The axis of awful
". .. the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history," is Nobel-prize-winning economist George A. Akerlof's take on the Bushies. "It has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign and economic but also in social and environmental policy. This is not normal government policy."
Sure, they all lie, but in my lifetime, LBJ's and Nixon's truth-challenged administrations were the standouts. LBJ pretty much figured we couldn't win the war in terms that Americans would construe as winning--but did not deign to share that insight with the American people. And Nixon's paranoia makes you wonder whether batteries of psychological testing should be a mandatory requirement for throwing one's hat in the ring.
But LBJ passed unprecedented civil rights legislation, and Nixon opened up China. And asked what Dubya has done on the positive side of the ledger, it's hard to come up with anything of significance. The no-child-left-behind policy? There are those who argue that high-stakes testing, over-emphasising phonics, and requiring teachers to teach to a script is worth the sacrifice of talented and dedicated teachers who find the new regime intolerable and quit the school system. Perhaps raising the general teaching level from incompetent to at-least-mediocre is worth the price. And you can argue that making educators accountable--even if there are serious kinks in the policy as currently defined--is a good idea. I believe that it is. But love it or hate it, the no-child-left-behind-policy is an underfunded program that can't possibly be implemented by schools that are caught in monumental budget crunches. They're laying off teachers and school librarians, for godsake!
So how do you put the awfulness of Dubya in context? I still think you have to look back--past the administrations of American presidents--until you arrive at divine-right failures of the European and roman empires.
5:32:40 AM 
|
