Holy shit did you just include the total fucking destruction of Libya, one of the most prosperous countries in Africa, and turning it into an open-air slave market as "linear forward progress"?

This is why we can't have discourse. You don't understand history, you aren't analyzing anything, you're just trying to take specific events, strip them of context, and force fit them into a narrative structure that makes you feel good.

We can do "linear progress" for all the presidents.

Gee Dubya did a huge amount of good for AIDS prevention and treatment, malaria prevention and treatment, and tuberculosis prevention and treatment. He led the largest expansion of medicare since its creation. He led the Amber Alert system. He led SOX. He created the largest protected maritime area in US history.

We can do this for every president. In your formulation, we would have to take every change every president did and then attempt to build a system of quantification to establish net progressive trajectory. Which is prima facie foolish.

The reality is that there is one project - EuroAmerican empire - and there are multiple constituencies that need to be managed for the project to continue. Domestically, there are two large groups of voters, driven by different psychosocial factors, and these two groups of voters are managed by two parties. Within those two large groups of voters are different subdivisions and these are kept in-group with different politicians within the party.

Outside of the voters we have what effectively are the subalterns. Indigenous Americans are managed first and foremost through violence, then through assimilation. As they become stronger in their resistance, the empire needs to respond. If the empire went full violence, one large group of citizens would resist. If they went full integration and reconciliation, a different group of citizens would resist. It is not measure of progressive politics that Deb Haaland became secretary of the interior but rather a measure of the progress of the resistance to EuroAmerican empire in that it has forced the empire to create some representation. That representation will cause reaction from a large portion of the polity, and it will sharpen the contradictions inside the empire, which will cause backlash and conflict.

This is the context for Bush as well as Obama. There are international constituencies, and they all live under the weight of the empire. Some, like Western Europe, are collaborators - nowhere near capable of resisting th empire, but willing to play the game in order to retain their wealth and way of life. Others - like nearly all of Africa - are neocolonial subjects where wealth has been extracted for centuries and continues to be extracted. For every dollar of aid the West sends to Africa they extract between 7 and 15 dollars. That is important context for any analysis of what people call "progress". Bush's contributions to both disease and to Medicaid are concessions to constituencies in exchange for political support and compliance, in order to create the operational space to continue the project of EuroAmerican empire.

And you are proof that this strategy works. Obama expanded the drone program immensely, became the first president to deliberately order the and oversee the killing of a US citizen on foreign soil, collaborated with many of the same political elite that you think are ruining the US today, and yet, you want to fight for the rhetorical space that the Ds need to continue doing it.

You look at Biden's participation in the genocide against Palestine, in Kamala's participation in mass incarceration, in their use of solitary confinement on children at the border, on the continued war mongering globally, on the continued use of torture, of their total fecklessness in the face of a clear and present neonazi danger, and you are out here trying to convince people, in your own free time, of the Democratic party's worthiness of votes, and you are willing to fight against anyone that would say otherwise.

The two parties are obviously not the same, because that would be functionless. The parties are different precisely because they appeal to different constituencies that differ from each other psychologically, morally, economically, and culturally. But they both serve the same program and that program is a terrible, violent, oppressive, extractive, racist, misogynistic, and unsustainable program. There is no resistance to this program in American politics. The resistance only exists outside American politics - in indigenous communities, in budding socialist movements, in global socialist and non-aligned nations.

What you think of as progress in America is nothing more than the management of resistance from the risk of domestic resistance.