Mr. Harrison, How could thy fail us so much?
Before we got to Harrison, Let's look at common criticisms of Bush and show how invalid they are.
"He's the worst president of all time"
This case is completely invalid. No matter how bad you think he did, He cannot hold that title.
Why? Because it's already held. Enter William Henry Harrison. The Ninth and Worst president of the United States of America. He will always hold this title. Even if someone takes office, suspends the constitution, and turns us into a totalitarian dictatorship, William Henry Harrison will still be the worst president of all time. Why? He was only president for 32 days. He did just one official thing during his presidency, and that was call Congress into a special session to help him decide something. One thing. He got a cold on inauguration and died a month later.
Even if you think George W. Bush is the worst president of all time, You are wrong. No single president (unless a president lasts shorter than 32 days) will ever be worse than William Henry Harrison. It's not physically possible.
That being said, A President [for this point, we're be referring to pretty much all presidents in general] can also not be the best president of all time. With one exception (which will never happen): If there was a president who achieves a 100 percent approval rating, takes the US out of Debt or gets employment percentage up to 80 percent. None of those things can ever happen in the Modern US. Even if a future president is the most popular ever, there will still be someone who undoubtedly hates them for no reason other than they have opposite political parties. The top 10 presidents of all time list are already filled (To be fair about, let's just say if you see them on a coin or a dollar, they're in the top 10). Logically, George Washington is the greatest president of all time, simply because he was the first- to quote David Letterman "George Washington is the only president that didn't blame the countries problem's on the previous administration"
Quick things to consider before making one or multiple rash judgements:
(And I'm not gonna list sources for these things because I know they are correct. Feel free to look them up yourself if you don't believe me but I won't lie to you.)
*W. may have had the lowest approval rating among any president ever, but he also has had the highest approval rating among any president ever.
*Presidents who start wars generally tend to be more unpopular than presidents who don't start wars.
*Bush was the first President during the surge of the Internet Era- People on the Internet are often misinformed, stupid, and mean. (Myself discluded)
Anyways, moving on.
Second Point.
"He's a mass murderer. He needs to be charged for war crimes! He's sending off all these soldiers to die!"
another one that if you think about it for half a second, makes no sense whatsoever. Now, this argument would have A LOT more merit if the US still ran a draft and it was the Vietnam war or something. But the thing is, the United States Military is 100 percent, completely Voluntary. Not a single person is forced to join against there will. Any President [If they bring back the draft- consider this entire point completely invalid] who declares war is not sending soldiers off to die. These soldiers know the risk of joining the armed forces, and choose to join anyway. If they don't want to get sent off to die they don't have to. Also, a president's motive for sending soldiers to war is not "to kill the soldiers" but more "to defend the country". I'm 99.9 percent sure that they don't teach you how to die in the military- I'm pretty sure they teach you ways not to die. Regardless of a Commander In Chief's motives or logic in starting a war- they believe they are acting in the best interest of the country (some idiots would argue they aren't but those idiots are idiots and their claims shall be promptly ignored and ridiculed)
Third Point.
"He's soo dumb! my retarded cousin is smarter than him"
this is a flawed logic. If you assume that Bush is dumb, it is likely because he isn't the best public speaker (In fact, he's nowhere close). To show how flawed this logic is, I will apply it to a non-president.
Steven Hawking cannot speak well. Therefor, he must be stupid.
Case-in-point:
If you think someone is stupid because they cannot speak well, you not them, are idiots, dumb, stupid, retarded, ect ect ect.
CONCLUSION:
I'm not going to explicitly tell you where I rank W.- other than he's not the best and he's not the worst. (Washington and Harrison respectively). But here's a better analysis:
I (Nor anyone else albeit those henceforth listed) am not qualified to make these judgements.
Only 5 people right now should be able to judge a president:
1. Jimmy Carter
2. George H. W. Bush
3. Bill Clinton
4. Barrack Obama
5. George W. Bush
If anyone explicitly gives you their opinion on a president and they are not one of those 5 people, then they are unqualified.. Those 5 people know what it's like to be POTUS and only they should have the authority to criticize past, future, and present presidents. I don't know this for a fact- Because I've never been president- but there's (with any job- especially in government) a lot of stuff happening that the public doesn't know about. Being President is probably the most stressful job on the planet (To see how it can affect you see before and after presidency pictures of Bush, Clinton, & Carter).
Also, Since most people put their own political ideology in their analysis of a president, it makes it much harder to judge. For example, If you poll conservatives, they're more likely to put Reagan ahead of Kennedy, while non-conservatives might do the opposite.
DISCLAIMER:
Okay, yes, I realize, I ranked presidents in the first two paragraphs then later said only former or current presidents should be able to judge former or current presidents. However, It's proper and normal for individuals who are not Presidents to criticize Historical presidents (defined by me as Presidents who were in office over 100 years ago or more). The only president's I'm explicitly ranking are William Henry Harrison & George Washington. The Worst and the Best. There is no argument about it- nobody will ever be better than Washington (until they invent time travel and someone becomes the first president before the first president became the first president) and nobody will ever be worse than Harrison (unless someone spends fewer than 31 days in office and makes less than 1 political action). My conclusion is simply that people who say Bush (or any president besides WHH) is the worst president have a fundamental misunderstanding of presidential history and overtly biased stance.
I'm not advocating a particular political stance here. Rather I'm using unbiased logic and simple truths to point some things out to people. I'm not a Republican and I'm not a Democrat. I'm an Independent. I get my ideology from a little bit of both sides, and I don't let other people think for me. I think for myself. Some of my views may be liberal. Some may be conservative. But Fuck you, They're my views and I'm standing by them until the day I die. I'm not some weak-minded person who will flip-flop or take a stance because someone on TV tells me to. This is who I am. If you don't like it. Too bad. I Ain't Going away very soon. This is the beginning of things to come.
Why are none of these quote's cited?///
ReplyDelete