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
Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents and along with Reagan one of our greatest Republicans. He was no radical and the only real objection of the wild secessionists to Lincoln and the Republicans was their treat to the spread of slavery in the territories. They didn't even give him a chance to take office. All patriotic Americans should be thankful that a man of Lincoln's quality was in charge when the nation faced such a large outbreak of political insanity from Dixie.
I disagree. All other nations ended slavery without falling into civil war. It was because of Lincoln’s radicalism the US was forced to use warfare to end the institution.
But one thing many current Democrats could learn from these two men was that at least they were patriotic and wanted what was best for the USA, misguided as they often were. I suspect many in the leftist camp today lack the regard these two guys had for our nation.
It’s true that there were some radicals then who would gladly have started the war to eradicate slavery, but Lincoln was not one of them. He only acted to fulfill his Constitutionally-mandated tasks and preserve the Union. The secessionists did not even give him a chance before they sought to tear apart the nation and it’s completely upon them and their lack of political maturity that guilt for the war lays.
I do not believe we will ever agree about this. It is time to end the discussion.
I agree.
I did a search on AltaVista for a change. I always like to find pics that haven't been posted before.
Regarding cigarettes, Ann smoked for a time—I thought she gave it up, recently. This pic is from 2006. The girl may have shared one with her.
Nice to have a real historian as a Freeper. I appreciate your comments on the various historians.
My favorite historian is Paul Johnson. His commentary on the US Presidents is absolutely devastating. FDR comes out as a light weight dilettante. Wilson is an unconstitutional autocratic academic and inept. When his wife took over, she didn't do any worse.
James Polk was considered as one of our greatest Presidents and the best one term President. He accomplished everything he promised.
I'd love to read his comments on GHW Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush.
What do you think of Paul Johnson?
Vintage Coulter. I love her double barrel quips.
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.