I just don't know at what point the argument put forth in the piece doesn't fall apart. If you go down this path, a group is going to attain power, and they are going to make it so that the people who can't vote are the ones who would, ostensibly, be more likely to vote them out of power. In this case, we're using the amorphous barometer of "intelligence", but that can be used as a mask for basically anything (and has been, throughout history). Forget about the arguments about democracy in relation to a democratic republic, that isn't even something you can call a "free country". It's a dictatorship in which one side literally can't lose and the election itself is a complete farce and might as well not even take place.
Biden announced gun control executive order (Gun show loop hole closure) - and predictably, the entire right wing of politics exploded as if the second amendment was being erased in real time. It's always been a phony argument that Obama was going to come and "Steal your guns". Biden's even less likely to do so.
It's gross.
In other news - Gaetz's associate is reported to be near a plea deal that is expected to make Gaetz's life a lot more difficult.
Edit - there was also apparently a National Review article arguing that perhaps we should let less people vote in elections.
Sigh.
Here's the article. It's not as radical as you might think if you read the whole thing...
No - that's about as bad as I thought it'd be. It's not like the person writing it is going to be given the opportunity to explicitly say "Lets not let Black people vote". Instead, it'll be phrased an a nebulous way "Fewer more educated voters". Which is what is said.
The only problem is - this thought exercise is specific to America and so comes with the context of all of American history - where the majority has routinely trampled upon and disenfranchised minority (and women) voters for most or all of its long history.
I believe that if Arkansas was given the freedom to totally and utterly control its voting eligibility requirements without any backlash or ability to stop them, that voting eligibility would quickly be used to keep the GOP perpetually in power and part of that process would involve disenfranchisement of minorities.
For that reason, I'm wholesale against the idea of limiting voter eligibility - and consider any argument to do so fairly radical.
Here's where I tend to disagree with you. If the people getting 'free shit' outnumber the people who are paying for the 'free shit' then how is that not tyranny of the people actually contributing the shit. It hasn't happened as of yet, but theoretically it certainly could. I don't think that a simple majority is some kind of mandate, nor do I think it should be.
The problem with this view is that it's over-simplified, imo. Who's to say who the real contributors are? The private sector may reward Jeff bezos enormously, but, imo, that doesn't mean he contributed at the level he's getting. It's not like Bezos wrote all the programming code for Amazon.
Is an op-ed writer like Williamson contributing as much to society as his salary? I'm not actually advocating for state control over who gets paid what, but I also think it's an incredibly naive position to think what people get in the private sector is some accurate, commensurate measure of their contributions. And that's the position that underlines the argument you are making here.
Secondly, Williamson is advocating a policy that would permit politicians to choose their constituents. He may not want to own that logical consequence of his argument, but it's an undeniable consequence, imo. I hope we can all understand why that would be deeply problematic.
Society ultimately decides which skills are valued more. You may think Jeff Bezos is overvalued, but I doubt many people could have pulled off what he did. I would argue that he had a lot of people behind the scenes helping him along and risking capital as well. Those investors also get a say on how valuable he his and rightfully shared in his success. The other folks who work for him also get a piece of his success, a job and a salary. Some of those people probably also own stock options and share even more in his success. In fact I, and a lot of folks like me, have a portion of our 401k in Bezos' company as well so we also benefit.
I'm not against everybody being able to vote for their local, state and federal representatives. I'm only specifically referring to voting for the president. Congress has really made the POTUS far stronger than was intended by their infighting, petty partisanship and deferring to executive orders instead of passing new laws or amending old laws. In my opinion the President is too powerful now to leave the selection up to the average citizens. Unfortunately, there may not be a better way at the moment. Clearly there isn't any support for my PoV out in the wild. If it were up to me, the President would be selected by Congress. Sort of like how they do it in parliamentary systems.
Edit: I probably should have mentioned the presidential election caveat earlier but the Trump-Biden election debacle has been the only thing on my mind lately...
I just don't know at what point the argument put forth in the piece doesn't fall apart. If you go down this path, a group is going to attain power, and they are going to make it so that the people who can't vote are the ones who would, ostensibly, be more likely to vote them out of power. In this case, we're using the amorphous barometer of "intelligence", but that can be used as a mask for basically anything (and has been, throughout history). Forget about the arguments about democracy in relation to a democratic republic, that isn't even something you can call a "free country". It's a dictatorship in which one side literally can't lose and the election itself is a complete farce and might as well not even take place.
I agree with you except for voting for the president. My reasoning is explained in my above reply to DinoDin. I'm not as far away from your thinking as I sounded earlier. I just didn't explain myself very well. Sorry about that.
I think recent evidence demonstrates strongly against this, especially for president. Arguably the two worst presidents we've had since WW2 were first elected by a minority of voters. It's actually the systems that are ostensibly bulwarks against majoritarian rule that have failed, I'd argue.
I think recent evidence demonstrates strongly against this, especially for president. Arguably the two worst president we've had since WW2 were first elected by a minority of voters. It's actually the systems that are ostensibly bulwarks against majoritarian rule that have failed, I'd argue.
Well I'd argue that Nixon and LBJ were two of the worst also and they both won majorities. I'd put both of those as worse than 'W' but not worse than Trump. Carter was pretty awful too but not in the same league as those four. Ike and Truman were also pretty bad but that was long before my time. Human experimentation anybody? Ike and Truman were on board for that. Ugghhh, now that I think about it, Bush Sr. and Clinton were about the only good presidents I can remember. Maybe Reagan's first term too. Ironically, I didn't vote for either Clinton or Bush Sr. I was a lot dumber back then...
I think recent evidence demonstrates strongly against this, especially for president. Arguably the two worst president we've had since WW2 were first elected by a minority of voters. It's actually the systems that are ostensibly bulwarks against majoritarian rule that have failed, I'd argue.
Well I'd argue that Nixon and LBJ were two of the worst also and they both won majorities. I'd put both of those as worse than 'W' but not worse than Trump. Carter was pretty awful too but not in the same league as those four. Ike and Truman were also pretty bad but that was long before my time. Human experimentation anybody? Ike and Truman were on board for that. Ugghhh, now that I think about it, Bush Sr. and Clinton were about the only good presidents I can remember. Maybe Reagan's first term too. Ironically, I didn't vote for either Clinton or Bush Sr. I was a lot dumber back then...
I recognize that this is entirely subjective - but the general historical consensus is that LBJ, Truman and Eisenhower were among some of the most successful and effective presidents in the history of the country.
Nixon was bad, obviously. Carter wasnt great either - although that's largely a product of the economy + Iran Hostage Crisis. If you dive deeper into his presidency, he was probably most morally upright president. Just a good person.
W's seen as bad, and Trump worse (right now). W's reputation has been rehabilitated a bit just because of how awful Trump was. Which annoys a lot of people to no end ; P
One of the reasons that Bush Sr. lost was because the Evangelicals dumped him. My parents both wanted Pat Robertson to win the primary. I couldn't stomach that jackass but I was still in the Evangelical movement, at least as far as reading all their prophetic, apocalyptic bullshit anyway. I voted for 'change' (ie: Ross Perot) and I'm pretty sure my mom did too. That election was nearly as bad a clusterfuck as this last one. I remember reading that Bush Sr. was in the Illuminati and that Christians shouldn't vote for him or it would usher in the 'end times'. Ahhh, the memories...
I think recent evidence demonstrates strongly against this, especially for president. Arguably the two worst president we've had since WW2 were first elected by a minority of voters. It's actually the systems that are ostensibly bulwarks against majoritarian rule that have failed, I'd argue.
Well I'd argue that Nixon and LBJ were two of the worst also and they both won majorities. I'd put both of those as worse than 'W' but not worse than Trump. Carter was pretty awful too but not in the same league as those four. Ike and Truman were also pretty bad but that was long before my time. Human experimentation anybody? Ike and Truman were on board for that. Ugghhh, now that I think about it, Bush Sr. and Clinton were about the only good presidents I can remember. Maybe Reagan's first term too. Ironically, I didn't vote for either Clinton or Bush Sr. I was a lot dumber back then...
That's fine, but almost no historians are going to agree with this analysis.
One of the reasons that Bush Sr. lost was because the Evangelicals dumped him. My parents both wanted Pat Robertson to win the primary. I couldn't stomach that jackass but I was still in the Evangelical movement, at least as far as reading all their prophetic, apocalyptic bullshit anyway. I voted for 'change' (ie: Ross Perot) and I'm pretty sure my mom did too. That election was nearly as bad a clusterfuck as this last one. I remember reading that Bush Sr. was in the Illuminati and that Christians shouldn't vote for him or it would usher in the 'end times'. Ahhh, the memories...
Bush Sr. losing had just as much to do with Pat Buchanan's primary challenge as Ross Perot. Recent history suggests if you are a sitting President who faces a legitimate primary (Carter with Ted Kennedy in 1980, and the example above in 1992) you are in a weak position politically and likely to lose regardless. And let's just face it, Bill Clinton (and to a lesser extent Obama) were political prodigies. I think they both could have been elected in perpetuity if it was still allowed. Gore's biggest mistake was running AWAY from Clinton, at the urging of his horrendous running mate.
I think recent evidence demonstrates strongly against this, especially for president. Arguably the two worst president we've had since WW2 were first elected by a minority of voters. It's actually the systems that are ostensibly bulwarks against majoritarian rule that have failed, I'd argue.
Well I'd argue that Nixon and LBJ were two of the worst also and they both won majorities. I'd put both of those as worse than 'W' but not worse than Trump. Carter was pretty awful too but not in the same league as those four. Ike and Truman were also pretty bad but that was long before my time. Human experimentation anybody? Ike and Truman were on board for that. Ugghhh, now that I think about it, Bush Sr. and Clinton were about the only good presidents I can remember. Maybe Reagan's first term too. Ironically, I didn't vote for either Clinton or Bush Sr. I was a lot dumber back then...
I recognize that this is entirely subjective - but the general historical consensus is that LBJ, Truman and Eisenhower were among some of the most successful and effective presidents in the history of the country.
Nixon was bad, obviously. Carter wasnt great either - although that's largely a product of the economy + Iran Hostage Crisis. If you dive deeper into his presidency, he was probably most morally upright president. Just a good person.
W's seen as bad, and Trump worse (right now). W's reputation has been rehabilitated a bit just because of how awful Trump was. Which annoys a lot of people to no end ; P
I have a hard time believing that Presidents during the times of experimentation on their own populace (MK Ultra- mind control LSD experiments, exposing their own populace to radiation and chemicals without their consent, and exposing blacks to syphilis without consent) can be viewed as 'successful and effective'. I study history, but I guess I don't qualify as a 'historian' since I don't have a PhD in Poly Sci from a 'distinguished' Ivy League university.
Edit: Forgot to mention LBJ. He's basically the reason the Vietnam War became such a shit show. He gets a pass from historians solely because of his 'enlightened' support of equal rights. Of course that didn't stop him from sending thousands of black men to their deaths in the jungle. I guess his 'ideals' mean more than his actual works.
I think recent evidence demonstrates strongly against this, especially for president. Arguably the two worst president we've had since WW2 were first elected by a minority of voters. It's actually the systems that are ostensibly bulwarks against majoritarian rule that have failed, I'd argue.
Well I'd argue that Nixon and LBJ were two of the worst also and they both won majorities. I'd put both of those as worse than 'W' but not worse than Trump. Carter was pretty awful too but not in the same league as those four. Ike and Truman were also pretty bad but that was long before my time. Human experimentation anybody? Ike and Truman were on board for that. Ugghhh, now that I think about it, Bush Sr. and Clinton were about the only good presidents I can remember. Maybe Reagan's first term too. Ironically, I didn't vote for either Clinton or Bush Sr. I was a lot dumber back then...
I recognize that this is entirely subjective - but the general historical consensus is that LBJ, Truman and Eisenhower were among some of the most successful and effective presidents in the history of the country.
Nixon was bad, obviously. Carter wasnt great either - although that's largely a product of the economy + Iran Hostage Crisis. If you dive deeper into his presidency, he was probably most morally upright president. Just a good person.
W's seen as bad, and Trump worse (right now). W's reputation has been rehabilitated a bit just because of how awful Trump was. Which annoys a lot of people to no end ; P
I have a hard time believing that Presidents during the times of experimentation on their own populace (MK Ultra- mind control LSD experiments, exposing their own populace to radiation and chemicals without their consent, and exposing blacks to syphilis without consent) can be viewed as 'successful and effective'. I study history, but I guess I don't qualify as a 'historian' since I don't have a PhD in Poly Sci from a 'distinguished' Ivy League university.
Edit: Forgot to mention LBJ. He's basically the reason the Vietnam War became such a shit show. He gets a pass from historians solely because of his 'enlightened' support of equal rights. Of course that didn't stop him from sending thousands of black men to their deaths in the jungle. I guess his 'ideals' mean more than his actual works.
But equal rights in the 60s wasnt a foregone conclusion. And it was something that made him and his party deeply unpopular among a large and important voting block for decades, as he predicted. It seems weird to be so dismissive of these accomplishments. Doubly so to be sneering towards people like historians, merely for not agreeing with you. If historians said Obama was one of the worst presidents in history, I'd use that opportunity to reflect a bit, not just contemptuously dismiss them. The overwhelmingly majority of historians graduate from and teach at state universities, fwiw.
The reason historians will rank someone like LBJ or even Nixon higher than our two most recent failures is because both LBJ and Nixon had significant, lasting accomplishments during their terms. In Nixon's case, it was opening relations with China. There is no large, lasting, positive accomplishment for Trump or W.
I mean, I've said it before and I'll say it again. The current political demarcation lines between conservatives/liberals Democrats/Republicans begins with the mass exodus of Southern Democrats to Nixon after the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960s. The cheapest, most disingenuous line in American political discourse is when you hear someone say "Democrats are the party of the KKK". Yes, this was certainly true in 1920. Then 99% of those voters were swallowed into the Republican Party between 1964 and 1972.
I don't think anyone should have to spend a ton of time defending positions of parties 3/4 of a century ago when the make-up of those parties was completely different. My lifetime consists of Clinton/Obama vs. Reagan/Bush/Bush/Trump. I don't think that is a remotely hard call. Even if we just go by number of recessions.
I think recent evidence demonstrates strongly against this, especially for president. Arguably the two worst president we've had since WW2 were first elected by a minority of voters. It's actually the systems that are ostensibly bulwarks against majoritarian rule that have failed, I'd argue.
Well I'd argue that Nixon and LBJ were two of the worst also and they both won majorities. I'd put both of those as worse than 'W' but not worse than Trump. Carter was pretty awful too but not in the same league as those four. Ike and Truman were also pretty bad but that was long before my time. Human experimentation anybody? Ike and Truman were on board for that. Ugghhh, now that I think about it, Bush Sr. and Clinton were about the only good presidents I can remember. Maybe Reagan's first term too. Ironically, I didn't vote for either Clinton or Bush Sr. I was a lot dumber back then...
I recognize that this is entirely subjective - but the general historical consensus is that LBJ, Truman and Eisenhower were among some of the most successful and effective presidents in the history of the country.
Nixon was bad, obviously. Carter wasnt great either - although that's largely a product of the economy + Iran Hostage Crisis. If you dive deeper into his presidency, he was probably most morally upright president. Just a good person.
W's seen as bad, and Trump worse (right now). W's reputation has been rehabilitated a bit just because of how awful Trump was. Which annoys a lot of people to no end ; P
I have a hard time believing that Presidents during the times of experimentation on their own populace (MK Ultra- mind control LSD experiments, exposing their own populace to radiation and chemicals without their consent, and exposing blacks to syphilis without consent) can be viewed as 'successful and effective'. I study history, but I guess I don't qualify as a 'historian' since I don't have a PhD in Poly Sci from a 'distinguished' Ivy League university.
Edit: Forgot to mention LBJ. He's basically the reason the Vietnam War became such a shit show. He gets a pass from historians solely because of his 'enlightened' support of equal rights. Of course that didn't stop him from sending thousands of black men to their deaths in the jungle. I guess his 'ideals' mean more than his actual works.
I dont have a Ph.D, but I do have a degree in history.
I dont disagree directly - but most of our deified and celebrated founding fathers owned slaves. Those that didnt own slaves created a democratic republic that allowed for the continuation of slavery. Abraham Lincoln, widely considered the greatest president in US history - would have allowed slavery to exist within the US in order to preserve the Union. His originaly approach to abolition was to send the freed slaves to Africa. His administration was pretty awful to Native Americans.
Bush Sr was the head of the CIA during a pretty fraught period of American imperialism. He was also a big supporter of Nixon (I think even during Watergate).
I guess I'm trying to say - no one gets to that office and is totally clean.
Presidents are just men. Touting their 'good' accomplishments and ignoring their 'bad' flaws just serves to keep people in their little bubbles. Trump did a few good things among the bad. Was he a good president? Just ask his groupies. They'll tell you he was great. Was LBJ a good president? Just ask the people that only look at the good things he did. The truth is that none of these people are totally 'good' or totally 'bad'. It's all subjective. Also, the President doesn't call all of the shots in our country anyway. We have two other supposedly equal branches that also play a part in any of their so-called accomplishments. This idea that our president is like a king/queen is exactly why I don't think he/she should be chosen by the masses. Most ordinary citizens can't tell the difference between a president and the Messiah.
Presidents are just men. Touting their 'good' accomplishments and ignoring their 'bad' flaws just serves to keep people in their little bubbles. Trump did a few good things among the bad. Was he a good president? Just ask his groupies. They'll tell you he was great. Was LBJ a good president? Just ask the people that only look at the good things he did. The truth is that none of these people are totally 'good' or totally 'bad'. It's all subjective. Also, the President doesn't call all of the shots in our country anyway. We have two other supposedly equal branches that also play a part in any of their so-called accomplishments. This idea that our president is like a king/queen is exactly why I don't think he/she should be chosen by the masses. Most ordinary citizens can't tell the difference between a president and the Messiah.
This is why it's worth reflecting on the perspective of people who spend their careers studying these questions in a formal, professional setting. I don't think it's right to intimate that historians are going to just be "groupies" of a certain politician. Historians are best equipped to take a dispassionate and informed evaluation here. Weighing the good, the bad, and the context of the times. And frankly this kind of blanket cynicism doesn't really help facilitate good discussion on here. These questions are not "all subjective".
Presidents are just men. Touting their 'good' accomplishments and ignoring their 'bad' flaws just serves to keep people in their little bubbles. Trump did a few good things among the bad. Was he a good president? Just ask his groupies. They'll tell you he was great. Was LBJ a good president? Just ask the people that only look at the good things he did. The truth is that none of these people are totally 'good' or totally 'bad'. It's all subjective. Also, the President doesn't call all of the shots in our country anyway. We have two other supposedly equal branches that also play a part in any of their so-called accomplishments. This idea that our president is like a king/queen is exactly why I don't think he/she should be chosen by the masses. Most ordinary citizens can't tell the difference between a president and the Messiah.
This is why it's worth reflecting on the perspective of people who spend their careers studying these questions in a formal, professional setting. I don't think it's right to intimate that historians are going to just be "groupies" of a certain politician. Historians are best equipped to take a dispassionate and informed evaluation here. Weighing the good, the bad, and the context of the times. And frankly this kind of blanket cynicism doesn't really help facilitate good discussion on here. These questions are not "all subjective".
They are subjective because the historians themselves have an agenda now. When they present only one viewpoint, this person was 'good' or 'bad' or 'effective' or 'ineffective', instead of a collective here's what this person did that is 'good' and here's the 'bad' stuff, decide for yourself, it's too simplistic. No politician is 'good' or 'effective' at everything they did, neither is any totally ''ineffective' or 'bad'. The truth is almost always somewhere in between. To me somebody that tells you something with 'certainty', is usually trying to sway you to their opinion, rather than presenting you with an opportunity to come to your own conclusion.
Presidents are just men. Touting their 'good' accomplishments and ignoring their 'bad' flaws just serves to keep people in their little bubbles. Trump did a few good things among the bad. Was he a good president? Just ask his groupies. They'll tell you he was great. Was LBJ a good president? Just ask the people that only look at the good things he did. The truth is that none of these people are totally 'good' or totally 'bad'. It's all subjective. Also, the President doesn't call all of the shots in our country anyway. We have two other supposedly equal branches that also play a part in any of their so-called accomplishments. This idea that our president is like a king/queen is exactly why I don't think he/she should be chosen by the masses. Most ordinary citizens can't tell the difference between a president and the Messiah.
This is why it's worth reflecting on the perspective of people who spend their careers studying these questions in a formal, professional setting. I don't think it's right to intimate that historians are going to just be "groupies" of a certain politician. Historians are best equipped to take a dispassionate and informed evaluation here. Weighing the good, the bad, and the context of the times. And frankly this kind of blanket cynicism doesn't really help facilitate good discussion on here. These questions are not "all subjective".
They are subjective because the historians themselves have an agenda now. When they present only one viewpoint, this person was 'good' or 'bad' or 'effective' or 'ineffective', instead of a collective here's what this person did that is 'good' and here's the 'bad' stuff, decide for yourself, it's too simplistic. No politician is 'good' or 'effective' at everything they did, neither is any totally ''ineffective' or 'bad'. The truth is almost always somewhere in between. To me somebody that tells you something with 'certainty', is usually trying to sway you to their opinion, rather than presenting you with an opportunity to come to your own conclusion.
I feel like this just a negative and unfair generalization, and it's one that's extremely false at that. I do not think historians talk about important figures at all in the way you're describing. I don't think there's a single historian of the USA, for example, that would say everything Lincoln did was good, even though historians will tend to rank him as the best president.
I also feel like you're leaning heavily on negative generalizations in the past few posts. Historians have an agenda. The American people treat the president like a king. "Takers" will vote for free stuff. First off, these characterizations seem false. Post Nixon, it's actually the case that Americans are quite a bit more skeptical of president than past Americans were. Polling data backs this. It doesn't seem like an open-minded way to look at the world.
Presidents are just men. Touting their 'good' accomplishments and ignoring their 'bad' flaws just serves to keep people in their little bubbles. Trump did a few good things among the bad. Was he a good president? Just ask his groupies. They'll tell you he was great. Was LBJ a good president? Just ask the people that only look at the good things he did. The truth is that none of these people are totally 'good' or totally 'bad'. It's all subjective. Also, the President doesn't call all of the shots in our country anyway. We have two other supposedly equal branches that also play a part in any of their so-called accomplishments. This idea that our president is like a king/queen is exactly why I don't think he/she should be chosen by the masses. Most ordinary citizens can't tell the difference between a president and the Messiah.
This is why it's worth reflecting on the perspective of people who spend their careers studying these questions in a formal, professional setting. I don't think it's right to intimate that historians are going to just be "groupies" of a certain politician. Historians are best equipped to take a dispassionate and informed evaluation here. Weighing the good, the bad, and the context of the times. And frankly this kind of blanket cynicism doesn't really help facilitate good discussion on here. These questions are not "all subjective".
They are subjective because the historians themselves have an agenda now. When they present only one viewpoint, this person was 'good' or 'bad' or 'effective' or 'ineffective', instead of a collective here's what this person did that is 'good' and here's the 'bad' stuff, decide for yourself, it's too simplistic. No politician is 'good' or 'effective' at everything they did, neither is any totally ''ineffective' or 'bad'. The truth is almost always somewhere in between. To me somebody that tells you something with 'certainty', is usually trying to sway you to their opinion, rather than presenting you with an opportunity to come to your own conclusion.
I feel like this just a negative and unfair generalization, and it's one that's extremely false at that. I do not think historians talk about important figures at all in the way you're describing. I don't think there's a single historian of the USA, for example, that would say everything Lincoln did was good, even though historians will tend to rank him as the best president.
I also feel like you're leaning heavily on negative generalizations in the past few posts. Historians have an agenda. The American people treat the president like a king. "Takers" will vote for free stuff. First off, these characterizations seem false. Post Nixon, it's actually the case that Americans are quite a bit more skeptical of president than past Americans were. Polling data backs this. It doesn't seem like an open-minded way to look at the world.
Yet trust of Congress is leagues behind trust of the president. I think you're a bit naive in your views myself. Congress is supposed to be the champion of the everyman, not the president. These days it seems that the opposite is most people's view. The balance of power has dangerously shifted to the executive and 'historians' are a big part of that problem. All you hear from them is the 'effectiveness' of a president, like that person holds all the power. It's ludicrous. Part of the reason that Trump didn't get his way is that the president DOES NOT have the amount of power that the average citizens thinks they do. The fucking scary part is how much focus that one person gets in the media now. It was never meant to be this way.
Presidents are just men. Touting their 'good' accomplishments and ignoring their 'bad' flaws just serves to keep people in their little bubbles. Trump did a few good things among the bad. Was he a good president? Just ask his groupies. They'll tell you he was great. Was LBJ a good president? Just ask the people that only look at the good things he did. The truth is that none of these people are totally 'good' or totally 'bad'. It's all subjective. Also, the President doesn't call all of the shots in our country anyway. We have two other supposedly equal branches that also play a part in any of their so-called accomplishments. This idea that our president is like a king/queen is exactly why I don't think he/she should be chosen by the masses. Most ordinary citizens can't tell the difference between a president and the Messiah.
This is why it's worth reflecting on the perspective of people who spend their careers studying these questions in a formal, professional setting. I don't think it's right to intimate that historians are going to just be "groupies" of a certain politician. Historians are best equipped to take a dispassionate and informed evaluation here. Weighing the good, the bad, and the context of the times. And frankly this kind of blanket cynicism doesn't really help facilitate good discussion on here. These questions are not "all subjective".
They are subjective because the historians themselves have an agenda now. When they present only one viewpoint, this person was 'good' or 'bad' or 'effective' or 'ineffective', instead of a collective here's what this person did that is 'good' and here's the 'bad' stuff, decide for yourself, it's too simplistic. No politician is 'good' or 'effective' at everything they did, neither is any totally ''ineffective' or 'bad'. The truth is almost always somewhere in between. To me somebody that tells you something with 'certainty', is usually trying to sway you to their opinion, rather than presenting you with an opportunity to come to your own conclusion.
I feel like this just a negative and unfair generalization, and it's one that's extremely false at that. I do not think historians talk about important figures at all in the way you're describing. I don't think there's a single historian of the USA, for example, that would say everything Lincoln did was good, even though historians will tend to rank him as the best president.
I also feel like you're leaning heavily on negative generalizations in the past few posts. Historians have an agenda. The American people treat the president like a king. "Takers" will vote for free stuff. First off, these characterizations seem false. Post Nixon, it's actually the case that Americans are quite a bit more skeptical of president than past Americans were. Polling data backs this. It doesn't seem like an open-minded way to look at the world.
Yet trust of Congress is leagues behind trust of the president. I think you're a bit naive in your views myself. Congress is supposed to be the champion of the everyman, not the president. These days it seems that the opposite is most people's view. The balance of power has dangerously shifted to the executive and 'historians' are a big part of that problem. All you hear from them is the 'effectiveness' of a president, like that person holds all the power. It's ludicrous. Part of the reason that Trump didn't get his way is that the president DOES NOT have the amount of power that the average citizens thinks they do. The fucking scary part is how much focus that one person gets in the media now. It was never meant to be this way.
At the risk of repeating myself, I'm just going to note one thing. You've made it quite clear that you have an extremely low opinion of many people. What you haven't done is marshal any evidence for that.
Presidents are just men. Touting their 'good' accomplishments and ignoring their 'bad' flaws just serves to keep people in their little bubbles. Trump did a few good things among the bad. Was he a good president? Just ask his groupies. They'll tell you he was great. Was LBJ a good president? Just ask the people that only look at the good things he did. The truth is that none of these people are totally 'good' or totally 'bad'. It's all subjective. Also, the President doesn't call all of the shots in our country anyway. We have two other supposedly equal branches that also play a part in any of their so-called accomplishments. This idea that our president is like a king/queen is exactly why I don't think he/she should be chosen by the masses. Most ordinary citizens can't tell the difference between a president and the Messiah.
This is why it's worth reflecting on the perspective of people who spend their careers studying these questions in a formal, professional setting. I don't think it's right to intimate that historians are going to just be "groupies" of a certain politician. Historians are best equipped to take a dispassionate and informed evaluation here. Weighing the good, the bad, and the context of the times. And frankly this kind of blanket cynicism doesn't really help facilitate good discussion on here. These questions are not "all subjective".
They are subjective because the historians themselves have an agenda now. When they present only one viewpoint, this person was 'good' or 'bad' or 'effective' or 'ineffective', instead of a collective here's what this person did that is 'good' and here's the 'bad' stuff, decide for yourself, it's too simplistic. No politician is 'good' or 'effective' at everything they did, neither is any totally ''ineffective' or 'bad'. The truth is almost always somewhere in between. To me somebody that tells you something with 'certainty', is usually trying to sway you to their opinion, rather than presenting you with an opportunity to come to your own conclusion.
I feel like this just a negative and unfair generalization, and it's one that's extremely false at that. I do not think historians talk about important figures at all in the way you're describing. I don't think there's a single historian of the USA, for example, that would say everything Lincoln did was good, even though historians will tend to rank him as the best president.
I also feel like you're leaning heavily on negative generalizations in the past few posts. Historians have an agenda. The American people treat the president like a king. "Takers" will vote for free stuff. First off, these characterizations seem false. Post Nixon, it's actually the case that Americans are quite a bit more skeptical of president than past Americans were. Polling data backs this. It doesn't seem like an open-minded way to look at the world.
Yet trust of Congress is leagues behind trust of the president. I think you're a bit naive in your views myself. Congress is supposed to be the champion of the everyman, not the president. These days it seems that the opposite is most people's view. The balance of power has dangerously shifted to the executive and 'historians' are a big part of that problem. All you hear from them is the 'effectiveness' of a president, like that person holds all the power. It's ludicrous. Part of the reason that Trump didn't get his way is that the president DOES NOT have the amount of power that the average citizens thinks they do. The fucking scary part is how much focus that one person gets in the media now. It was never meant to be this way.
At the risk of repeating myself, I'm just going to note one thing. You've made it quite clear that you have an extremely low opinion of many people. What you haven't done is marshal any evidence for that.
Wait. What are you even actually saying.? How are historians doing *anything* to damage trust in Congress or push up Presidents? That's fairly ridiculous statement.
How on earth would historians do literally anything to swing a "balance of power" to the president?
The craft of historians is to analyze primary and secondary sources, and using those sources to trying to determine what most probably happened in history. The idea that they have any meaningful way to effect the functioning of the government is absurd.
That's it. As a historian. As someone who knows historians, and who went through the process of learning HOW to be a historian (mind you, that doesnt mean taking history 101 or knowing a lot about a certain event in history, but the nuts and bolts of how to do it correctly) - I can confidently say that we have no ability to affect the balance of power anywhere in the US government, and proving otherwise will take a MOUNTAIN of evidence.
I'll give you an example. Bill O'Reily has written a bunch of "history" books. His impact on the world and functioning of the government is 99.9999% because of his right wing rhetoric and show on fox news - his punditry for lack of a better term, and .0001 because he wrote about some stuff in history.
Wait. What are you even actually saying.? How are historians doing *anything* to damage trust in Congress or push up Presidents? That's fairly ridiculous statement.
How on earth would historians do literally anything to swing a "balance of power" to the president?
The craft of historians is to analyze primary and secondary sources, and using those sources to trying to determine what most probably happened in history. The idea that they have any meaningful way to effect the functioning of the government is absurd.
That's it. As a historian. As someone who knows historians, and who went through the process of learning HOW to be a historian (mind you, that doesnt mean taking history 101 or knowing a lot about a certain event in history, but the nuts and bolts of how to do it correctly) - I can confidently say that we have no ability to affect the balance of power anywhere in the US government, and proving otherwise will take a MOUNTAIN of evidence.
I'll give you an example. Bill O'Reily has written a bunch of "history" books. His impact on the world and functioning of the government is 99.9999% because of his right wing rhetoric and show on fox news - his punditry for lack of a better term, and .0001 because he wrote about some stuff in history.
Historian is probably the wrong word. My background is science so I have no knowledge how things work academically on the humanities side of the equation. Maybe it's political scientists that I'm thinking of. Unless I'm mistaken, somebody writes the history books that are used to educate our children. For a fair amount of those kids, that's the only history they're going to be exposed to (sadly). To me that gives those writers considerably more sway than you seem to believe.
Hmmmm... Now that I think about it, I probably have more exposure than the average person because I'm interested in both history and politics.
The Amazon warehouse unionization vote in Alabama failed miserably, and I can't for the life of me understand why every single highly publicized union drive that the left is building up as a possible victory is being fought on the worst playing ground imaginable. Alabama is the most solidly "right to work" state in the country (the phrase itself is in quotes, because it's the most Orwellian phrase in existence, since all it means is your employer can fire you at any time for absolutely no reason whatsoever).
The Amazon warehouse unionization vote in Alabama failed miserably, and I can't for the life of me understand why every single highly publicized union drive that the left is building up as a possible victory is being fought on the worst playing ground imaginable. Alabama is the most solidly "right to work" state in the country (the phrase itself is in quotes, because it's the most Orwellian phrase in existence, since all it means is your employer can fire you at any time for absolutely no reason whatsoever).
The unions shot themselves in the foot by becoming just another layer of bureaucracy. Just like any bureaucracy, the fat cats at the top couldn't help skimming a bit of those dues fees and lining their own pockets. They were good and necessary when they first started, but that ship has long sailed...
The Amazon warehouse unionization vote in Alabama failed miserably, and I can't for the life of me understand why every single highly publicized union drive that the left is building up as a possible victory is being fought on the worst playing ground imaginable. Alabama is the most solidly "right to work" state in the country (the phrase itself is in quotes, because it's the most Orwellian phrase in existence, since all it means is your employer can fire you at any time for absolutely no reason whatsoever).
The unions shot themselves in the foot by becoming just another layer of bureaucracy. Just like any bureaucracy, the fat cats at the top couldn't help skimming a bit of those dues fees and lining their own pockets. They were good and necessary when they first started, but that ship has long sailed...
Come on man. Is everything going to just be an opportunity to disparage whole classes of people from now on?
The Unions have been thugs, like mafia style thugs. Not saying that those controlling them now are the same, just well... they were not always angels. Hopefully OSHA has taken over one of the necessities of the unions but it is not even close to helping with the other, company and corporate irresponsibility in compensation. Things are going crazy, those at the top are raking it in at unprecedented rate. I personally do not like unions because I once was in one and they used gestapo like tactics, not a good thing.
I don't know if unions are the answer, but businesses must be put in check. Come up with an alternative and I will listen.
The Amazon warehouse unionization vote in Alabama failed miserably, and I can't for the life of me understand why every single highly publicized union drive that the left is building up as a possible victory is being fought on the worst playing ground imaginable. Alabama is the most solidly "right to work" state in the country (the phrase itself is in quotes, because it's the most Orwellian phrase in existence, since all it means is your employer can fire you at any time for absolutely no reason whatsoever).
The unions shot themselves in the foot by becoming just another layer of bureaucracy. Just like any bureaucracy, the fat cats at the top couldn't help skimming a bit of those dues fees and lining their own pockets. They were good and necessary when they first started, but that ship has long sailed...
Come on man. Is everything going to just be an opportunity to disparage whole classes of people from now on?
I fail to see how union leaders are considered a 'class' but whatever...
So this idiot is all over the place (and never, ever gives his opinion on who should be those eligible to vote except for those that have a driver's license because operating a vehicle is the litmus test to intelligent behavior apparently) , but he actually makes an argument about his stance in the opinion piece:
"Representatives are people who act in other people’s interests, which is distinct from carrying out a group’s stated demands as certified by majority vote. Legitimacy involves, among other interests, the government’s responsibility to people who are not voters, such as children, mentally incapacitated people, incarcerated felons, and non-citizen permanent residents. Their interests matter, too, but we do not extend the vote to them. So we require a more sophisticated conception of legitimacy than one-man, one-vote, majority rule."
I personally do not need to know all the issues, in fact, I can be ignorant on all the issues. The only thing that I, as a voter, need to know, is the person that I am casting my vote for, will represent my, and my community's, interests when laws are being crafted and debated.
If I feel the person that I vote for does not reflect my interest, I and my community have the power to remove them from their position. That's what voting is for, its to elect a representative that speaks for the community.
You do not need a driver's license or tax return, or reading test, or social issues assessment to determine who that person is.
There is an absolute belief among MANY people that if you don't have these things you have "bigger problems than not being allowed to vote". I heard this said verbatim on FOX within the last 48 hours. This is a completely subjective opinion, as is this entire intellectual exercise (if we even want to call it that).
I'm sure Kevin Williamson (the author of this piece) thinks I'm too stupid to responsibly cast a vote. I think the same about him. The difference between us is I am the only one who seems to recognize that's all this is going to boil down to in the end. Everyone and their mother thinking they are absolutely intelligent and qualified to vote, and that everyone whose politics they despise isn't qualified. How does it turn out any other way??
Wow. If a person has bigger problems in their life, maybe their should be a representative of their community who would be able to help them out with those problems. I wonder how they can get that type of representation in a democracy... I am stumped.
And you can not tell me that not having a driver's license is a problem. I choose not to have one so I don't have to pick up drunk friends and their cars at 3:30 in the morning. That's avoiding problems thank you very much.
Oh boy can I relate. About 2 1/2 years ago, I decided to not get another beater car when mine bit the dust. I had gotten a job that allowed me quick access by bus, and with the pandemic, I am now likely in a position to work from home going forward. I am at least REASONABLY financially secure for the first time in my adult life, in no small part because I am not shelling out $600-$1200 for car repairs every 4-6 months. I have a decent amount of credit for the first time ever. Yet the #1 question I get asked is "when are you gonna get a car??", ignoring the fact that not having one has made my life better by orders of magnitude.
I think most Americans still equate owning a car with freedom. No car meaning less control of your destiny or something along those lines. That's slowly changing with the advent of Uber and drive-sharing and such.
There's a lot of truth to it, honestly. There's nothing inherently liberating about a vehicle, but having access to transportation, whether that means public transportation or a car, means you can do a lot of stuff that you otherwise can't. Folks in my local trans community are by and large very poor, and lack of access to transportation is very limiting. Housing is the same; I know multiple folks who would easily be able to better their lives if only they had the resources to escape abusive environments and get around on their own.
The mistake is thinking this is specific to cars; public transportation would accomplish the same thing for less money. If San Antonio had cheaper housing and a wider public transportation network, several of my friends who live with their abusers would be living normal lives in safe places.
Corporations, above-all, exist to make money. If they are taking a stand on certain issues, it isn't performative "wokeness". It's because the number crunchers, who they pay good money to employ, have told them that it's more beneficial to their bottom-line to do so than not. And while I'm not a fan of Never-Trumpers like Sykes, he's right. Who is more responsible for creating powerful corporate entities than the modern Republican Party?? Worship of the market was sacrosanct right up until the moment the market turned on them. And now Mitch McConnell, the most transparent handmaiden of big business and corporate benefactors in American history, wants corporations to "stay out of politics"?? It's just hilariously brazen. Like Trump, another Frankenstein monster of their own creation who they can no longer control.
Comments
Society ultimately decides which skills are valued more. You may think Jeff Bezos is overvalued, but I doubt many people could have pulled off what he did. I would argue that he had a lot of people behind the scenes helping him along and risking capital as well. Those investors also get a say on how valuable he his and rightfully shared in his success. The other folks who work for him also get a piece of his success, a job and a salary. Some of those people probably also own stock options and share even more in his success. In fact I, and a lot of folks like me, have a portion of our 401k in Bezos' company as well so we also benefit.
I'm not against everybody being able to vote for their local, state and federal representatives. I'm only specifically referring to voting for the president. Congress has really made the POTUS far stronger than was intended by their infighting, petty partisanship and deferring to executive orders instead of passing new laws or amending old laws. In my opinion the President is too powerful now to leave the selection up to the average citizens. Unfortunately, there may not be a better way at the moment. Clearly there isn't any support for my PoV out in the wild. If it were up to me, the President would be selected by Congress. Sort of like how they do it in parliamentary systems.
Edit: I probably should have mentioned the presidential election caveat earlier but the Trump-Biden election debacle has been the only thing on my mind lately...
Well I'd argue that Nixon and LBJ were two of the worst also and they both won majorities. I'd put both of those as worse than 'W' but not worse than Trump. Carter was pretty awful too but not in the same league as those four. Ike and Truman were also pretty bad but that was long before my time. Human experimentation anybody? Ike and Truman were on board for that. Ugghhh, now that I think about it, Bush Sr. and Clinton were about the only good presidents I can remember. Maybe Reagan's first term too. Ironically, I didn't vote for either Clinton or Bush Sr. I was a lot dumber back then...
I recognize that this is entirely subjective - but the general historical consensus is that LBJ, Truman and Eisenhower were among some of the most successful and effective presidents in the history of the country.
Nixon was bad, obviously. Carter wasnt great either - although that's largely a product of the economy + Iran Hostage Crisis. If you dive deeper into his presidency, he was probably most morally upright president. Just a good person.
W's seen as bad, and Trump worse (right now). W's reputation has been rehabilitated a bit just because of how awful Trump was. Which annoys a lot of people to no end ; P
One of the reasons that Bush Sr. lost was because the Evangelicals dumped him. My parents both wanted Pat Robertson to win the primary. I couldn't stomach that jackass but I was still in the Evangelical movement, at least as far as reading all their prophetic, apocalyptic bullshit anyway. I voted for 'change' (ie: Ross Perot) and I'm pretty sure my mom did too. That election was nearly as bad a clusterfuck as this last one. I remember reading that Bush Sr. was in the Illuminati and that Christians shouldn't vote for him or it would usher in the 'end times'. Ahhh, the memories...
That's fine, but almost no historians are going to agree with this analysis.
Bush Sr. losing had just as much to do with Pat Buchanan's primary challenge as Ross Perot. Recent history suggests if you are a sitting President who faces a legitimate primary (Carter with Ted Kennedy in 1980, and the example above in 1992) you are in a weak position politically and likely to lose regardless. And let's just face it, Bill Clinton (and to a lesser extent Obama) were political prodigies. I think they both could have been elected in perpetuity if it was still allowed. Gore's biggest mistake was running AWAY from Clinton, at the urging of his horrendous running mate.
I have a hard time believing that Presidents during the times of experimentation on their own populace (MK Ultra- mind control LSD experiments, exposing their own populace to radiation and chemicals without their consent, and exposing blacks to syphilis without consent) can be viewed as 'successful and effective'. I study history, but I guess I don't qualify as a 'historian' since I don't have a PhD in Poly Sci from a 'distinguished' Ivy League university.
Edit: Forgot to mention LBJ. He's basically the reason the Vietnam War became such a shit show. He gets a pass from historians solely because of his 'enlightened' support of equal rights. Of course that didn't stop him from sending thousands of black men to their deaths in the jungle. I guess his 'ideals' mean more than his actual works.
But equal rights in the 60s wasnt a foregone conclusion. And it was something that made him and his party deeply unpopular among a large and important voting block for decades, as he predicted. It seems weird to be so dismissive of these accomplishments. Doubly so to be sneering towards people like historians, merely for not agreeing with you. If historians said Obama was one of the worst presidents in history, I'd use that opportunity to reflect a bit, not just contemptuously dismiss them. The overwhelmingly majority of historians graduate from and teach at state universities, fwiw.
The reason historians will rank someone like LBJ or even Nixon higher than our two most recent failures is because both LBJ and Nixon had significant, lasting accomplishments during their terms. In Nixon's case, it was opening relations with China. There is no large, lasting, positive accomplishment for Trump or W.
I don't think anyone should have to spend a ton of time defending positions of parties 3/4 of a century ago when the make-up of those parties was completely different. My lifetime consists of Clinton/Obama vs. Reagan/Bush/Bush/Trump. I don't think that is a remotely hard call. Even if we just go by number of recessions.
I dont have a Ph.D, but I do have a degree in history.
I dont disagree directly - but most of our deified and celebrated founding fathers owned slaves. Those that didnt own slaves created a democratic republic that allowed for the continuation of slavery. Abraham Lincoln, widely considered the greatest president in US history - would have allowed slavery to exist within the US in order to preserve the Union. His originaly approach to abolition was to send the freed slaves to Africa. His administration was pretty awful to Native Americans.
Bush Sr was the head of the CIA during a pretty fraught period of American imperialism. He was also a big supporter of Nixon (I think even during Watergate).
I guess I'm trying to say - no one gets to that office and is totally clean.
This is why it's worth reflecting on the perspective of people who spend their careers studying these questions in a formal, professional setting. I don't think it's right to intimate that historians are going to just be "groupies" of a certain politician. Historians are best equipped to take a dispassionate and informed evaluation here. Weighing the good, the bad, and the context of the times. And frankly this kind of blanket cynicism doesn't really help facilitate good discussion on here. These questions are not "all subjective".
They are subjective because the historians themselves have an agenda now. When they present only one viewpoint, this person was 'good' or 'bad' or 'effective' or 'ineffective', instead of a collective here's what this person did that is 'good' and here's the 'bad' stuff, decide for yourself, it's too simplistic. No politician is 'good' or 'effective' at everything they did, neither is any totally ''ineffective' or 'bad'. The truth is almost always somewhere in between. To me somebody that tells you something with 'certainty', is usually trying to sway you to their opinion, rather than presenting you with an opportunity to come to your own conclusion.
I feel like this just a negative and unfair generalization, and it's one that's extremely false at that. I do not think historians talk about important figures at all in the way you're describing. I don't think there's a single historian of the USA, for example, that would say everything Lincoln did was good, even though historians will tend to rank him as the best president.
I also feel like you're leaning heavily on negative generalizations in the past few posts. Historians have an agenda. The American people treat the president like a king. "Takers" will vote for free stuff. First off, these characterizations seem false. Post Nixon, it's actually the case that Americans are quite a bit more skeptical of president than past Americans were. Polling data backs this. It doesn't seem like an open-minded way to look at the world.
Yet trust of Congress is leagues behind trust of the president. I think you're a bit naive in your views myself. Congress is supposed to be the champion of the everyman, not the president. These days it seems that the opposite is most people's view. The balance of power has dangerously shifted to the executive and 'historians' are a big part of that problem. All you hear from them is the 'effectiveness' of a president, like that person holds all the power. It's ludicrous. Part of the reason that Trump didn't get his way is that the president DOES NOT have the amount of power that the average citizens thinks they do. The fucking scary part is how much focus that one person gets in the media now. It was never meant to be this way.
At the risk of repeating myself, I'm just going to note one thing. You've made it quite clear that you have an extremely low opinion of many people. What you haven't done is marshal any evidence for that.
Q-Anon.
How on earth would historians do literally anything to swing a "balance of power" to the president?
The craft of historians is to analyze primary and secondary sources, and using those sources to trying to determine what most probably happened in history. The idea that they have any meaningful way to effect the functioning of the government is absurd.
That's it. As a historian. As someone who knows historians, and who went through the process of learning HOW to be a historian (mind you, that doesnt mean taking history 101 or knowing a lot about a certain event in history, but the nuts and bolts of how to do it correctly) - I can confidently say that we have no ability to affect the balance of power anywhere in the US government, and proving otherwise will take a MOUNTAIN of evidence.
I'll give you an example. Bill O'Reily has written a bunch of "history" books. His impact on the world and functioning of the government is 99.9999% because of his right wing rhetoric and show on fox news - his punditry for lack of a better term, and .0001 because he wrote about some stuff in history.
Historian is probably the wrong word. My background is science so I have no knowledge how things work academically on the humanities side of the equation. Maybe it's political scientists that I'm thinking of. Unless I'm mistaken, somebody writes the history books that are used to educate our children. For a fair amount of those kids, that's the only history they're going to be exposed to (sadly). To me that gives those writers considerably more sway than you seem to believe.
Hmmmm... Now that I think about it, I probably have more exposure than the average person because I'm interested in both history and politics.
The unions shot themselves in the foot by becoming just another layer of bureaucracy. Just like any bureaucracy, the fat cats at the top couldn't help skimming a bit of those dues fees and lining their own pockets. They were good and necessary when they first started, but that ship has long sailed...
Come on man. Is everything going to just be an opportunity to disparage whole classes of people from now on?
I don't know if unions are the answer, but businesses must be put in check. Come up with an alternative and I will listen.
I fail to see how union leaders are considered a 'class' but whatever...
The mistake is thinking this is specific to cars; public transportation would accomplish the same thing for less money. If San Antonio had cheaper housing and a wider public transportation network, several of my friends who live with their abusers would be living normal lives in safe places.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/04/11/republican-party-brain-swap-anti-corporate-480622
Corporations, above-all, exist to make money. If they are taking a stand on certain issues, it isn't performative "wokeness". It's because the number crunchers, who they pay good money to employ, have told them that it's more beneficial to their bottom-line to do so than not. And while I'm not a fan of Never-Trumpers like Sykes, he's right. Who is more responsible for creating powerful corporate entities than the modern Republican Party?? Worship of the market was sacrosanct right up until the moment the market turned on them. And now Mitch McConnell, the most transparent handmaiden of big business and corporate benefactors in American history, wants corporations to "stay out of politics"?? It's just hilariously brazen. Like Trump, another Frankenstein monster of their own creation who they can no longer control.