----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:45 AM Subject: Re: Rating the Presidents Re: The Prospect on the Future of theDemocrats
> --- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh please. While historians find Presidential > > documents to be absolutely > > invaluable for a number of purposes, the exercise of > > rating Presidents is > > not one of them. > > That might have been true in the 19th century, John, > but it's certainly not true today. In those days > nothing was classified - today everything is. The > massive re-evaluation of the Eisenhower Presidency > that has taken place over the last few years is > entirely a product of the release of classified > documents - particularly those relating to his > strategy to face the Soviets - which show, quite > conclusively, that far from being an absent President > he was, in fact, one who used power with an > astonishing level of skill and subtlety to serve a > remarkably well-thought-through (and _successful_) > foreign policy - and he did it all with such subtlety > that most people weren't even aware he was doing it. > The historical perspective on Eisenhower has changed > _radically_ over the last 10-20 years because of these > sorts of revelatons. Out of curiosity, is the public ranking of presidents that we see on TV and in the newspapers every once in a while (I think this is what JDG is referring to) more a reflection of serious scholarship or just a publicity gimmick? Also, I would guess that you would rate a president not just on whether he got his way and whether he was re-elected, but whether the policies he pushed were later determined to benefit or damage the interests of the United States. For example, if Iraq has a stable democracy in 20 years, with its roots in the elections of next January, and the Arab countries have seen a general shift towards liberal democracies (say Jordan becomes like Turkey and Saudi Arabia becomes like Jordan is now), then Bush's foreign policy should get very high marks for its work in Iraq. If, on the other hand, Iraq implodes, and the next 20 years of foreign policy has been burdened by this failure, then Bush's foreign policy should get low marks for its work in Iraq. Likewise, if the supply side economics of the 8 years of Bush yield a long term growth that matches Clinton's and if Social Security is successfully overhauled with a plan that distributes the pain fairly evenly, then Bush's domestic record is given high marks in these areas. If, on the other hand, the general consensus is that lasting damage was done during these 8 years, then he gets low marks. I can't imagine serious historians polling public opinion more than they consider these factors. Maybe that's not what JDG implied, but it's my impression of what he was saying. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
