1990s: The lost decade

It seems increasingly clear that the post-Cold War/pre-9/11 era (1991-2001) will be seen by historians the way the 1920s are today -- a time of decadence in which gathering domestic and foreign threats were neglected or ignored altogether. I was reminded of this by a New York Times article titled "American Energy Policy, Asleep at the Spigot", but the list of policy failures also includes global warming, health care, and terrorism at a minimum.

Comments

[jcargh]

Maybe so, especially after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, but during the 2001-08 period, we actually went backwards on all the things you list.

[TCG]

Well maybe it was because the inmates were running the asylum as noted above with the Gingrich take down.

However the 90s and 20s line coulda been taken from your random Neocon manifesto by just adding in the 30s. These usually predict doom and gloom in the absence of forceful intervention here there and everywhere.

[David]

I think that history will eventually find that Bush's Presidency was superior to Clinton's, because Clinton had so few accomplishments. He finished the work of Geroge H.W. Bush in getting NAFTA passed. He (and Hillary) tried to reform health care and got politically bloodied. After that, he remained popular by kicking the can down the road.

On terrorism, he just set up study commissions and prosecuted a few terrorists as criminals. On Social Security and Medicare's actuarial imbalance, he did nothing. On Iraq, he and Congress merely passed a resolution declaring that we favored regime change.

He never brought Kyoto to the Senate for a vote. (The Senate unanimously voted to reject a key aspect.) He didn't push for any alternative.

He negotiated an end to NK's nuclear program, but NK secredtly continued to work on it. He left the A. Q. Khan network in place.

OTOH, look at Bush's accomplishments:

-- Negotiated end to Libya's nuclear program
-- Ended the A. Q. Khan network, finally.
-- Negotiated an end to NK's nuclear program (although time will tell whether they again cheat.)
-- Ended Saddam's rule in Iraq.
-- Established a democracy in Iraq, which currently looks likely to succeed, according to independent reporter Michael Yon.
-- Ended the rule of the Taliban/al Qaeda in Iran
-- Established a democracy in Iran, although it's not clear whether that government will succeed. Yon says we're currently losing that war.
-- Added limited prescription drug coverage to Medicare, for those who most need it.
-- Changed the battle against Islamic terrorism to a war, rather than a crimial investigation
-- Substantially destroyed al Qaeda's strength and reputation throughout the Islamic world. (E.g., see Does Osama bin Laden Still Matter? )

Critics will say (rightly) that whatever was accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq and against al Qaeda was was done in a flawed way: too much loss of life, too many restrictions on civil liberties, etc. However, IMHO in the long run, the accomplishments will be more significant than the errors.

That's the case with the Civil War and WW2. In retrospect, the unnecessary loss of life was tens or hundreds of thousands in the former, and perhaps tens of millions in the latter. The restrictions on civil liberties were far greater than Bush's. Nevertheless, FDR and Lincoln and rated among the greatest of Presidents.

[David]

sorry, I left out Clinton's big success in reforming welfare.

[ERF]

David, your analysis is excellent.

The key is whether Bush's radical actions in trying to shape the Muslim, especially the Arab, world produce a durable improvement in the form of a broad adoption the Western liberal point of view there.

Bush's popular legacy thus hinges on the success or failure of democracy in Iraq. Everybody realizes this, whether one says it or not. It is interesting to watch politicians' and pundits' varying reactions to this realization.

The naming of countless future schools and government buildings throughout the world depends on whether Michael Yon is right or not.