Dear WaPo: Get Stuffed

Oh, barf.

The Washington Post examines the Bush family legacy with the headline “The Roosevelts, Kennedys, and Now the Bushes.” I don’t think I have time to point out the entire myriad of reasons why Shrub hasn’t earned the right to shine F.D.R.’s or J.F.K.’s shoes, no less be considered a part of one of the great American dynasties, but let’s just start with this:

FDR: The New Deal
Shrub: Attempting to dismantle Social Security using a web of taxpayer-funded misinformation campaigns

JFK: Civil Rights Advocate
Shrub: Leader of party seeking to restrict the rights of gays, encroach upon a woman’s right to choose, and undermine the rights guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions

There may not be a distinctive "Bush style" that other politicians try to mimic, as they did with JFK's appearance and wit. The family has yet to capture the romantic fancy of fiction writers and Hollywood producers. The incumbent is launching a second term, according to polls, with nearly as many Americans scornful of his presidency as supportive of it. No matter.

By any objective measure, political scholars say, Bush is a name that belongs next to Adams, Kennedy and Roosevelt as a force whose influence spans decades.

Really? I didn’t think comparing the policies of presidents was a subjective comparison. This is the problem with American journalism today—an inexplicable but evidently abject fear of critiquing the inherent value of policy, as opposed to its viability. Just because a policy can be enacted doesn’t automatically make it a good policy. And just because the Bushes managed to hold control of the White House for a third collective term doesn’t mean it warrants them a place among the great American political dynasties. If hanging on to the means to exert influence for decades is all it takes to become an American legacy these days, with no analysis of whether that influence lives up to the ideals that American politicians are meant to represent, we’ve really and truly lost the plot.