Ok, so Rolling Stone isn’t exactly a credible source for who is or is not the worst president in history. Nor are they exactly unbiased. According to this story though:
Now, this doesn’t exactly say that they consider him the WORST president, merely that his administration is a ‘failure’. And to be honest, I always thought that historians never tried to judge a presidents term while he was in office…prefering to look back after a few decades to see how things work out. Still, it does rather show an overwhelming majority of historians don’t think much of the Bush administration or what they have accomplished.
What I’m groping for to debate here is…how seriously should such polls be taken? How accurate is THIS poll (I don’t see much data on the actual poll or who took it)? Is it really representational of the professional historical community? I don’t really want to debate if Bush IS the worst president in history (I know there have been several debates on this in the past right here on the SDMB), but on how accurately and unbiased historians can evaluate a sitting president DURING his term. Can historians really make an unbiased evaluation of GW and state confidently that he is in fact THE worst President in history?
So, are these guys politically biased and allowing their own distaste for GW to color their opinions, or are they giving an accurate and unbiased historical evaluation of the current sitting president. If the former, what does this say about their OTHER evaluations of past presidents? If the later, how well will such predictions (i.e. he will go down as the worst President or possibly among the worst) stand up to the test of time? After all, we’ve all seen presidents rise and fall in the eyes of historians…some presidents getting rehabilitated, others being villified after the fact. One has only to look at Carter to see a president that some are trying heroically to rehabilitate…and a guy like Andrew Jackson who was once considered one of the great presidents and who has fallen somewhat since then in many historians eyes.
My favorite saying in cases like this goes to Mao’s prime minister Zhou Enlai who was once asked his opinion of the French Revolution. “Its too early to tell,” was his reply.
But, ever since I noticed this president disregard for what previous presidents did in a time of war, underfunding a war effort on purpose (no taxes to beat the axis) still makes no sense at all to me, and history will have to judge him on that. I do have to say the actions of this president will be with us for a long time, it is even more irresponsible that he has said already that the wars we have will not be his problem to solve.
“We surveyed a group of people who were selected from a cohort that tends to vote about 90% Democrat. To our surprise, very few liked the Republican president.”
For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that Rolling Stone didn’t pronounce GWB the “Worst President Ever”; rather, that was done by Sean Wilentz, Professor of History and Director of the Program in American Studies at Princeton University (credentials here).
Not that it’ll stop the Bush apologists from trying to dismiss Prof. Wilentz as an “ivory-tower elitist” or other such nonsense, I’d imagine.
Why is it that people who devote their lives to examining the effects of political policies overwhelmingly choose the Democratic Party? Because they are evil ivory tower liberals, that’s why! :dubious:
This seems mildly unreasonable. How does the fact that the presidency hasn’t ended yet render historical comparisons automatically invalid? Yeah, Bush’s administration isn’t a closed book yet, and I daresay that many of those historians would change their opinions tomorrow if he suddenly demonstrated the ability to raise the dead, or decided to reapportion the funds for Iraq in favor of domestic university history departments. I believe this is why the Post Office doesn’t put presidents on stamps until after they’re dead. (Or do they, these days? It’s been a while since I dabbled in philately.)
But how useful is the study of history, if a given period must necessarily be over before it can be successfully evaluated? I can’t see what the point of military studies would be, for example, if its only legitimate application were to comment on battles that are already over. There have been plenty of histories written about the United States; surely their conclusions are not all invalid simply because the country’s history is still ongoing? I’d suggest that the most critical time for an informed historical perspective on a President’s performance is during his time in office; everything else is just taxidermy.
Perhaps the Rolling Stone poll could have limited itself to “ranking Presidents’ performances at a point three-fourths through their time in office.” This would probably result in a markedly different standing for at least a few, but would at least have eliminated any problem with comparing the current Prez to his predecessors.
This is exactly the point I wanted to debate. Who were these folks, does this poll indicate the prevailing view in the historical community, and how seriously should we take such pronouncements?
Its a good point and one I made in the first line of the OP. In fact, that was exactly my first thought when I saw the cover with Bush in a dunce cap and the ‘Worst President in history?’ notation. Thats why I don’t want to debate Rolling Stones take on it but the poll itself.
Interestingly enough only rjung has provided anything close to what I was hoping to actually debate here.
Even though I agree that something has to be OVER to look at its results, even if overwhelming amounts of people are looking at it as it unfolds and judging this, I think it’s fair to say that, after his presidency is over, this one is going to be in the bottom third at best.
And, to echo what’s been said yet again, notice how the stock attack to this analysis would be to categorize these historians as elitists? 'Tis an attack on the person, not the statement. If they can bring out some solid facts and figures, then some serious debate can begin.
I’d LIKE for there to be some facts and figured dug up to counteract this, by the way. The debate would denegrate into an old-fashioned mud slingin’.
The problem with this “debate” is that the two questions (only one of which you wish to discuss) are intractably related.
Can a historian make an unbiased judgement that a President is the Worst. POTUS. EV-HAR.? Of course! Let’s say that GWB nukes Iran, invades Canada, launches widespread, illegal surveillance of US citizens, has the CIA assisinate the remaining libral SC justices and makes recess appointments of, say, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and John Aschroft, makes ‘Let the Eagle Soar’ the official national anthem, proclaims the SBC the Official State Church, and starts rimming sobbing 7-year Mexican boys during press conferences.
If all that happened, a historian could unquestionably make an unbiased evaluation of GWB and state confidently that he is, in fact, the worst President in history. There you go: question answered. Debate over. The real question is: does GWB’s presidency suck so bad that a historian could reasonably believe that it’s the worst ever?
Well, I thought finding a mushroom cloud over an American city would make protecting jobs first a curious priority. (and before you reply, let’s remember that the administration came with that image)
So, are we at war? Then this president will be tagged by posterity of at least being the very epitome of half-assed solutions in a time of war, by far the worst planning administration in American history.
Excuse me? How could any credible historian reach this “unbiased” conclusion? A president who fights terrorism in the Mideast, liberates Canada, uses his authorized executive powers of intelligence-gathering to protect loyal American citizens, strengthens the nation’s tradition of faith, and takes a vigorous public stance regarding the value of Mexican immigrants, yet somehow qualifies as “the worst President in history?”
But yeah, I agree that ‘Let the Eagle Soar’ would probably push him beyond the pale.
If I submitted a paper like that in a journalism class it would have been thrown back in my face with a “F” on it. It’s one long childish rant. These “learned historians” fling adjectives like monkey poo. Reagan received the same treatment when he was in office. He was called a simplistic ideologue. Even the music industry picked on him. For those old enough to remember the long running MTV video of Reagan accidentally pushing the nuke button, he was made to look like a fool.
I need a cite for Historians doing that, not musicians. I see that there is still no consensus on Reagan, but even his historical critics call him shrewd:
Just there I can see a series of items Bush is not even able to hold a candle to Reagan. When all what is happening in secret is eventually revealed, I have the feeling the status of Bush will diminish even further.
Also, While Reagan made conservative thinking into a palatable dish for mainstream America, Bush is poisoning that dish, I think even conservative historians will get him for that.
This exact point was covered in the OP, but you have ignored that. If as you assert historians are 90% Democrats (love to know where you got that stat from), and unprofessionally let that sway their opinions, why did they pick on GWBush, rather than any other or all other Republican presidents?
Question for the OP: leaving GWBush out of the published figures, did they rate Rep presidents are significantly worse that Dem ones?
Its a good point and one I made in the first line of the OP. In fact, that was exactly my first thought when I saw the cover with Bush in a dunce cap and the ‘Worst President in history?’ notation. Thats why I don’t want to debate Rolling Stones take on it but the poll itself.