If I were a betting man and I had a reliable means of collecting on it, I’d bet anything that in 20 years they’ll be saying pretty much the same thing about Bush.
I have a further question: Do recent presidents have some kind of shelf-life, such that after they “expire”, it is legitimate for historians to rank them, but not before? To give an example, would it be, say, too soon to rank Reagan as one of the best or worst in American History, but not, perhaps, Grover Cleveland? How deep in history does the president have to be before historians can discuss the merits of his presidency intelligently? How long does it take for them to gain the necessary perspective to render a sound analysis?
I would say no. History may change the situation, & our understanding of the situation, but there is no fixed number of years to wait before making an assessment. After all, history may change our understanding. It may not.
I now realise I was remiss, in my post last night, to leave out some possibilities:[ul][li]e. While disagreeing with each other, both the scholars & the administration are wrong, & will be proven wrong by history.[/li][li]f. While disagreeing with each other, both the scholars & the administration are wrong, & can be shown wrong in the present, by better logic & scholarship.[/ul]Interesting, actually.[/li]
In any case, I would say that those if anyone who seriously & professionally studies history considers the current administration to be really bad (whether “worst” is less important) that opinion should be seriously considered. If the contention is to be rejected, its arguments must be refuted honestly, & not simply dismissed out of hand for partisan reasons. So, yes, if many, many historians say, “he’s the worst ever!” I have to give that at least* some* weight–not that he’s really the worst ever, but that he’s bad enough to get that accusation. Not all Americans, certainly not all historians, are highly pessimistic about our country. Historians know how bad things were in the late 19th Century; they tend to be a bit … irritatingly calm. If that’s changed, look out.
This was the best post EVAR. Until this:
IMO (I’m no historian of course), I’d say at least a decade after they leave office for an honest and meaningful evaluation. So, still much too early for Clinton, Bush senior is just coming due, and Reagan is fair game…and I’ve noticed a lot more historians commenting on Reagan lately. Anyone before Bush I is obviously fair game, and probably anyone at least 50 years out is up for a re-evaluation (guys like Andrew Jackson, say).
You know, I hadn’t even considered this aspect, though now that you point it out its dead obvious. :smack: Yeah, its more than possible that RS is simply trying to bring in new blood, or perhaps even pander to their current readership.
-XT
I know this is skirting the ‘discussing his Presidency’ bit but dont see how it could be avoided.
Most ‘its too early to say’ people Ive read argue out we dont know the long term ramifications of Iraq and the like. If the middle east does end up turning into a region of peace and democracy as a result of all this for instance, then history is likely to be awfully kind to Bush. A few stunning successes on issues like this can get an awful lot of forgiveness in other areas.
So because we dont know the long term ramifications of at least some of the actions involved, it does seem to have some merit to me to suggest that ‘history’ cant really judge Bush yet and historians who do are perhaps jumping the gun a wee bit and therefore potentially suspect?
Otara
Yes. Personally I don’t THINK there will now be any great turn around in Iraq, but the possibility exists. In addition, there is more going on than just Iraq, and its possible that things happening now below the surface could have unforseen ramifications in the future. Also, its possible GW could be assassinated, impeached, or some other huge and unforseen event could happen (another 9/11 attack say, or some key decision in Iran or North Korea that has a huge impact on history 50 years from now) that will have an impact on how future generations look on this presidency…either negatively or positively.
So, to me its at least a bit suspect that professional historians would make predictions without that future data or context…which leads me to think that they are actually making PRIVATE predictions not based on their profession but based on the same thing you or I would use…IOW they are guessing and speculating. Sure, right now it seems a good bet that GW might be ranked in the bottom 5 or 10…and its even possible he may be THE worst president among serious historians looking back at this period of time when the next century dawns.
Its the appeal to authority that I saw in the article that sparked this debate. By using their professional credentials to make their opinions and speculations carry more weight they are definitely attempting to have their predictions taken more seriously than, say, my predictions…yet they are doing it based on the same data we all have, and using the same tools…i.e. looking at todays events and attempting to see into the crystal ball of the future. The obvious problem is…whats important to us today, what we are focused on, maybe be meaningless in the future. Iraq may be VERY important, or just a footnote for instance. Maybe its some obscure program or other event that will be the central defining aspect of GW’s presidency…we just don’t know and we are too close to the problem to objectively evaluate it.
Least thats my take. Could be that being a professional historian DOES give one a better view into the future, or maybe makes them better able to see trends and make evaluations about how current events will fit into the matrix that will be the future. Thats pretty much the crux of what I wanted to debate…and perhaps the wider applications extending to any professional group who attempt to make predictions that touch on their areas of expertese but with limited data, appealing to their authority and giving ‘weight’ to their arguements, where such ‘weight’ may not be warrented.
-XT
One of the main purposes of history and the recording of it, is to learn from it, to see where we are now, and to see where we may be headed. Regardless what this group of historians said about Bush, what use is any history, if you don’t or can’t use it to evaluate the present? To say history can’t be used right now, as a reference or a guide, or even a warning, is not much different from saying throw it all away and ignore it.
“if you don’t or can’t use it to evaluate the present?”
I think the issue is more how its done.
If they’d said something like ‘based on previous trends in history I believe it is likely Bush is going to be viewed as one of the worst presidents ever’ Id take it more seriously.
Its the claim that he ‘is’ the worst where I start getting worried, because it seems to go from ‘trend’ or ‘prediction’ to ‘crystal ball’.
Maybe something closer to the original is what they actually said and its been translated a bit in between.
Otara
The title of this thread is inaccurate, but then the Rolling Stone article is inaccurate. The historians did not say that Bush is the worst President ever. Here’s an article about the poll of historians:
Here’s part of what the original poll of historians said:
> The past presidencies most commonly linked with the current administration
> include all of those that are usually rated as the worst in the nation’s history:
> Nixon, Harding, Hoover, Buchanan, Coolidge, Andrew Johnson, Grant, and
> McKinley.
In other words, what they said was approximately that of the 43 Presidents so far, Bush belongs in the bottom 9. Please note that I am not interested in commenting on the Bush Presidency itself. I’m only interested in the fact that the point of the poll was not correctly reported.
Obviously he’s the worst. So far ahead of the pack we don’t even have to wait for the term to end.
In 230 years we are at a state of the lowest standard of living ever experienced. In every category. We have the lowest standard of security (yeah, let’s forget the White House was rebuilt after being burned. W is really, really old) ever seen. Health care is in a shambles and public health is to the point that life expectancy has fallen to the point that murder can be defended as a pre-abortion.
These polls/lists are ridiculous. They are done to give the cover writers something to work with to sell a magazine to people that think the same way and just salivate to find validation.
No respected historian would gauge a President’s legacy while still in office. No respected historian would gauge a legacy within 10 years of the end of service. There are things done that take decades to prove correct or incorrect.
Can anyone recall Woodrow Wilson? If Rolling Stone back then made a statement on his Presidency before leaving office, which “historians” do you think they would cite? He kept us out of war. With the “historians” cited he’s be cemented as a top-5.
Then that pesky Hitler had to throw a hissy fit and mess it all up. 30 years later. What a prick.
But I’m sure W is the worst. Yes, I’m convinced of it.
Ah, this explains why not a single respected historian voted in the 2004 presidential election. I had been wondering why that was, but now it is clear. “Damn! If I vote, either for Bush or for someone else, that would require me to gauge Bush’s legacy during the last four years! Which, as a respected historian, I cannot do! Curse this unwritten respected historian’s code! It’s almost as though it were purposefully designed to disenfranchise us 90%-Democratic-voting historians from offering any perspective on a sitting administration!”
Does this rule apply exclusively to presidential legacies, or does it extend to other historical events as well? Would a respected historian be able to conclude whether the 9-11 attacks were a bad thing yet? It’s been less than five years.
Maybe it’s too soon to judge Hitler too. After all, he’s still relatively recent. Best to wait until all the facts are in. “There are things done that take decades to prove correct or incorrect.” It’s only been a few decades. :eek:
To push the ridiculous button the other way, maybe they best get started on their evaluation of the next president, ehe? Best get cracking…
-XT
She sucks!
MMmphm…weeel, this could either be a good thing or a bad thing…
(sorry, couldn’t resist).
-XT
On the other hand there are people so bad and thing done so stupidly that they can be easily judged right away, or even beforehand.
And no, Bush isn’t the equal of Hitler; he lacks Hitler’s stature as a leader, as well as Hitler’s ability to accomplish things ( bad things, but he accomplished at least some of them ). Bush is too much of a failure to accomplish that level of evil on purpose; he might yet stumble into it somehow.
Yeah, that Hitler, what a guy. He certainly accomplished a lot…like the destruction complete destruction of Germany. Bush is just a piker next to THAT list of accomplishments certainly.
:rolleyes:
-XT
It seems as though you both are trying to comment on the effects of Hitler’s policies. I can tell, therefore, that neither of you is a respected historian. No respected historian would jeopardize their reputation by presuming to judge current events such as the recent European unpleasantness. It may take centuries before the effects are fully understood, and it would be foolishly imprudent to pass judgement prematurely. You should be ashamed of yourselves for peddling your personal biases in this fashion.
I already hate her 