Q&A: James Fallows

James Fallows, <i>Atlantic Monthly</i> national correspondent and former chief White House speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, explains the one circumstance that could redeem Bush’s legacy.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Mother Jones: Of all the things the Bush administration leaves behind, what will be the hardest one to fix?

James Fallows: The loss of America’s standing, good will, and respect in the world may have been the worst of Bush’s legacies, but it may be faster and easier to fix than some others. Either of his successors as president will look better in the world’s eyes than do Bush and Cheney—in John McCain’s case, because of his consistent anti-torture stand. But for obvious reasons, Barack Obama would offer a fresh start in many ways. The mere fact of his election, if it occurs, will demonstrate something about US politics that fits the good rather than the bad image of America; his personal international background is a plus, and the tone of his politics has already had an effect worldwide.

MJ: What problem is most urgent for the new president?

JF: Urgent: Iraq. Important: energy and climate.

MJ: What do you think Bush’s legacy will be 50 years from now?

JF: Some presidents look better in retrospect than they did at the time. Dwight Eisenhower was not popular among the intellectuals by the time he left office. Now many consider him a great man. Then, of course, there is the famous example of Harry Truman. But it appears as if Bush has grabbed onto those cases and assumed that precisely because he is so unpopular now he will look better later on. Two words for him: Herbert Hoover. Two more: James Buchanan, who essentially fiddled as the Civil War came on. In one circumstance only will Bush look significantly better: if conditions in Iraq five or ten years from now are transformed to a counterpart to Germany or Japan. The odds of that happening determine the odds of Bush looking good in retrospect.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend