"History is written by men who have hanged heroes..."
McIlvane is an intellectually dishonest, partisan liberal. Our local fish-wrap gives him column inches about once a month. Nobody pays any attention to him.
Why exactly would an historian's opinion be more valuable than the opinion of any other guy off the street?
Just evidence of liberalism in academia. I am an historian myself, and I think President Bush is one of the greatest presidents in history . . . he spends a little too much, but he has tackled tough questions like Social Security and Medicare when no one else would, he has tried to do something about education, and he has had to deal with worldwide terrorism and an attack upon the United states. Who was the last president to have to do that?
Just evidence of liberalism in academia. I am an historian myself, and I think President Bush is one of the greatest presidents in history . . . he spends a little too much, but he has tackled tough questions like Social Security and Medicare when no one else would, he has tried to do something about education, and he has had to deal with worldwide terrorism and an attack upon the United states. Who was the last president to have to do that?
What kind of historians are these to judge something that has only just started? As Zhou Enlai said of the effect of the French Revolution -- "It's too early to tell."
Professors... there is no class of professionals who trumpets themselves louder with less merit on the face of the earth. They teach inexperienced youngsters and begin to see themselves as brighter than everyone one else, too. Being experts in a chosen, narrow field in a collegiate greenhouse leads them to the delusion of being great thinkers. As experts they learn more and more about less and less until they reach the pinnacle of liberal academic thought,that is, knowing absolutely everything about nothing at all.
The author wasn't a historian. His arguments are basically excerpts from the fake Presidential resumé.
Academic Historians come in two flavors... Those who served in the military and are conservative, and those who avoided military service and are liberal. There aren't too many former military academic historians.
From where? Patrice Lumumba Poly Technik?
Mc Elvaine presented a longer version of his thesis, four months ago, at 5-17-04: Historians vs. George W. Bush
(There are comments by readers on that web page.)
My feeling is that McElvaine will continue to trot out his informal, unscientific findings as long as Bush is president.
A significant number of historians are graduates of Berkeley.
I, for one, will no longer take the rantings of "professional historians" at face value.
I consider this to be the end of history in this country.
I am a history professor; I post regularly on HNN; and I don't recall being polled or surveyed.
Some times things like this have to be said: I have an earned doctoral degree. I totally support George Bush and I believe voting for John Kerry would be a dangerous mistake. I question the patriotism of these academics.
Anybody who doesn't like what I have said will just have to live with it.
Unimpeachable source.
And just what was Buchanan supposed to do? Wave a magic liberal fairy wand and eliminate slavery? Those wands also do a great job at making folks hold hands, sing Kumbayah and agree about whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free.
Sometimes war does solve things. The Civil War resolved two issues: slavery and union. I would love to hear how Buchanan could have resolved them without war.
What the author really seems to resent is Presidents who expose that holding hands and singing Kumbayah only works when folks want to hold hands in the first place.
Academia decided this?
Next...