This bit of silliness, C-Span's 2009 Presidential Rankings, is making the rounds. Not only is the concept stupid, but they are wrong. FDR belongs at the top of the list. Everyone knows that.
C-Span and all the media reports that I've read have attached some mystical significance to the fact that they asked "Historians", as if someone who specializes in Ancient Rome or Medieval China has any clue who the Presidents were, or what they did. Even if these guys are specialists in American History, they all have their biases.
Two seemingly unanswerable questions keep popping up in the media reports: Why did Grant go up ten spaces, and why did Hayes fall seven? These questions are easily answered if you regard the historians as mere mortals.
Grants reputation has been almost single-handedly rescued by this 2006 blog post by Nathan Newman. It flew across the liberal blogosphere after he posted it. It certainly affected my thinking of Grant, and I've been selling Newman's insights as my own for two and a half years now. Those mystical "Historians" are plugged into this stuff as well, and their opinions are malleable enough to raise Grant's standing by quite a lot.
And Hayes? RutherFRAUD B. Hayes stole the 1876 election. After eight years of Bush, who stole the 2000 election, that facts looks a lot more salient.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
