White House aides say Bush, who majored in history at Yale, likes to emphasise historical comparisons because they are easy for the public to understand and illustrate in dramatic fashion how differently future generations may come to view him. Unfortunately for the president, many historians have already reached a conclusion: In an informal survey of scholars this spring, just two out of 109 historians said Bush would be judged a success; a majority deemed him the “worst president ever”. “It’s all he has left,” said Millsaps College history professor Robert S McElvaine, who conducted the survey for the History News Network of George Mason University. “When your approval ratings are down around 20 to 28 per cent and the candidate of your own party is trying to hide from being seen with you, history is your only hope.”

Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz, who wrote a widely cited Rolling Stone essay about Bush in 2006 titled “The Worst President in History?,” said last week that the president’s historical arguments can be effective because they are difficult to disprove. “By just saying, ‘In the long run this is going to look great,’ it makes it very hard to respond to,” he said.

White House officials dispute any link between Bush’s recent emphasis on history and his disapproval rating, which is now the highest of any president since Gallup began asking the question in the 1930s. Current and former aides note that Bush is a longtime history buff who, in the middle of his presidency, met regularly with historians and other intellectuals to discuss predecessors, including Washington and Nixon.