The Worst President in History? - Page 2  

Actually you use the word academics, while many folks like myself wouldn't award them such a nice title. We would call them propagandists posing as academics. This is true of pretty much as human subgroup studies department (womens, black, etc.)

Also there is something to be said, and I as an educator try to stay aware of this as I am sure you do as well, about teaching a concept not being the same as execution of that concept. It is one thing to study Shakespeare and quite another to write in a manner that would garner as much respect as he does.

Also it isn't only the right who dismisses science. The left suffers quite strongly fom a "kill the messenger" approach and thus the only science they believe "pure" is that which comes from a source they endorse.

However enough of that, on to the actual article...

Nick

Oh Trumpy Bush has become a joke!

Give it up!

Personally I think it's the right wingers who prefer their own school of " science "which blantantly ignores the facts every time they hear something they don't like!


By the way are you saying there's something wrong or less value with classes which pertain to women or blacks?

Judging an event while it is happening does not allow for context. You can't decide if someone is best or worst while they are still performing. It would be like declaring someone the best or worst team at halftime.


Shouldn't one start with the actual reality and be concerned about representing it as objectively as possible while being able to pass it on to future generations? This premise for how historians operate sounds horribly flawed and give credence to why so many today are willing dismiss those who should hold the most weight in historical discussions. However when a historian is simply someone who takes their point of view and tells a story while always being conscious of peer pressure, how is that historical scholarship?


Have Historians always been more liberal than the citizenry as a whole or is this a recent development? Simply stating this fact does not cause one to avoid the dismissal in order to avoid a false conclusion. Whether the poll is affirmed or dismissed, until there is a valid explanation for why historians take their liberal point of view (divergent though it may be) and explain it how it informs rather than distorts their work, then the work will be questioned.


This stretches into a very long paragraph, all basically discussing approval or disapproval, ie popularity. How does popularity have anything to do with performance? Does the author offer up any sort of data to support his view? Growth or shrinkage of the economy? Unemployment data? Median household income? Life expectancy? Anything?


The author offers up as a second leg to his argument, the fact that Bush is both unpopular and uncredible, i.e. he is a liar. Yet there is not an assertion made by Bush that was not held by other administrations or even international bodies. The real issue is preemption. We are watching this come to the fore again with Iran and now many of the same previously attempted solutions are being bandied about. International negotiations, pressure, sanctions and so on are being discussed. While people can be critical of Bush in a multitude of ways, I've not heard a clear consensus view on what should have been done differently. This author does not offer one either.


So a war could be popular or unpopular and the president managed the war well. Does this really mean the president managed the war or the home perception of the war well? What is it that has changed since this time? Have the presidents conducting the war somehow become less effective? Have the people conducting the war someone become less competent?


Indeed, but how or why?


Is there a war fought since 1945 in which any president has been able to persuade those reporting on it and the historians documenting it that victory and an end was possible? If Bush cannot is this his personal failing or a change in the institutions and their own views on these matters?

We will stop here for now... if there is real discussion instead of just ranting or dismissal, perhaps the rest of the article will warrent similar dissection.

Nick

If I took classes on being a white male while in fact being a white male, would you consider it an academic pursuit?

Nick

One of the usual misconceptions detectable in the left is that the right is "ultra-right" and the left is actually the cool center. Of course, it works both ways, but I get a little upset every time I hear "ultra-right" and "ultra-left" used in regard to American politics.

That's a non-sequitur, though, and my real point is that the absolutist view of what makes something 'civilizational' or malicious should only be set to the standard of the "american way." That would imply that 18th century liberal thought AND even going so far as to include manifest destiny should be kernel by which we make all comparisons, rather than having two moving standards, such as the quasi-right and quasi-left that consider each other to be "ultra."

If you don't appreciate the "american way," that's a totally valid position, but when evaluating American politics among each other, it has to be the standard of comparison. To say that the Right is malicious because it is trying to move policy towards a more imperial ideal is a good argument, but is it more malicious than the Left trying to popularize more socialist economic practices as well as questionably Orwelian cultural axioms? For those not in the know, that is what conservatives are most afraid of -- bureaucratic rule by self-righteous cosmopolitans.

In response to your comment on "overestimating us," I can only allude to the fact that the basis of modern, western political philosophy, in particular the type adopted for the founding of the USA, relies heavily on the concept that man is inherently good, and rational. If you think that's wrong, then you have to realize that your position is definitely adrift from the pillar of traditional American philosophy. I'd argue that the problems created by modern politics are part of a chain reaction sustained by modern politics, and that the problem is not that the populace is misguided, but rather that the system itself needs to be revitalized in order to give people better representation. One such example would be to redraw the congressional districts periodically so as to nullify gerrymandering. Unfortunately, this can't happen as long as there's such a thing as a career politician.

In case you're curious, I'm personally not a centrist or even a moderate. I'm actually a registered Libertarian, so I get pissed off by conservatives AND liberals. It's really a very stressful affiliation.

Are you saying that there aren't things you can still learn about yourself?

Sheesh!

-----------------------------------------------------------
This stretches into a very long paragraph, all basically discussing approval or disapproval, ie popularity. How does popularity have anything to do with performance?
-----------------------------------------------------------

We hired him we can fire him.


-----------------------------------------------------------
" I've not heard a clear consensus view on what should have been done differently. This author does not offer one either. "
-----------------------------------------------------------

Not following a useless persuit like oh say....invading Iraq for one!



I don't think this had anything to do with peer pressure. That's just BS. It has to do with linning up the facts and no matter how you slice it Bush is a failure of the worst kind.

-----------------------------------------------------------
" Judging an event while it is happening does not allow for context. You can't decide if someone is best or worst while they are still performing. It would be like declaring someone the best or worst team at halftime. "
-----------------------------------------------------------

Yes but this is so obvious by using previous historical context you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out.



Man you can go on a bit can't you?

I can learn about myself. You can learn about yourself. Just don't expect me to accord you some sort of academic respect because you can tell me about yourself.


Actually you can't, though he will be termed out.


This remains to be seen. Thanks for taking your divegent viewpoint and comparing to those of your peers though. I suppose we should award you some sort of advanced degree now since you have shown you can share.


You are welcome to cite the facts from the article. The only "fact" I have found are opinion polls.

Nick

-----------------------------------------------------------
" Actually you can't, though he will be termed out. "
-----------------------------------------------------------

If he keeps it up he can be impeached. As you have said there's still more to his term.


-----------------------------------------------------------
" This remains to be seen. Thanks for taking your divegent viewpoint and comparing to those of your peers though. I suppose we should award you some sort of advanced degree now since you have shown you can share. "

-----------------------------------------------------------
It's already been seen. We wasted many lives and dollars in what was quite clearly a personal agenda by the president ( started on false pretenses I might add ). Don't kid yourself.

Take Vietnam. During the war many people knew what was wrong, how it would end, and what it wouldn't accomplish.

They didn't have to wait for " I told you so. "

By the way.
Now who's sounding elitist?

I'd consider that a degree in the humanities.

Zing.

There we go again.

as someone who likes to think, i think you should read this.

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/...t/xt-preb2.htm

This is sooo fucking ignorant and I'm plain sick of it.

If the quarterback throws a dozen interceptions, don't you expect him to be taken out?

If the coach loses 90% of the games in the first half of the season despite having wht everyone thought was a "winning team", you fire him!

You don't just leave incompetent people in to "see what happens" and then judge them when it's all over.

Ooh! Ooh! Let's argue about the accuracy of the analogy!

Then you should ask for your money back.

Nick

Show the incompetence. I listed loads of areas where Bush could have been cited statistically as being worst or even worse than someone else. Is unemployment through the roof? Is the debt as a percentage of GDP higher than previous presidents? Simply you or the author show the incompetence statistically. Whether the analog was the best, you easily understood the concept demonstrated. Name the statistics (dozen interceptions, 90% losing rate) that show Bush incompetence.

Take Iraq for example. People will state, "this was is going very badly." Do we have disproportionate deaths compared to other wars? Are we in retreat? The author of the article noted that basically no president has been able to convince the very liberal media and by self admission of the author himself, liberal historians that a war was winnable? Some little engagement where we carpet bomb or blow up something for a week, not such a big deal, but actual wars, those aren't winnable in their view.

Nick

Let move on just a tiny bit.


Where are the numbers? There aren't any because the Democrats voted for the war in very high numbers.

We can move on a bit further if someone will address the contention of the author that historians starting off with their own viewpoint while always being conscious that other historians will use the group baseline (liberal as self-admitted by the author) to judge their work is the proper means of conducting academic work. Is it the basis for an accurate poll?

How about the author's contention that something is right or competent because it is popular?

I asked other things about the article but perhaps we could answer one of these two since the points have mostly been ignored.

Nick

Ooooh...ooooh...ooooh. Grabs the popcorn.

Now Nick, that's below the belt. You know that rightness and competancy is defined by what is popular. We are a democracy afterall. We do vote on it don't we? I mean, look, isn't American Idol the icon of American decision-making.

I'm sorry! Then you don't try to think about things like everyone else?

Uh, what do you think we've been trying to do on this forum for years now? It's just there are a few with Bush engraved blinders on that won't see it for anything!

Yes! And we will be voting again soon! Although you may not like the results this time........the cat finally being out of the bag and all.

Yes, but repeating yourself over and over, even for years, isn't especially effective.

Nick

-----------------------------------------------------------
" How about the author's contention that something is right or competent because it is popular? "
-----------------------------------------------------------

You can go on until you're blue in the face about " Right " being in the eye of the beholder. It won't make any difference because we hired him, we can fire him!

If Bush isn't performing his job within the what the people see as right it's over. I believe most americans want a president who follows the general guidelines set down by our founding fathers. Mr. Bush seems to have little regard for that.

So now that it's out in the open for the public to see we're starting to see the end result.



UNPOPULAR!

I don't know. It seems to get to you!

Also the things I've been saying for years are coming true now. Bush will crash and burn as any self serving person in office should.

Ps. Pssst! You're there to serve the people.

What makes you assume I liked the result last time?



P.S. What we vote on is not the "rightness" or "competence" but rather our own personal belief of who will be the best (of the given choices) for the job. Two different things.

Eye-rolling is juvenile.

Thanks for supporting one of my last statements to Trumpy!

But it is fun...and sometimes (oftentimes here in PO) appropriate.

-----------------------------------------------------------
" If Bush isn't performing his job within the what the people see as right it's over. I believe most americans want a president who follows the general guidelines set down by our founding fathers. Mr. Bush seems to have little regard for that. "
-----------------------------------------------------------

Hence the popularity reference perfectly justified in the article.

Fine. But it doesn't mean that the people are right. Which is the point (I think) Nick was going for.

unpopular != wrong
popular != right

unpopular = unpopular
popular = popular

Exactly, the electorate clearly made a mistake of re-electing Bush (and now they are regretting it).

Under our constitution what the majority of the people want is the right thing within our government. And that's all that counts to keep things running as they should. Whether or not you or anyone else mistakenly thinks it's right or not doesn't count within these confines.

That's the point I'm going for.

Well...not really...the majority just (generally) gets what it wants. But this is throttled by something higher. So, for example, even if the majority of people think that salvery is "right"...doesn't make it so. It just (sometimes) takes time to get that sorted out.


Well you have confused yourself. Right and wrong do count of course. But in this context, someone is declaring an absolute ("worst president evvaaar") and that is something that can be determined (probably) beyond a purely subjective characterization...and something that requires context (as Nick pointed out) as well.

Not the right thing Jimmac. Your constitution is indifferent to that question. Who the majority* of the people wants at election time is who gets the power

*Winner takes it all, not really a democracy, Electoral College blablabla.

Of course right and wrong count. It just so happens that the idea of Bush being wrong is becoming the majority opinion.

Get over it.

Yes you've got me there. I shouldn't have used the constitution.

But, it isn't the majority opinion that confers this "wrongness" upon him. That is the point. He is not wrong because the majority believe he is. Which is a common fallacy.


Nothing to get over Sparky.