It’s now six years into the George W. Bush era, and historians, journalists, and others are beginning to look towards January 20, 2009 and the legacy of this administration. So far, it isn’t pretty. Today, in the Washington Post, there’s a series of essays, written by academics, about Smirk and his place among the pantheon.

Historians as a lot (and I’ve known quite a few) tend to be all over the ideological map, just like everyone else, but quite a number of them are left-leaning, if not liberal or progressive, in their views. This is partly due to the nature of the profession: historians research, examine, dissect, and analyze (and over-analyze!) the facts. Often the facts aren’t very flattering to the central parties in many historical events. The interpretation, however, rests upon both the naked facts, and admittedly, the particular research or bias of the author. A good historian will remain as objective as he or she possibly can, but no opinion or interpretation in the world by anyone is totally 100% free of bias. This is especially true of presidential rankings. This academic exercise is a fun one, and American Heritage often has an article every so often exploring what leading historians and academics have to say about the occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But usually there’s some kind of consensus about the top and the bottom, while those in the middle tend to move around depending on the evidence and distance from their presidencies (the farther away in time, the more objective the opinion will probably be, imho). Right now, it doesn’t look good for Junior. The five editorials, taken all together, place Smirk at or near the bottom of the heap. While Eric Foner rightly notes that we cannot tell at this point how historians and other academics will rate Smirk come the year 2050, it’s clear to him that Smirk is the worst president ever, or close to it. David Greenberg posits that “At Least He’s Not Nixon,” but makes it clear that the next two years will determine Smirk’s final ranking. Douglas Brinkley isn’t ready to toss Bush overboard, but says he’s definitely not going to rise above mediocrity. Michael Lind is also reluctant to push aside such notables as Harding and Nixon to make room for Smirk at the bottom of the barrel, but he isn’t ready to give a top slot to him either, saying that “He’s Only Fifth Worst.” The final essayist, Vincent Cannato, gives Smirk mixed reviews, but is admittedly biased; he was a speechwriter in the White House in 2001, under Smirk.

It’s still early in the game, but with assessments this bad only 3/4 of the way through, I’d venture to say Junior isn’t going to best Daddy in any competitions when it comes to his place in history.