There is a category of leader that is beyond bad. Beyond incompetent, dishonest, or any of the other faults usually attributed to politicians. These are the toxic leaders. People so bad that their countries suffer for years and sometimes centuries as a result of their follies. Such an exalted club must by definition have few members. Most would-be toxic leaders fail, die or are deposed before they can do real damage. It is rare that someone so bad can get into a position of unaccountable power and keep it long enough to have a real impact.
Among Western leaders, I'd nominate Phillip II of Spain, Nicholas II of Russia, Wilhelm II of Germany, Nero and Adolf Hitler. I'm not familiar enough with Middle East, South or East Asian history to pick out their candidates. Numerous others are close, but were saved by chance, death, outside circumstances or great successors. I'd put Napoleon, Alexander III of Russia, Stalin, Edward II of England, James Buchanan (USA), Herbert Hoover (USA), John of England, Charles I of England, Charles IV of France, Louis XVI of France and most Hapsburgs in this category. John of England, for example was a terrible king, but the lasting impact of his rule was the Magna Carta, a net positive. Stalin, on the other hand, would be a shoo-in if you consider his performance from 1922 to 1941. But winning WW2 and casting the Soviet Union as a superpower changed the game. Obviously, there is a lot of room for argument here, but its a start.
Its dangerous to write history too soon after the fact. Things that look important at the time are sometimes less so afterwards. For example, the 1969 moon landing did not prove to be the turning point in human history thought at the time. Apollo 8's photographs of the earth from moon orbit actually had more impact than anything else accomplished by the US space program. And things that didn't register on the contemporary radar can have profound effects. HIV became a global epidemic in the 1970's without causing a ripple.
It is with these caveats that I consider George Bush. Before the current economic crisis, I had thought that by definition, Buchanan had to be the worst US President because he failed to prevent civil war. But George Bush has raised his game, and the stakes of his failure. He is a bit like Phillip II who took potentially the richest and most powerful country in Europe and turned her into a backwater for 400 years. Through greed, corruption, arrogance and stunning incompetence, George Bush has taken the richest and most powerful country in history to the brink of disaster. On any index the US is worse off now than in 2000. Life expectancy is lower, child mortality is up, income is lower, and debt far higher. Drug use has increased dramatically while the US has put 25% of all the worlds convicts behind bars. The US Army is breaking under the load of two un-winnable and staggeringly expensive wars. US strategic position has suffered enormously under the Bush administration, leaving the US unable to get its way in many important issues. Domestically, the US has seen a dangerous and corrupting outsourcing of critical government functions to the private sector. Billions have been thrown into the black hole of "security", leaving Americans less flexible, less secure, and less able to compete with other countries. The rule of law has been widely subverted with consequences yet to be fully appreciated. A full accounting of illegal activities by the Bush Administration will probably take many years. The whole thing has been paid for with borrowed money, and the creditors are getting edgy.
Despite this damning record, Bush may yet be saved from toxicity by circumstance or succession. His follies may not have lasting damage, or Obama could turn things around. After all, Buchanan doesn't make the toxic list because of Lincoln. Edward II doesn't make it because of Edward III. Nevertheless, George Bush will be remembered for a long time. Few have ever held such power. Few have abused it so thoroughly. Fewer still have used it to bring a great country to its knees.
------------
Note: The US electorate are saved full blame because Bush stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections. That's a controversial claim, but I think when we know everything that happened in Ohio in 2004, the claim will be confirmed.
