to MAKE ourselves targets. The rest of the world can function alright without us, as it did for millenia before us. We need to stop being the worlds policeman, and we need to check our cultural egos.
Being a superpower will never make us a better nation, when we use that power to oppress and kill others. Others nations hate us not because of our freedoms we enjoy, but because we come into thier countries like a bull in a china shop, kill and maim hundreds of thousands, and usually for no other reason that to keep corporate profits high.
Stop supporting terrorists would be an excellent first step. From the Contras to the Muhjahdeen, we have supported and abetted some of the worst monsters this world has ever seen.
We need to get our collective heads out of our fourth point of contact and grow up, stop being a bully and an angry adolecent with a gun, that every fears and hates.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Jan 20 2008, 04:16 PM) 
QUOTE
1.) To manage, steer, and shape central power relationships in a world of shifting geopolitical balances and intensifying national aspirations so that a more cooperative global system can emerge.
2.) To contain or terminate conflicts, prevent terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and promote collective peacekeeping in regions torn by civil strife so that global violence recedes rather than spreads.
3.) To address more effectively the increasingly intolerable inequalities in the human condition, in keeping with the novel reality of an emerging "global conscience," and to promote a common response to the new environmental and ecological threats to global well-being.
2.) To contain or terminate conflicts, prevent terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and promote collective peacekeeping in regions torn by civil strife so that global violence recedes rather than spreads.
3.) To address more effectively the increasingly intolerable inequalities in the human condition, in keeping with the novel reality of an emerging "global conscience," and to promote a common response to the new environmental and ecological threats to global well-being.
And so:
1.) Using the above criteria, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II?
or
2.) Using criteria of your own, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II? Please elaborate on how you arrived at your conclusions.
3.) What is needed to solve "The Crisis of the American Superpower?"
First off the criteria is an asinine Socialist/Communist/Kumbaya wet dream of collective peacekeeping and global conscience crap. NEWSFLASH Humans are GREEDY!
1.) Using the above criteria everyone gets an F. In fact, everyone who ever lived gets an F.
2.) Using mine Bush I gets a C, Clinton a C- and Bush II (This Time It's Personal) gets a C. OMG BA you rated Bush II (It's four years later...what does she remember?) higher than Clinton? But Bush is Hitler! Shhh! The grown ups are talking now.
Clinton drew down our Military (what with there not being a "big enemy" this wasn't an entirely bad idea) but also really gutted our intelligence community (this WAS a really bad idea.) When attacked Clinton treated each attack as a criminal offense. While the Cole happened in his final days Clinton incorrectly deemed the attack on a US Military ship an act of terrorism. Many maintain that this was an act of war.
Bush II (The First Time Was Only A Warning) wasted no time treating the 9/11 attacks as an act of war (probably incorrectly) and "while we were over there anyway" went on to take out Saddam (who we should have taken out the first time.) So many short comings of Bush II (The Final Stop Is Deadly) can be seen as having been set up by (and if you're Rush O'Hannity caused by) the previous US policy.
3.) There's no crisis.
I agree with BA that the premise of Zbigniew Brezezinski's criteria is garbage. A leader gets people to do what he feels is correct, he does not bow to the rabble. The US has interests to protect, particularly when attacked repeatedly, and the job the President is to protect those interests, not look the other way just because a bunch of yahoos don't like us.
If a leader wasn't necessary, we'd have the ineffectual UN running things, allowing every rogue nation to thumb its nose at the world again and again and again. Look what happened under the "leadership" (I use the term loosely) of Mr. Zbigniew Brezezinski's President Carter: we had no influence to even get our hostages out of Iran and no will to do what was necessary to free them.
Bush I made the fatal mistake of leaving Saddam in power. Sorry, but the Iraq boil should have been lanced a decade earlier. I agree with Colin Powell's statement that if we would have broken Iraq (at the end of Gulf War I) we would have had to fix it. Now, a decade later, guess where we are? Bush was too much of a coalition builder and not enough of a leader.
Clinton didn't do a poor job, but his non-response to Islamic aggression was pitiful. It was under Clinton that Osama bin Laden formed his "paper tiger" theory about the US after he repeatedly bloodied the US's nose with little to no consequence. In the same timeframe, Clinton dismantled our human intelligence, relying instead on electronic surveillance which, while it looks good on paper, doesn't do the job.
GWB has likewise been less than stellar. He has done the unpopular in pursuit of what he feels needs to be done. He has stood up to aggressors. He has enforced the international will when no one else would (more accurately, he enforced it when the world changed its mind when it was time to act).
In the process, Bush has failed to create a vision which others will follow, which is where he has failed. A leader with no followers is no leader at all.
I'd give each of these leaders a C+. Each had his fatal flaws.
If a leader wasn't necessary, we'd have the ineffectual UN running things, allowing every rogue nation to thumb its nose at the world again and again and again. Look what happened under the "leadership" (I use the term loosely) of Mr. Zbigniew Brezezinski's President Carter: we had no influence to even get our hostages out of Iran and no will to do what was necessary to free them.
Bush I made the fatal mistake of leaving Saddam in power. Sorry, but the Iraq boil should have been lanced a decade earlier. I agree with Colin Powell's statement that if we would have broken Iraq (at the end of Gulf War I) we would have had to fix it. Now, a decade later, guess where we are? Bush was too much of a coalition builder and not enough of a leader.
Clinton didn't do a poor job, but his non-response to Islamic aggression was pitiful. It was under Clinton that Osama bin Laden formed his "paper tiger" theory about the US after he repeatedly bloodied the US's nose with little to no consequence. In the same timeframe, Clinton dismantled our human intelligence, relying instead on electronic surveillance which, while it looks good on paper, doesn't do the job.
GWB has likewise been less than stellar. He has done the unpopular in pursuit of what he feels needs to be done. He has stood up to aggressors. He has enforced the international will when no one else would (more accurately, he enforced it when the world changed its mind when it was time to act).
In the process, Bush has failed to create a vision which others will follow, which is where he has failed. A leader with no followers is no leader at all.
I'd give each of these leaders a C+. Each had his fatal flaws.
1.) Using the above criteria, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II?
I kind of have to agree with BA about the criteria. Not only that, I don't understand why, under said criteria, Bush junior would fair so badly. He has sent more money to indigent countries (in particular those that we really have little vested interest in), by far, than any other president. I'm not only speaking of Iraq and Afghanistan. I suppose he gets minus points for the peacekeeping issues...
I don't think I would give Bush an F, myself. An F would indicate that things couldn't be worse and anyone who thinks that is rather devoid of imagination. I'll give him a D. We haven't been attacked again, and that should at least count for something.
I'd rate Bush senior (my favorite of the bunch) a B on the above criteria, and Clinton a C+. Placing troops, long-term, in Saudi was a bad idea. Per peacekeeping, well, we had both successes and failures for Clinton...although I'm not sure a comparison is fair because he encountered a very different set of challenges than Bush senior did. But...Haiti? Not good, we had to go back and escort out the guy we helped set up just a few short years previous. Somalia? Not good. We counted a little too much on other countries Clinton's decision to refrain from bringing in tanks (because it would look too aggressive) resulted in the loss of lives. Rwanda? No need to say more on that one. Personally I think we were right to stay out of that, but by the above criteria that would have been wrong....The only marginal success was Kosovo/Bosnia.
2.) Using criteria of your own, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II? Please elaborate on how you arrived at your conclusions.
Hm...I'd say about the same as above. Bush B, Clinton B- (I'll go towards the B because he was very politically shrewd and had a lot of charisma), Bush junior D.
Just stepping back, I'm wondering if this isn't simply a sign that the world is getting more complicated. As nations divide into smaller entities, the world becomes less and less stable. Things were pretty easy and straightforward (relatively) when to large superpowers were in face-off.
3.) What is needed to solve "The Crisis of the American Superpower?"
Well, if we ceased to be a superpower that would solve it. Great Britain is no longer having a 'crisis of superpower' as it once did. As long as we are a superpower, we will be held to certain responsibilities and obligations by nature of being a superpower. I think whining about being a superpower, though, is like whining about being rich. I wouldn't personally trade the obligation to help others for the need to ask others to help me.
Edited to add, after reading Amlord's post above:
I think your assessment of the first Gulf war is hindsight 20/20. Saudi and Kuwait paid for that war, on condition that we didn't invade Iraq. We would have lost all moral authority and the entire Arab coalition behind us had we done otherwise. There was absolutely no way to know at that time that we would still be patrolling no fly-zones over Iraq ten years later. Saddam was so badly beaten, and he had signed a ceasefire agreement that indicated he would play ball. It looked like he would do as Qaddafi did and cease to be such a thorn.
I kind of have to agree with BA about the criteria. Not only that, I don't understand why, under said criteria, Bush junior would fair so badly. He has sent more money to indigent countries (in particular those that we really have little vested interest in), by far, than any other president. I'm not only speaking of Iraq and Afghanistan. I suppose he gets minus points for the peacekeeping issues...
I don't think I would give Bush an F, myself. An F would indicate that things couldn't be worse and anyone who thinks that is rather devoid of imagination. I'll give him a D. We haven't been attacked again, and that should at least count for something.
I'd rate Bush senior (my favorite of the bunch) a B on the above criteria, and Clinton a C+. Placing troops, long-term, in Saudi was a bad idea. Per peacekeeping, well, we had both successes and failures for Clinton...although I'm not sure a comparison is fair because he encountered a very different set of challenges than Bush senior did. But...Haiti? Not good, we had to go back and escort out the guy we helped set up just a few short years previous. Somalia? Not good. We counted a little too much on other countries Clinton's decision to refrain from bringing in tanks (because it would look too aggressive) resulted in the loss of lives. Rwanda? No need to say more on that one. Personally I think we were right to stay out of that, but by the above criteria that would have been wrong....The only marginal success was Kosovo/Bosnia.
2.) Using criteria of your own, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II? Please elaborate on how you arrived at your conclusions.
Hm...I'd say about the same as above. Bush B, Clinton B- (I'll go towards the B because he was very politically shrewd and had a lot of charisma), Bush junior D.
Just stepping back, I'm wondering if this isn't simply a sign that the world is getting more complicated. As nations divide into smaller entities, the world becomes less and less stable. Things were pretty easy and straightforward (relatively) when to large superpowers were in face-off.
3.) What is needed to solve "The Crisis of the American Superpower?"
Well, if we ceased to be a superpower that would solve it. Great Britain is no longer having a 'crisis of superpower' as it once did. As long as we are a superpower, we will be held to certain responsibilities and obligations by nature of being a superpower. I think whining about being a superpower, though, is like whining about being rich. I wouldn't personally trade the obligation to help others for the need to ask others to help me.
Edited to add, after reading Amlord's post above:
I think your assessment of the first Gulf war is hindsight 20/20. Saudi and Kuwait paid for that war, on condition that we didn't invade Iraq. We would have lost all moral authority and the entire Arab coalition behind us had we done otherwise. There was absolutely no way to know at that time that we would still be patrolling no fly-zones over Iraq ten years later. Saddam was so badly beaten, and he had signed a ceasefire agreement that indicated he would play ball. It looked like he would do as Qaddafi did and cease to be such a thorn.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Jan 21 2008, 08:47 AM)
1.) Using the above criteria everyone gets an F. In fact, everyone who ever lived gets an F.
Well, I have to agree, but I think it's important to remember that the bar is raised so high to make the point that more is expected from Global Leaders than the rest of us and that the standards they have to live up to and the stakes they're playing for are beyond simulation. Perhaps the presidents pre-Bush I could make the cut as effective leaders because they only had to largely contend with domestic affairs in the sense of comparison that is set by Brezezinski's assertion that this nation is the sole superpower. That unto itself raises the bar for the qualifications and lens through which we grade Bush I onward.
1.) Using the above criteria, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II?
2.) Using criteria of your own, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II? Please elaborate on how you arrived at your conclusions.
3.) What is needed to solve "The Crisis of the American Superpower?"
IMO Bush I rates the best or a "B"; Clinton a "B-", and Bush II an "F-"!
Regarding my own criteria, I give them much the same rating as above. I voted the first time for Barry Goldwater. I have never disliked a president as much as I dislike Bush II. IMO he has taken this country's assets and squandered them. I at least had the feeling that Jimmy Carter tried his best and listened to his advisers on every level. Bush II believes and has stated publicly that he is on a direct mission from God, which leads me to believe that his advisers and counselors must be rendered mute by such a high level communication as this.
"The Crisis of the American Superpower" - well, my number one would be that we immediately step down from this position. I believe that CruisingRam stated it best: " Easy- so easy that it boggles the mind. Stop being the super-power. There is no need for empire for the US. There is no need for us to MAKE ourselves targets. The rest of the world can function alright without us, as it did for millenia before us. We need to stop being the worlds policeman, and we need to check our cultural egos."
FOR HEAVENS SAKE, let's bow out of the limelight, develop alternate fuel, and quit making enemies who want nothing more than to attack us! Iraq and Iran don't need a recruitment program for their armed services, they have the good old USA doing it for them. What about this doesn't make sense?
2.) Using criteria of your own, how would you rate Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II? Please elaborate on how you arrived at your conclusions.
3.) What is needed to solve "The Crisis of the American Superpower?"
IMO Bush I rates the best or a "B"; Clinton a "B-", and Bush II an "F-"!
Regarding my own criteria, I give them much the same rating as above. I voted the first time for Barry Goldwater. I have never disliked a president as much as I dislike Bush II. IMO he has taken this country's assets and squandered them. I at least had the feeling that Jimmy Carter tried his best and listened to his advisers on every level. Bush II believes and has stated publicly that he is on a direct mission from God, which leads me to believe that his advisers and counselors must be rendered mute by such a high level communication as this.
"The Crisis of the American Superpower" - well, my number one would be that we immediately step down from this position. I believe that CruisingRam stated it best: " Easy- so easy that it boggles the mind. Stop being the super-power. There is no need for empire for the US. There is no need for us to MAKE ourselves targets. The rest of the world can function alright without us, as it did for millenia before us. We need to stop being the worlds policeman, and we need to check our cultural egos."
FOR HEAVENS SAKE, let's bow out of the limelight, develop alternate fuel, and quit making enemies who want nothing more than to attack us! Iraq and Iran don't need a recruitment program for their armed services, they have the good old USA doing it for them. What about this doesn't make sense?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.