| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Epignosis 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
 Posted: October 09 2008 at 14:10 |
|
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
Franklin Pierce, anyone?
|
 |
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: October 09 2008 at 18:17 |
 Epignosis wrote:
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
Franklin Pierce, anyone?
|
I agree Bush-bashing is popular these days, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he has the worst approval rating of any president in the history of tracking approval ratings - how can tens of millions of people all be wrong?
More importantly, Pierce's poor legacy is largely a reflection of him being a drunken ass who alienated large portions of the American populace, and at a time when the nation was deeply divided internally. Grant was a pretty lousy president as well, and for some of the same reasons.
But Bush's ineptitude rises to new levels because the damage he and his ilk have done go far, far beyond our own borders. He has left his stain on many other parts of the world, and in doing so has shamed our nation on an international stage. Pierce (and pretty much all presidents prior to WWII) never had the power or the reach to make such a broad impact.
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: October 09 2008 at 19:56 |
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
Franklin Pierce, anyone?
|
I agree Bush-bashing is popular these days, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he has the worst approval rating of any president in the history of tracking approval ratings - how can tens of millions of people all be wrong?
More importantly, Pierce's poor legacy is largely a reflection of him being a drunken ass who alienated large portions of the American populace, and at a time when the nation was deeply divided internally. Grant was a pretty lousy president as well, and for some of the same reasons.
But Bush's ineptitude rises to new levels because the damage he and his ilk have done go far, far beyond our own borders. He has left his stain on many other parts of the world, and in doing so has shamed our nation on an international stage. Pierce (and pretty much all presidents prior to WWII) never had the power or the reach to make such a broad impact.
|
Hey friend- Tens of millions of people voted for Bush. Remember, I'm not defending him here, just pointing out some US history (since I enjoy history). Bush only has more effect on the world due to the era he lives in. Had other US Presidents lived in this time, what unpopular choices would they have made? How about Andrew "I don't think blacks deserve rights" Jackson?" Kanye West could have made some defensible accusations against this guy.
Edited by Epignosis - October 09 2008 at 19:57
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: October 10 2008 at 00:47 |
Epignosis wrote:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
Franklin Pierce, anyone?
|
I agree Bush-bashing is popular these days, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he has the worst approval rating of any president in the history of tracking approval ratings - how can tens of millions of people all be wrong?
More importantly, Pierce's poor legacy is largely a reflection of him being a drunken ass who alienated large portions of the American populace, and at a time when the nation was deeply divided internally. Grant was a pretty lousy president as well, and for some of the same reasons.
But Bush's ineptitude rises to new levels because the damage he and his ilk have done go far, far beyond our own borders. He has left his stain on many other parts of the world, and in doing so has shamed our nation on an international stage. Pierce (and pretty much all presidents prior to WWII) never had the power or the reach to make such a broad impact.
|
Hey friend-
Tens of millions of people voted for Bush. Remember, I'm not defending him here, just pointing out some US history (since I enjoy history). Bush only has more effect on the world due to the era he lives in. Had other US Presidents lived in this time, what unpopular choices would they have made?
How about Andrew "I don't think blacks deserve rights" Jackson?" Kanye West could have made some defensible accusations against this guy.
|
Yes, roughly 53,000,000 people voted for him, but in a country of more than 300,000,000 I wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement of support. Anyway, your point that Bush has had more opportunity to make more impactful bad decisions only because of the time he lives in might be true, but it is kind of irrelevant. Jackson, Grant, Johnson and possibly others would have been worse presidents were they serving today, but the fact is they aren't (and can't) serve today, so the point is rather moot. Really, under that rationale Kennedy would likely have been the worst since in today's world the Bay of Pigs would undoubtedly have been much more catastrophic than it turned out to be then.
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: October 10 2008 at 09:44 |
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
Franklin Pierce, anyone?
|
I agree Bush-bashing is popular these days, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he has the worst approval rating of any president in the history of tracking approval ratings - how can tens of millions of people all be wrong?
More importantly, Pierce's poor legacy is largely a reflection of him being a drunken ass who alienated large portions of the American populace, and at a time when the nation was deeply divided internally. Grant was a pretty lousy president as well, and for some of the same reasons.
But Bush's ineptitude rises to new levels because the damage he and his ilk have done go far, far beyond our own borders. He has left his stain on many other parts of the world, and in doing so has shamed our nation on an international stage. Pierce (and pretty much all presidents prior to WWII) never had the power or the reach to make such a broad impact.
|
Hey friend-
Tens of millions of people voted for Bush. Remember, I'm not defending him here, just pointing out some US history (since I enjoy history). Bush only has more effect on the world due to the era he lives in. Had other US Presidents lived in this time, what unpopular choices would they have made?
How about Andrew "I don't think blacks deserve rights" Jackson?" Kanye West could have made some defensible accusations against this guy.
|
Yes, roughly 53,000,000 people voted for him, but in a country of more than 300,000,000 I wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement of support. Anyway, your point that Bush has had more opportunity to make more impactful bad decisions only because of the time he lives in might be true, but it is kind of irrelevant. Jackson, Grant, Johnson and possibly others would have been worse presidents were they serving today, but the fact is they aren't (and can't) serve today, so the point is rather moot. Really, under that rationale Kennedy would likely have been the worst since in today's world the Bay of Pigs would undoubtedly have been much more catastrophic than it turned out to be then. |
I was merely countering your statement that "tens of millions" of people can't be wrong. Listen- if it's popular nowadays to be anti-Bush, then it likely follows that Bush will have a low approval rating. Most people I know or encounter are ignorant of what's going on in our own state, let alone the country or rest of the world, merely basing their opinions about a headline they skimmed over or the snippet of news they heard in the break room. Not all, just the majority of the people I know. When I have to explain to someone that the President isn't a dictator (in that the position does not confer ultimate power over the affairs of the country, and that Bush doesn't control gas prices), or explain the difference between the branches of government or explain very basic tenets of the Constitution, I take it with a grain of salt when they say "Bush is the worst President we've ever had." Usually I can put their claim to rest by just saying, "Really? Name ten other US Presidents."
Therefore, I put absolutely no stock in "approval ratings."
Also, you mentioned that our country has 300 million people, so 53,000,000 votes doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of support- that claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. How many people in our country are minors, who can't vote? Or convicted felons? Or just don't vote because they don't want to?
I can see what you mean in your third paragraph, though, but how do we judge the crappiness of a President? Do we do it according to the context of his situation, or acknowledge that the cards are stacked against more recent Presidents because the world is bigger and there are just more problems to contend with?
By the way, I disagree that Presidents prior to WWII never had the power to make a broad, foreign impact. Both Roosevelts are prime examples of this. James K. Polk "lied to Congress" to go to war with Mexico to take over land, just to name a few examples, for better or for worse.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: October 10 2008 at 10:09 |
|
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: October 10 2008 at 13:04 |
Epignosis wrote:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
Franklin Pierce, anyone?
|
I agree Bush-bashing is popular these days, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he has the worst approval rating of any president in the history of tracking approval ratings - how can tens of millions of people all be wrong?
More importantly, Pierce's poor legacy is largely a reflection of him being a drunken ass who alienated large portions of the American populace, and at a time when the nation was deeply divided internally. Grant was a pretty lousy president as well, and for some of the same reasons.
But Bush's ineptitude rises to new levels because the damage he and his ilk have done go far, far beyond our own borders. He has left his stain on many other parts of the world, and in doing so has shamed our nation on an international stage. Pierce (and pretty much all presidents prior to WWII) never had the power or the reach to make such a broad impact.
|
Hey friend-
Tens of millions of people voted for Bush. Remember, I'm not defending him here, just pointing out some US history (since I enjoy history). Bush only has more effect on the world due to the era he lives in. Had other US Presidents lived in this time, what unpopular choices would they have made?
How about Andrew "I don't think blacks deserve rights" Jackson?" Kanye West could have made some defensible accusations against this guy.
|
Yes, roughly 53,000,000 people voted for him, but in a country of more than 300,000,000 I wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement of support.
Anyway, your point that Bush has had more opportunity to make more impactful bad decisions only because of the time he lives in might be true, but it is kind of irrelevant. Jackson, Grant, Johnson and possibly others would have been worse presidents were they serving today, but the fact is they aren't (and can't) serve today, so the point is rather moot. Really, under that rationale Kennedy would likely have been the worst since in today's world the Bay of Pigs would undoubtedly have been much more catastrophic than it turned out to be then.
|
I was merely countering your statement that "tens of millions" of people can't be wrong. Listen- if it's popular nowadays to be anti-Bush, then it likely follows that Bush will have a low approval rating. Most people I know or encounter are ignorant of what's going on in our own state, let alone the country or rest of the world, merely basing their opinions about a headline they skimmed over or the snippet of news they heard in the break room. Not all, just the majority of the people I know. When I have to explain to someone that the President isn't a dictator (in that the position does not confer ultimate power over the affairs of the country, and that Bush doesn't control gas prices), or explain the difference between the branches of government or explain very basic tenets of the Constitution, I take it with a grain of salt when they say "Bush is the worst President we've ever had." Usually I can put their claim to rest by just saying, "Really? Name ten other US Presidents."
Therefore, I put absolutely no stock in "approval ratings."
Also, you mentioned that our country has 300 million people, so 53,000,000 votes doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of support- that claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. How many people in our country are minors, who can't vote? Or convicted felons? Or just don't vote because they don't want to?
I can see what you mean in your third paragraph, though, but how do we judge the crappiness of a President? Do we do it according to the context of his situation, or acknowledge that the cards are stacked against more recent Presidents because the world is bigger and there are just more problems to contend with?
By the way, I disagree that Presidents prior to WWII never had the power to make a broad, foreign impact. Both Roosevelts are prime examples of this. James K. Polk "lied to Congress" to go to war with Mexico to take over land, just to name a few examples, for better or for worse.
|
We'll have to start color-coding if this keeps up  .
Or possibly Bush-bashing is popular because he has low public approval. Hard to say really. And yes, there are a lot of ignorant (or at least ill-informed) people running around exercising their right to free speech - that's an unavoidable by-product of the social compact we signed up for a long time ago. On the other hand, perception is reality (at least for the person who is doing the perceiving), and a whole lot of any politician's 'worth' to the public is based on our perception of that person, which is why politicians have publicists, public relations advisors, image consultants, etc. etc.
You're right about the fact that many of the 250,000,000 people who didn't vote for Bush are people who can't vote anyway (and I was wrong - 62M voted for Bush). Look at it this way though: over 60,000,000 people who did show and and vote cast their votes against him. Still not a show of strong public support. And millions who could have voted didn't. It's easy to dismiss them by saying they had a chance for a voice and forfeited it by not going to the polls (and I would agree for the most part), but even that is not so simple. In many states and voting districts provisional and absentee ballots are not counted unless they are deemed to be 'needed' to determine an outcome. And of course as we learned in 2000 there is always 'spoilage' (i.e., ballots that are disqualified for whatever reason). So some unknown number of voters did show up and their votes didn't count anyway. Also, I think you really have to ask the question as to why so many people choose to stop participating in the process. I liken that to our statistics on unemployment; we have a published rate of unemployment, but it does not include people who have given up trying to be employed. Our numbers look better by not counting them, but they're still out there. Shouldn't we care why? But that's wandering off-topic a bit.
I think on the question of how one judges a president's (or anyone's) performance and legacy, you have to base your assessment off their actual performance in the arena they operated under. Otherwise it's just a meaningless intellectual debate. Would Napoleon have been as great a military leader in Vietnam in the 60s? Would Thatcher have had the same legacy if she were leading South Africa in the 70s? How can we ever know?
Last comment on the WWII thing: the point I was trying to make is that the stakes are higher when U.S. administrations engage in world affairs today, much more so than before that war. Prior to that the U.S. had no real claim to being a significant 'world power'; afterwards they did (for better or worse). Polk attacking Mexico meant little or nothing to folks outside our continent; Bush attacking Iraq has had world-wide implications that have impacted billions of people in various ways. The rise of the global economy exacerbates the impact of poor policy as well; look at the current house of economic cards (although the Iranian embargo of the late 70s is another example). All I'm suggesting is that with the effective shrinking distances of borders due to technology and commerce, the stakes are higher when it comes to bad policy and bad behavior by a U.S. president (or any other world leader for that matter).
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: October 10 2008 at 13:51 |
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
Franklin Pierce, anyone?
|
I agree Bush-bashing is popular these days, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he has the worst approval rating of any president in the history of tracking approval ratings - how can tens of millions of people all be wrong?
More importantly, Pierce's poor legacy is largely a reflection of him being a drunken ass who alienated large portions of the American populace, and at a time when the nation was deeply divided internally. Grant was a pretty lousy president as well, and for some of the same reasons.
But Bush's ineptitude rises to new levels because the damage he and his ilk have done go far, far beyond our own borders. He has left his stain on many other parts of the world, and in doing so has shamed our nation on an international stage. Pierce (and pretty much all presidents prior to WWII) never had the power or the reach to make such a broad impact.
|
Hey friend-
Tens of millions of people voted for Bush. Remember, I'm not defending him here, just pointing out some US history (since I enjoy history). Bush only has more effect on the world due to the era he lives in. Had other US Presidents lived in this time, what unpopular choices would they have made?
How about Andrew "I don't think blacks deserve rights" Jackson?" Kanye West could have made some defensible accusations against this guy.
|
Yes, roughly 53,000,000 people voted for him, but in a country of more than 300,000,000 I wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement of support.
Anyway, your point that Bush has had more opportunity to make more impactful bad decisions only because of the time he lives in might be true, but it is kind of irrelevant. Jackson, Grant, Johnson and possibly others would have been worse presidents were they serving today, but the fact is they aren't (and can't) serve today, so the point is rather moot. Really, under that rationale Kennedy would likely have been the worst since in today's world the Bay of Pigs would undoubtedly have been much more catastrophic than it turned out to be then.
|
I was merely countering your statement that "tens of millions" of people can't be wrong. Listen- if it's popular nowadays to be anti-Bush, then it likely follows that Bush will have a low approval rating. Most people I know or encounter are ignorant of what's going on in our own state, let alone the country or rest of the world, merely basing their opinions about a headline they skimmed over or the snippet of news they heard in the break room. Not all, just the majority of the people I know. When I have to explain to someone that the President isn't a dictator (in that the position does not confer ultimate power over the affairs of the country, and that Bush doesn't control gas prices), or explain the difference between the branches of government or explain very basic tenets of the Constitution, I take it with a grain of salt when they say "Bush is the worst President we've ever had." Usually I can put their claim to rest by just saying, "Really? Name ten other US Presidents."
Therefore, I put absolutely no stock in "approval ratings."
Also, you mentioned that our country has 300 million people, so 53,000,000 votes doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of support- that claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. How many people in our country are minors, who can't vote? Or convicted felons? Or just don't vote because they don't want to?
I can see what you mean in your third paragraph, though, but how do we judge the crappiness of a President? Do we do it according to the context of his situation, or acknowledge that the cards are stacked against more recent Presidents because the world is bigger and there are just more problems to contend with?
By the way, I disagree that Presidents prior to WWII never had the power to make a broad, foreign impact. Both Roosevelts are prime examples of this. James K. Polk "lied to Congress" to go to war with Mexico to take over land, just to name a few examples, for better or for worse.
|
We'll have to start color-coding if this keeps up .
Or possibly Bush-bashing is popular because he has low public approval. Hard to say really. And yes, there are a lot of ignorant (or at least ill-informed) people running around exercising their right to free speech - that's an unavoidable by-product of the social compact we signed up for a long time ago. On the other hand, perception is reality (at least for the person who is doing the perceiving), and a whole lot of any politician's 'worth' to the public is based on our perception of that person, which is why politicians have publicists, public relations advisors, image consultants, etc. etc.
You're right about the fact that many of the 250,000,000 people who didn't vote for Bush are people who can't vote anyway (and I was wrong - 62M voted for Bush). Look at it this way though: over 60,000,000 people who did show and and vote cast their votes against him. Still not a show of strong public support. And millions who could have voted didn't. It's easy to dismiss them by saying they had a chance for a voice and forfeited it by not going to the polls (and I would agree for the most part), but even that is not so simple. In many states and voting districts provisional and absentee ballots are not counted unless they are deemed to be 'needed' to determine an outcome. And of course as we learned in 2000 there is always 'spoilage' (i.e., ballots that are disqualified for whatever reason). So some unknown number of voters did show up and their votes didn't count anyway. Also, I think you really have to ask the question as to why so many people choose to stop participating in the process. I liken that to our statistics on unemployment; we have a published rate of unemployment, but it does not include people who have given up trying to be employed. Our numbers look better by not counting them, but they're still out there. Shouldn't we care why? But that's wandering off-topic a bit.
I think on the question of how one judges a president's (or anyone's) performance and legacy, you have to base your assessment off their actual performance in the arena they operated under. Otherwise it's just a meaningless intellectual debate. Would Napoleon have been as great a military leader in Vietnam in the 60s? Would Thatcher have had the same legacy if she were leading South Africa in the 70s? How can we ever know?
Last comment on the WWII thing: the point I was trying to make is that the stakes are higher when U.S. administrations engage in world affairs today, much more so than before that war. Prior to that the U.S. had no real claim to being a significant 'world power'; afterwards they did (for better or worse). Polk attacking Mexico meant little or nothing to folks outside our continent; Bush attacking Iraq has had world-wide implications that have impacted billions of people in various ways. The rise of the global economy exacerbates the impact of poor policy as well; look at the current house of economic cards (although the Iranian embargo of the late 70s is another example). All I'm suggesting is that with the effective shrinking distances of borders due to technology and commerce, the stakes are higher when it comes to bad policy and bad behavior by a U.S. president (or any other world leader for that matter).
|
You know, Bob, incidentally, I agree with just about everything you've said in this most recent post. I disagree with a few minor points, but for the most part you and I see eye to eye here. I am cynical about the election process (although I still plan on voting), and I agree it is pointless to talk about political leaders in different situations (like talking about how different a given progressive rock band would sound if they had a different lineup  )
I must, however, take issue with "perception = reality." There are plenty of people in mental hospitals for whom the little green men under their beds are real- but that doesn't mean we have to take them seriously. Politically, people don't take everything into consideration (we really can't), but many do not even try to gather as much information as they can before making a judgment. That's my whole point about US politics- lack of information or misinformation driving voters' consciences- and the Internet age has only made things worse in that respect.
The media has been playing tricks for years, like using a huge headline, but tacking a question mark on the end- George W. Bush Slept With Michael Jackson? for example. Sometimes busy people catch the headline, but don't read or process the article (or better yet, question it). When the subject comes up in conversation later that week or that month, it might very well sound like this:
"So George W. Bush was on TV yesterday, and..."
"George W. Bush? Isn't he the guy that slept with Michael Jackson?"
And so misinformation spreads. It's just one of many techniques.
So how much "awfulness" can be attributed to Bush and how much can be attributed to other factors? Again, I'm not defending Bush, but from my experience, people treat the President as a convenient scapegoat for anything and everything that goes wrong. I just wonder how much of Bush's foreign policy was based on faulty military intelligence or other forms of bad information? All I am proposing is that before people claim "Bush is the worst," they might want to judge themselves- how would I act in Bush's situation? Heck, right after 9/11, lots of people were ready to jump out of their seats to go to war (I lived just outside of Fort Bragg at the time). And Bush's approval rating then? A whopping 86%. Apparently people thought Bush was doing the right thing by going to war at the time. Now it's popular to be against having gone to war. It seems that voters don't have to be responsible for the outcome of their opinions, and are free to change their minds at any time, and without repercussion.
This is another thing I don't get (remember, as an English teacher I engaged my students in political discussion from time to time, especially if someone made a bold assertion I was not certain they could back up): Some folks paint Bush as a moron- he's fairly inarticulate, he doesn't always do a decent job of getting his point across, and he seems mildly incompetent; yet in the same breath, claim that he is some criminal mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, some sort of villain who orchestrated and manipulated events to go to war. Is it just me, or do these two characters seem at odds, or are the people who make these claims disingenuous at best?
One more thought your post brought up in my mind regarding the number of people voting is this: If you want to claim that Bush did not receive strong support from his country at election time in 2004, you would have to concede that no candidate has received strong support from his country at election time since perhaps Nixon over McGovern in 1972 (60.1% of the popular vote).
Sorry for the extended post. My intention was to be brief, but I kept thinking of things to say.  Go ahead and tear me apart.
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: October 10 2008 at 14:28 |
Epignosis, you are saving the IQ of the internet one post at a time. ++ for you! 
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: October 12 2008 at 19:59 |
|
I'll quietly go back to "Prog Polls" now...
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: October 12 2008 at 21:09 |
Epignosis wrote:
You know, Bob, incidentally, I agree with just about everything you've said in this most recent post. I disagree with a few minor points, but for the most part you and I see eye to eye here. I am cynical about the election process (although I still plan on voting), and I agree it is pointless to talk about political leaders in different situations (like talking about how different a given progressive rock band would sound if they had a different lineup ).
I must, however, take issue with "perception = reality." There are plenty of people in mental hospitals for whom the little green men under their beds are real- but that doesn't mean we have to take them seriously. Politically, people don't take everything into consideration (we really can't), but many do not even try to gather as much information as they can before making a judgment. That's my whole point about US politics- lack of information or misinformation driving voters' consciences- and the Internet age has only made things worse in that respect.
The media has been playing tricks for years, like using a huge headline, but tacking a question mark on the end- George W. Bush Slept With Michael Jackson? for example. Sometimes busy people catch the headline, but don't read or process the article (or better yet, question it). When the subject comes up in conversation later that week or that month, it might very well sound like this:
"So George W. Bush was on TV yesterday, and..."
"George W. Bush? Isn't he the guy that slept with Michael Jackson?"
And so misinformation spreads. It's just one of many techniques.
So how much "awfulness" can be attributed to Bush and how much can be attributed to other factors? Again, I'm not defending Bush, but from my experience, people treat the President as a convenient scapegoat for anything and everything that goes wrong. I just wonder how much of Bush's foreign policy was based on faulty military intelligence or other forms of bad information? All I am proposing is that before people claim "Bush is the worst," they might want to judge themselves- how would I act in Bush's situation? Heck, right after 9/11, lots of people were ready to jump out of their seats to go to war (I lived just outside of Fort Bragg at the time). And Bush's approval rating then? A whopping 86%. Apparently people thought Bush was doing the right thing by going to war at the time. Now it's popular to be against having gone to war. It seems that voters don't have to be responsible for the outcome of their opinions, and are free to change their minds at any time, and without repercussion.
This is another thing I don't get (remember, as an English teacher I engaged my students in political discussion from time to time, especially if someone made a bold assertion I was not certain they could back up): Some folks paint Bush as a moron- he's fairly inarticulate, he doesn't always do a decent job of getting his point across, and he seems mildly incompetent; yet in the same breath, claim that he is some criminal mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, some sort of villain who orchestrated and manipulated events to go to war. Is it just me, or do these two characters seem at odds, or are the people who make these claims disingenuous at best?
One more thought your post brought up in my mind regarding the number of people voting is this: If you want to claim that Bush did not receive strong support from his country at election time in 2004, you would have to concede that no candidate has received strong support from his country at election time since perhaps Nixon over McGovern in 1972 (60.1% of the popular vote).
Sorry for the extended post. My intention was to be brief, but I kept thinking of things to say. Go ahead and tear me apart.
|
I suspect as well we aren't all that far apart politically. I'll vote as well, as disillusioned with the process as I may be.
And I concede your point about there being shades of perceptions that sometimes don’t touch the realm of possible reality. I still contend in the context of this subject that perception does equal reality though. Or at least one's perception can impact reality. Mark David Chapman thought he was Holden Caulfield, and John Lennon is dead. John Hinkley's reality included a non-existent relationship with Jodie Foster which resulted in an assassination attempt on President Reagan. And millions of voters (whose realities may be nearly as skewed as Chapman’s and Hinkley’s, though not necessarily to violence) perceive one or another candidate to be something that he or she may not in fact be, but elect those people anyway, based on those perceptions.
As to how much of the past eight years can be ‘blamed’ on Bush, that’s another part of each individual’s reality, I suppose. For me there needs to be some measure of accountability though. Bush held himself up as ‘the Decider’. Bush took the oath to be the leader of the land. I’m probably tainted by my military background, but in my reality the guy at the top takes the praise as well as the blame, both in equal measure.
On the popular vote question I have to say you make a salient point; I hadn’t considered this before. I suppose for some of us the distrust and bad taste left by the 2000 elections tainted those in 2004 as well, although I’ll admit Bush’s second victory wasn’t any less marginal than those of many other presidents.
You bring up a point that I think helps frame the discussion about which president was the worst though. You asked how much of the past eight years’ “awfulness” can be attributed to Bush. I suppose the same question would have to be asked in comparing him to any other president. Was Bush more (or less) complicit in the bad decisions made during his tenure than Carter, Nixon, or any other president was in theirs? That’s probably a good starting point in determining which of them was actually the ‘worst’, although once again we’d be measuring with a pretty subjective ruler.
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: October 12 2008 at 21:43 |
|
Well, let's see ... Dubya won two terms (please no arguing about 2000's iffy numbers, I gave up that fight).
Nixon - even with watergate, he accomplished much in establishing relations with China.
Kennedy, in case Ivan is taken to task, is best remembered in idealism than in action. Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Stand-Off, ???
Great speeches, but I am open to others presenting actual achievements, i.e. what he got done while he was there.
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: October 13 2008 at 20:39 |
ClemofNazareth wrote:
I suspect as well we aren't all that far apart politically. I'll vote as well, as disillusioned with the process as I may be. |
Me too. And beyond the process, I don't really like either candidate this time around. 
ClemofNazareth wrote:
And I concede your point about there being shades of perceptions that sometimes don’t touch the realm of possible reality. I still contend in the context of this subject that perception does equal reality though. Or at least one's perception can impact reality. Mark David Chapman thought he was Holden Caulfield, and John Lennon is dead. John Hinkley's reality included a non-existent relationship with Jodie Foster which resulted in an assassination attempt on President Reagan. And millions of voters (whose realities may be nearly as skewed as Chapman’s and Hinkley’s, though not necessarily to violence) perceive one or another candidate to be something that he or she may not in fact be, but elect those people anyway, based on those perceptions. |
I understand what you mean here. I just think there's a (very dangerous) difference between saying "perception affects reality" and "perception is reality." That's all. But I certainly understand what you mean- for better or worse, perception colors our choices (as I suppose it must).
ClemofNazareth wrote:
As to how much of the past eight years can be ‘blamed’ on Bush, that’s another part of each individual’s reality, I suppose. For me there needs to be some measure of accountability though. Bush held himself up as ‘the Decider’. Bush took the oath to be the leader of the land. I’m probably tainted by my military background, but in my reality the guy at the top takes the praise as well as the blame, both in equal measure. |
I see your point. Bush may not be the driving force behind the economy, but he is the head honcho over the US military.
ClemofNazareth wrote:
On the popular vote question I have to say you make a salient point; I hadn’t considered this before. I suppose for some of us the distrust and bad taste left by the 2000 elections tainted those in 2004 as well, although I’ll admit Bush’s second victory wasn’t any less marginal than those of many other presidents. |
I often wish we had more than what is for all practical purposes a two-party system. Worse than that, we have labels that get tossed around without much thought about what they mean (i.e., "liberal," "conservative").
ClemofNazareth wrote:
You bring up a point that I think helps frame the discussion about which president was the worst though. You asked how much of the past eight years’ “awfulness” can be attributed to Bush. I suppose the same question would have to be asked in comparing him to any other president. Was Bush more (or less) complicit in the bad decisions made during his tenure than Carter, Nixon, or any other president was in theirs? That’s probably a good starting point in determining which of them was actually the ‘worst’, although once again we’d be measuring with a pretty subjective ruler.
|
I agree. My whole point in entering this discussing (I thought I'd sworn off Internet debates!) was twofold:
1) The American people would do well to employ a measure of humility in criticizing our leaders. That doesn't mean we don't criticize them, just that we try to gather some perspective before jumping on the bandwagons of the ever-outraged. The hubris lies here: How many of us would do a better job in the exact same situations as our President?
2) Many of the people quick to denounce Bush as "the worst in US history" don't know diddly about US history. It's a shame, but it's the truth. Before we give Bush that shameful award, consider this:
-Woodrow Wilson supported eugenics, and helped make Indiana the first of over thirty states to pass legislation for compulsory sterilization of certain people.
Did you read that? This guy (along with other notable minds) actually supported the idea that some people should not be allowed to have children. And acted on it.
-Andrew Jackson was a galloping racist (he owned nearly 150 slaves) who pressured the Natives to take a hike...
-...And then his successor, Martin Van Buren, helped "escort" the Cherokees on what we know as "The Trail of Tears" (4000 of them didn't make it).
"Well, the Native Americans aren't really important (even though they were here first), but as for their land..."
-Oh, and Jimmy Carter didn't like progressive rock music (citation pending)
These are just a few Presidents who just might steal Bush's award for worst US President, if, I don't know, people under 30 actually knew who they were and what they were about.
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: October 13 2008 at 21:26 |
Epignosis wrote:
I agree. My whole point in entering this discussing (I thought I'd sworn off Internet debates!) was twofold:
1) The American people would do well to employ a measure of humility in criticizing our leaders. That doesn't mean we don't criticize them, just that we try to gather some perspective before jumping on the bandwagons of the ever-outraged. The hubris lies here: How many of us would do a better job in the exact same situations as our President?
2) Many of the people quick to denounce Bush as "the worst in US history" don't know diddly about US history. It's a shame, but it's the truth. Before we give Bush that shameful award, consider this:
-Woodrow Wilson supported eugenics, and helped make Indiana the first of over thirty states to pass legislation for compulsory sterilization of certain people.
Did you read that? This guy (along with other notable minds) actually supported the idea that some people should not be allowed to have children. And acted on it.
-Andrew Jackson was a galloping racist (he owned nearly 150 slaves) who pressured the Natives to take a hike...
-...And then his successor, Martin Van Buren, helped "escort" the Cherokees on what we know as "The Trail of Tears" (4000 of them didn't make it).
"Well, the Native Americans aren't really important (even though they were here first), but as for their land..."
-Oh, and Jimmy Carter didn't like progressive rock music (citation pending)
These are just a few Presidents who just might steal Bush's award for worst US President, if, I don't know, people under 30 actually knew who they were and what they were about.
|
Well, Jr hasn't been linked to a eugenics agenda as far as I know, but there is at least arguable evidence that his father supported sterilization of poor blacks when he served as ambassador to the UN in the 70s. That's not a condemnation of the son, but at least it suggests that Wilson wouldn't be the only one judged on this point. And Jackson wasn't the only president to own slaves; again, I only point that out to suggest other presidents such as Jefferson and Taylor were guilty of this as well. I've read that Grant even owned a slave while serving in the Army, who he freed on the days leading up to the Civil War. And really - there are about 100 years' worth of presidents who shamed our legacy as far as native Americans go. But Carter?! That b*****d! He was probably into Men Without Hats or the Bee Gees or maybe Frankie Goes to Hollywood! Oh, the shame! Seriously though, I'm enjoying the discussion, but as you are all too aware this is an endless debate. And of course there are many who will dismiss whoever is seated in the Oval Office without regard for evidence. I've lived through nine presidents, and this one chafes me more than any of the others, though frankly that's mostly due to the lack of transparency he has shown over the years as much as anything else. This is a graph that accompanied a survey I read about a while back that George Mason University conducted among a few hundred professional historians. In total they aren't quite as hard on Bush as the general public is, but not by much (interesting, I got a security error trying to paste the graph, so you'll have to settle with a link): http://hnn.us/resources/bushpoll3.gif Who knows really if this president is our worst: even if he is, there will most certainly be another just as bad or worse someday. I agree with you that one of the flaws in our current system is the two-party system. Perhaps if we had more legitimate choices the competition would result in a more qualified candidate. That seems to work for open markets; seems like it should for electing public officials as well.
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: October 13 2008 at 22:06 |
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Well, Jr hasn't been linked to a eugenics agenda as far as I know, but there is at least arguable evidence that his father supported sterilization of poor blacks when he served as ambassador to the UN in the 70s. That's not a condemnation of the son, but at least it suggests that Wilson wouldn't be the only one judged on this point. And Jackson wasn't the only president to own slaves; again, I only point that out to suggest other presidents such as Jefferson and Taylor were guilty of this as well. I've read that Grant even owned a slave while serving in the Army, who he freed on the days leading up to the Civil War. And really - there are about 100 years' worth of presidents who shamed our legacy as far as native Americans go. But Carter?! That b*****d! He was probably into Men Without Hats or the Bee Gees or maybe Frankie Goes to Hollywood! Oh, the shame! Seriously though, I'm enjoying the discussion, but as you are all too aware this is an endless debate. And of course there are many who will dismiss whoever is seated in the Oval Office without regard for evidence. I've lived through nine presidents, and this one chafes me more than any of the others, though frankly that's mostly due to the lack of transparency he has shown over the years as much as anything else. This is a graph that accompanied a survey I read about a while back that George Mason University conducted among a few hundred professional historians. In total they aren't quite as hard on Bush as the general public is, but not by much (interesting, I got a security error trying to paste the graph, so you'll have to settle with a link): http://hnn.us/resources/bushpoll3.gif Who knows really if this president is our worst: even if he is, there will most certainly be another just as bad or worse someday. I agree with you that one of the flaws in our current system is the two-party system. Perhaps if we had more legitimate choices the competition would result in a more qualified candidate. That seems to work for open markets; seems like it should for electing public officials as well. |
I have to admit, I've enjoyed getting to debate a little bit (it's kept my mind sharp and I've learned a few things).
I realize Jackson hasn't been the only Prez to own slaves, it's just that he had a pretty awful track record what with the Natives and all. (Thomas Jefferson...now, isn't there a question about his fathering some children of slaves?). I was just making a point.
Anyway, Bush may be the worst President ever. But he did say (and I paraphrase), Let history determine that in due time. I think we can grant that much.
Bob, it's been a pleasure trading blows with you. I've learned a lot from what you've had to say. But in the end, I guess there's one thing everyone here can agree on...
Kansas Rocks!
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: October 13 2008 at 22:42 |
Epignosis wrote:
But in the end, I guess there's one thing everyone here can agree on...
Kansas Rocks!
|
Well put! 
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: December 15 2008 at 02:00 |
Epignosis wrote:
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
|
It does not help Bush that the media has carried their overwhelmingly negative views of him over into their "unbiased" reporting and neither does the number of Americans who get their news from the supposed commedians Comedy Central throws out there from 11-12 every week night. The education system in the US does not teach its history (or anything else, for that matter) well, which has led to this overall shared attitude that no time in history has ever been worse than the present.
As far as Bush and Nixon are concerned:
Both abandoned conservatism and expanded federal power therefor I have no particular fondness for either but I do believe that Bush has been well meaning in what's he has tried to do. He has not been shy in trying to achieve what he felt was best for the country instead of doing things with his legacy as primary concern, a.e. his predecessor who has been incorrectly credited with the accomplishments of a congress he fought against but is more than happy to take any credit if it mean people will like him more. Bush's role in the current finacial crisis has been greatly oversold as people have a tendency to view the Presidency as an all powerful position that must accept all the accolades or blame for whatever happens during a term. The seeds of the financial crisis were planted when the federal government started to legislate who banks had to lend to, this began long before Bush and if it wasn't for the power over banking regulation held by congressmen who were profitting off of subprime lending themselves, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for example, perhaps the situation could have been resolved by congress years ago. As for Iraq: this was poorly thought out from a military campaign standpoint indeed but time will have to tell whether a free Iraq turns out to be an actual US asset (pretty selfish view, I'm frankly just happy for them they control their own country again). As far as modern Presidents go it seems to me that Clinton was more distructive for his refusal to deal with national security issues at all, despite the acts of terrorism carried out throughout his presidency. He is often credited with fiscal growth but it would be impossible to connect any one of his policies (NAFTA was a G.H.W. Bush carry over) to said growth.
Nixon is somewhat unfairly treated as a President for his flaws as a man and for his involvement in the Watergate cover-up (not the break in itself, this seems not to be understood by many people). He should be treated poorly as President, instead, for renewing the draft, increasing government regulations over the economy, an overall bloating of the number of federal agencies, fiat currency, and to a lesser extent the 55 mph speed limit (ended in 1995). He should be given some credit for overseeing desegregation and forcing the USSR into detente by opening relations with China.
Any President who seeks to step beyond the powers granted to him by the Constitution and is complicit in the expanding of the federal governments powers over its citizenry beyond those granded to it within the aforementioned document is a regressive President. Unless faced with the disolving of the country itself, as in Lincoln's case, this are unacceptable things to do. It is my great concern that we may never again find a President that truely believes that people must have the right to decide for themselves their lot in life, even if that means many will fail.
Edited by manofmystery - December 15 2008 at 02:02
|
 Time always wins.
|
|
TGM: Orb
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 21 2007
Location: n/a
Status: Offline
Points: 8052
|
Posted: December 15 2008 at 08:38 |
|
Personally, I liked Nixon, even if I'm clearly not American enough to appreciate how people think of a constitutional scandal. Felt he was responsible for some absolutely crucial work.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: December 15 2008 at 08:48 |
manofmystery wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
|
It does not help Bush that the media has carried their overwhelmingly negative views of him over into their "unbiased" reporting and neither does the number of Americans who get their news from the supposed commedians Comedy Central throws out there from 11-12 every week night. The education system in the US does not teach its history (or anything else, for that matter) well, which has led to this overall shared attitude that no time in history has ever been worse than the present.
As far as Bush and Nixon are concerned:
Both abandoned conservatism and expanded federal power therefor I have no particular fondness for either but I do believe that Bush has been well meaning in what's he has tried to do. He has not been shy in trying to achieve what he felt was best for the country instead of doing things with his legacy as primary concern, a.e. his predecessor who has been incorrectly credited with the accomplishments of a congress he fought against but is more than happy to take any credit if it mean people will like him more. Bush's role in the current finacial crisis has been greatly oversold as people have a tendency to view the Presidency as an all powerful position that must accept all the accolades or blame for whatever happens during a term. The seeds of the financial crisis were planted when the federal government started to legislate who banks had to lend to, this began long before Bush and if it wasn't for the power over banking regulation held by congressmen who were profitting off of subprime lending themselves, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for example, perhaps the situation could have been resolved by congress years ago. As for Iraq: this was poorly thought out from a military campaign standpoint indeed but time will have to tell whether a free Iraq turns out to be an actual US asset (pretty selfish view, I'm frankly just happy for them they control their own country again). As far as modern Presidents go it seems to me that Clinton was more distructive for his refusal to deal with national security issues at all, despite the acts of terrorism carried out throughout his presidency. He is often credited with fiscal growth but it would be impossible to connect any one of his policies (NAFTA was a G.H.W. Bush carry over) to said growth.
Nixon is somewhat unfairly treated as a President for his flaws as a man and for his involvement in the Watergate cover-up (not the break in itself, this seems not to be understood by many people). He should be treated poorly as President, instead, for renewing the draft, increasing government regulations over the economy, an overall bloating of the number of federal agencies, fiat currency, and to a lesser extent the 55 mph speed limit (ended in 1995). He should be given some credit for overseeing desegregation and forcing the USSR into detente by opening relations with China.
Any President who seeks to step beyond the powers granted to him by the Constitution and is complicit in the expanding of the federal governments powers over its citizenry beyond those granded to it within the aforementioned document is a regressive President. Unless faced with the disolving of the country itself, as in Lincoln's case, this are unacceptable things to do. It is my great concern that we may never again find a President that truely believes that people must have the right to decide for themselves their lot in life, even if that means many will fail. |
|
|
|
|
J-Man
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 07 2008
Location: Philadelphia,PA
Status: Offline
Points: 7826
|
Posted: December 17 2008 at 16:43 |
crimhead wrote:
Mind you Carter did a good job of f-ing things up under his watch.
I think it's time for America to get it's long needed enema.
|
Exactly. Nixon lied just as bad as Clinton did, and Carter screwed up America more than any other President. With Carter, we were denied gas, the economy was horrible, and nothing was running smoothly. Yet, you only mentioned two (both conservative) presidents. Nixon wasn't a horrible president, and Bush gets way more crap than he deserves (though he's not the best prez we've seen, that's Reagan).
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Which US President
