From amazon.com:
Posted on 02/18/2009 2:28:58 PM PST by Syncro
WHY WE DON'T CELEBRATE 'HISTORIANS DAY'
February 18, 2009
Being gracious winners, this week, liberals howled with delight at George Bush for coming in seventh-to-last in a historians' ranking of the presidents from best to worst.
This was pretty shocking. Most liberals can't even name seven U.S. presidents.
Being ranked one of the worst presidents by "historians" is like being called "anti-American" by the Nation magazine. And by "historian," I mean a former member of the Weather Underground, who is subsidized by the taxpayer to engage in left-wing political activism in a cushy university job.
So congratulations, George Bush! Whenever history professors rank you as one of the "worst" presidents, it's a good bet you were one of America's greatest.
Six months after America's all-time greatest president left office in 1989, historians ranked him as only a middling president. (I would rank George Washington as America's greatest president, but he only had to defeat what was then the world's greatest military power with a ragtag group of irregulars and some squirrel guns, whereas Ronald Reagan had to defeat liberals.)
At the time, historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. dismissed Reagan as "a nice, old uncle, who comes in and all the kids are glad to see him. He sits around telling stories, and they're all fond of him, but they don't take him too seriously" -- and then Schlesinger fell asleep in his soup.
Even liberal historian Richard Reeves blanched at Reagan's low ranking in 1989, saying, "I was no fan of Reagan, but I think I know a leader when I see one."
Reagan changed the country, Reeves said, and some would say "he changed the world, making communism irrelevant and the globe safe for the new imperialism of free-market capitalism." In Reeves' most inspiring line, he says Reagan "was a man of conservative principle and he damned near destroyed American liberalism."
By 1996 things hadn't gotten much better for Reagan in the historians' view. A poll of historians placed Reagan 26th of 42 presidents -- below George H.W. Bush, his boob of a vice president who raised taxes and ended Republican hegemony under Reagan. Four of the 32 historians called Reagan a "failure."
I guess it depends on your definition of "failure." To me a failure is someone who aspired to be a legitimate scholar but ends up as an obscure lecturer at Colorado College.
Speaking of which, Colorado College political scientist Thomas Cronin explained Reagan's low ranking, saying Reagan "was insensitive to women's rights, civil rights, oblivious to what was going on in his own Administration -- the procurement scandal, HUD, Iran-Contra."
Soon after he took office, President Reagan famously hung a portrait of President Calvin Coolidge in the Cabinet Room -- another (Republican) president considered a failure by historians.
Coolidge cut taxes, didn't get the country in any wars, cut the national debt almost in half, and presided over a calm, scandal-free administration, a period of peace, 17.5 percent growth in the gross national product, low inflation (.4 percent) and low unemployment (3.6 percent).
Read more at AnnCoulter.Com
History departments at American universities have been leftist for decades.
ML/NJ
Merely #1?
They would never go that low. Obama is so superior, in most of their minds, that the idea of even ranking him among mere mortals is an insult.
A generation or two ago, Andrew Johnson was regarded as a kind of martyr for having been impeached and Grant as one of the worst presidents.
But now they’ve changed places. Johnson was strongly against civil rights measures and Grant was for them — probably not by today’s standards, but by those of his day. At least, he didn’t wimp out or sell out like Hayes and later presidents did, so his stock has risen.
I don’t know where I’d rate Grant, but it’s certainly true that mid-20th century historians played up the corruption of Grant’s and Harding’s administration because they were Republicans. Democrats like Truman got a pass on administrative scandals.
This revision of Grant’s and Andrew Johnson’s positions does not fit with the bias toward Dims and against Republicans that some have mentioned.
Andrew Johnson was a Unionist Democrat from Tennessee, while Grant, of course, was a Republican.
I think it is due to historians revising their opinion toward post Civil War Reconstruction. Johnson opposed the Radical Republicans and their efforts at Reconstruction giving more rights to Southern Blacks (that was part of the reason for his impeachment), while Grant favored Reconstruction.
It may be that as America becomes more Afro-Centric the intellectual elitists are looking more favorably toward Reconstruction. What’s probably happening is a revision of historians’ views toward Reconstruction (and A. Johnson and Grant) in preparation for the coming minority rule in America.
True, but the older pattern did. Those scandals wouldn't have mattered as much if Grant had been a Democrat.
I think it is due to historians revising their opinion toward post Civil War Reconstruction. Johnson opposed the Radical Republicans and their efforts at Reconstruction giving more rights to Southern Blacks (that was part of the reason for his impeachment), while Grant favored Reconstruction.
That is true. But some of the bad reputation of Reconstruction may have been undeserved. There was a knee-jerk quality to a lot of the anti-Reconstruction argument that was bound to be rejected once African-Americans got the vote back.
Reagan made nice speeches that made people feel good. Bush changed the world.
I feel sorry for all the BDS’ers whom, by blinded by rage, missed out on watching the sweep of history before their very eyes this past 8 years.
Chortle.
I didn’t know about Reagan’s admiration of Coolidge. It is appropriate. I’ve long thought that Coolidge was the second or third best President of the 20th century and certainly in the top ten in US history. I was a bit astonished when he was rated near the middle of the pack and F. Roosevelt and the creepy Woodrow Wilson were rated in the top ten.
You don't know the half of it. Most of them are far left of liberal. I graduated from college, and I knew a number of them who were (and still are) outright Marxists. To be called a failure by the likes of them is to be honored as a real American.
The bad part is that they write the text books. The propaganda machine is so stacked against Conservatives it is a wonder we have any input at all.
How does one rate Reagan higher then Bush?
Reagan made nice speeches that made people feel good. Bush changed the world.
Reagan was greater than GW Bush because almost single handed he destroyed the Soviet Union, ended the Cold War, and brought freedom to the enslaved states of eastern Europe.
The greatness of GW Bush is based on undertaking the War on Terror and bringing democracy and freedom to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Those were very significant accomplishments, but less than what President Reagan, America’s Greatest President, accomplished. That’s why GW Bush comes after Reagan in my evaluation, as the second greatest President.
Coulter is right about Washington, right about Coolidge, right about Eisenhower, right about JFK and FDR.
And wrong about GWB. George W. Bush’s reputation will not recover. He’ll be very lucky to ever escape the bottom ten American presidents.
He took us into an unnecessary war that’s brought no measurable benefit to the American people and cost us trillions, without ever explaining his reasons, except to bizarrely call himself a modern day Simon Bolivar for Iraqis.
He left the economy a smoking wreck, and to a significant degree his own policy positions hastened the collapse. He encouraged easy mortgages, and failed to take a strong case to the public that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ticking time bombs. His shameful economic legacy includes the direct quote, “When someone is hurting, it’s the government’s job to be there.” That kind of thinking has brought us to the brink of a New Great Depression.
His inarticulateness is legendary, and when he does express himself, however haltingly, he reveals a mind that concerns itself with trite sentimentality. GWB cannot think.
On the positive side, we’ve not been attacked since 9/11. Domestic security law, for which he can take credit, is the reason.
GWB is a bottom ten president, and always will be. He should consider himself lucky that Harding, Carter, Pierce, Buchanan and Filmore deserve places below him.
Exactly so. Every PResident aspires to preside over peace and prosperity. Yet in truth, you need to be a bit of a noboy who doesnt cause trouble to accomplish that. Which is why Coolidge should rank above FDR, Wilson, Jackson, Kennedy and a whole heap of other Presidents who were too active to leave well enough alone.
Coolidge was a great President.
Freeper LS could probably tell us what the makeup of this crowd is.
At least Zinn isnt on it.
Actually Truman gets a pass on conducting a war against communists(korea) while many communists in FDR's administration were working for him..
The great hero Joe McCarthy fought to expose them.. and did in a few places.. But it took later research in Moscow in KGB archives to prove McCarthy had no idea the depths of the espionage under Truman.. Joe Stalin financed the American Communist party.. which allowed stealing of Atom Bomb secrets.. under Truman..
Another moron was JFK...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
