Another great quote from Ann. And here's a great picture:
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
Another great quote from Ann. And here's a great picture:
Great pic. OMG! The girl next to Ann has a pack of cigarettes!
That may happen Ann, but you'll always be Number One on Free Republic!
Great article, Ann. Thanks for keeping our presidential history accurate!
Historical PERSPECTIVE is always called for, but that certainly doesn't preclude any historian from drawing conclusions about how something in the present looks, or doesn't, look like something in the past.
FYI, I wrote the updated edition to "A Patriot's History of the United States" in late 2006, with events through early 2005, and so far haven't seen anything that would change my perspective on any of it. When I wrote "The Entrepreneurial Adventure" in 2000, commenting on the Japanese "miracle" of the late 1980s, the evidence I had then said Japan was already a non-factor. Seems I was right there, too.
Jefferson was lucky rather than good as a president, but his bold move vs. the Pirates was impressive and remarkably similar to the exact same moves Bush made in 2001-2003, right down to trying to get a coalition of Europeans to help---then they all refused, and he acted unilaterally.
LS, saw you on Fox and Friends yesterday morning. Good job on the errors in textbooks.
Told my wife—that’s a Freeper!
Both Dalleks are on it, both are huge libs. Brooks Simpson of ASU is a lib. Brinkley is what might be called a "conservative Dem," but a Bush hater.
The only conservatives I recognized were William Allen (if it's who I think it is, he is a presidential "historian," but I think he's also a political scientist---but a Washington scholar, nonetheless) and Walter McDougall. McDougall is a terrific historian, but quirky and Libertarian, so I doubt he'd like Bush even for his foreign policy. A few others I know and THINK they are libs, but don't want to accuse them unfairly.
PS. I'm not on it, Burton Folsom of Hillsdale isn't on it; Paul Kengor isn't on it. Those are three whom I think might rank Bush higher.
Thank you! Looks like I’ll be on next week, too.
Really? Did he just wheel and deal for Parishes or triple the size of US territories?
It was called “Louisiana.” Period.
I believe that was actually my point - that there is a difference between history and a historical perspective on modern events, and that the former is inherently a more accurate rendition of events than the latter. Certainly some very good historians - Victor Hanson, for one, Jacques Barzun for another - indulge in the comparison, as do you. And there's nothing wrong with an opinion based on a grasp of past historical dynamics, but there is one difference - you don't know how the present comes out. "Past history is no indication of future performance" as my stockbroker reminded me before I shot him (the boy needed killin'). That isn't, really, quite right, but there is a point to it.
One can reason from historical analogy - I do it a lot - but reasoning from analogy is not actually reasoning in this field or any other. It is modeling. And there's a huge difference. All IMHO and I hope I didn't ruffle any professional feathers.
You left out his most despicable act, namely his complicity in the destruction of America’s borders and the resulting influx of poverty and crime from Mexico.
On the other hand, because stuff keeps leaking out---even about the Civil War or American Revolution--I think you have to at some point arrive at conclusions, and take your lumps if you're wrong.
For ex., my book, "America's Victories," said we had essentially won already in Iraq at Fallujah in 2004. Well, we indeed have won---but I think most military historians would say it has been as a result of the strategy shift in the Surge (not necessarily the troops). However, I'd retort that part of the great success of the Surge was that we killed sooooo many of the terrorists that we were fighting the "B" team in 2006-07. Some military guys support that view; others (like Peter Mansoor and Max Boot), don't. So I want to see a little more evidence before I revise the supporting evidence for my (ultimately correct) view.
Dang it, I don’t want to hijack the thread but I really do want to talk about that. (You always do this to me.) Maybe another thread on the topic when you get a chance? Pretty please? ;-)
Talk about what? Iraq? Freepmail me.
Most of it is liberal talking points and repeats of the MSM’s childish digs, which they reemphasized to marginalize him to the masses.
You blame Bush completely for the economic troubles we are mired in today.
The congress has control over the purse strings of this country, and the liberals have been in control for over two years.
Coincides well with the rapid downturn of the economy.
I know, it's Bush's fault that the DOW has declined over 2,000 points since November 4th.
You don't mention any of the underhanded self serving policies of the democrats when they and their handlers made billions off of the housing fiasco etc.
And refused to fix the problem for years when they were told how dangerous it was to the economy for years.
Have you watched Barney Frank lately?
What you say is correct. Look how much Franklin Roosevelt is venerated, yet he stole prosperity from a whole generation with his stupidity.
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.