I've noticed that "Bush Legacy" articles are quite in vogue these days, as columnists try to get in one last dig at the outgoing presidency. Of course, there's a wee problem in the exercise, in that by definition, the legacy will get written, or written and re-written, by folks who aren't writing right now. I mean, that's sort of the point, isn't it? The assumption that a future generation, firmly embedded in a reality that's different from ours, will look back at this moment with its own perspectives, not with ours.
But we of the chattering class, we've got to chatter. So here's an interesting example of the genre: Kevin Libin suggests various things about the Bush presidency that might look different in the future, but ultimately expects they won't make much difference because (today's) academics really really don't like him, and it's academics who write the history books. (My italics added).
I rest my case.