OK boomer.
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
OK boomer.
JudasMyGuide
The resident reactionary recalcitrant
It'll happen to youuuuuuuu
he should be so lucky.Ooh, kinky.
JudasMyGuide
The resident reactionary recalcitrant
Anyway, I've been watching this video of a (very moderately) conservative (Conservative? I never know when to properly use the capital) historian reacting to Shapiro's tierlist of US presidents
I was kinda surprised that Shapiro's tierlist wasn't as unhinged as I'd expect. I'm not saying "not unhinged at all", but mostly kinda reasonable, with the further you get from current politics, the more he just sounds... kinda normal.
So I've been toying with the idea of creating such tierlist myself, but it looks kinda daunting - I mean, I know what presidents I'd put into S-Tier and F-Tier, but the middle rankings, that sounds crazy. Also, it kinda feels somewhat incomparable, how do you compare the 19th century presidents against the 20th? With the stuff they had to deal with, how do you compare Pierce with Harding or Taft with Jefferson? Still, an interesting idea for a discussion, methinks.
I was kinda surprised that Shapiro's tierlist wasn't as unhinged as I'd expect. I'm not saying "not unhinged at all", but mostly kinda reasonable, with the further you get from current politics, the more he just sounds... kinda normal.
So I've been toying with the idea of creating such tierlist myself, but it looks kinda daunting - I mean, I know what presidents I'd put into S-Tier and F-Tier, but the middle rankings, that sounds crazy. Also, it kinda feels somewhat incomparable, how do you compare the 19th century presidents against the 20th? With the stuff they had to deal with, how do you compare Pierce with Harding or Taft with Jefferson? Still, an interesting idea for a discussion, methinks.
Black Bart
Ancient Mariner
Ooh, kinky.
Putting Obama, Carter, LBJ, FDR, and even Nixon in the same category as a guy who helped barrel the US into a civil war kinda tells me enough that this isn't a serious list. Similarly, I know he's not allowed to substantively criticize the dear leader, but Trump failed to pass any significant legislation beyond barely getting an unpopular tax cut through (and really no thanks to Trump). That's not even getting to the part about how he incited an attack against his own government.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
@LooseCannon, weren't you working on something like this?
JudasMyGuide
The resident reactionary recalcitrant
I get that, though I found putting Teddy in C/D more offensive myself. And I more or less turnt a blind eye towards the last three presidents anyway ('cause that's where I'd expect Shapiro to be most insane). But overall, both the rankings and the reasoning didn't surprise me all that much and I was genuinely surprised that we actually agreed on some (though possibly for a very different reasons).
Also, bear in mind that not only do we all have our biases, this general ranking of things online is - by its very nature - sensational and kinda hot-takish. I'd definitely put Reagan in the F-tier and possibly as the first one; is he really worse than Buchanan or Johnson, or even on the same level? Probably not.* But that's internet for you.
* Despite the fact it was he who actually corrupted conservatism into the mockery that it is even today ... and therefore was one of the orchestrators of the situation today, so his toxic influence might have been worse than Buchanan's or Johnson's... because who else is to blame? Barry Goldwater?
JudasMyGuide
The resident reactionary recalcitrant
I have certain vague hazy memories of a potential Presidentivor back in ... ?
The Survivor concept is not feasible, but I'd be 100 % in for a "Commented discography" of the US presidents with some moderate discussion on the history and the politics; I'm even willing to crack the books and boost meself up for it in preparation, if such an event occured, but between Loosey's responsibilities with the Song Cup, I doubt it will happen.
Given that he actually studied history, I would mostly defer to LC's takes on any sort of presidential ranking.
Reagan is a tricky one. I get the sense that as we get more removed from the Trump era, history will draw a clearer line from Reagan to Trump. It probably depends on where we end up with Trump, but I do think their historic legacies will be somewhat intertwined. Whether that is to the benefit or detriment to Reagan, I'm not sure, but it kinda speaks to my point that it is still too early for even some of these late 20th century presidents.
I looked at the F tier and saw where he ranked Trump and kinda stopped there. The problem is that everybody has to agree on objective measures to assess each president. I would probably limit it to each president's ability to pass significant legislation during their term, any major events that happened during the presidency and how they handled said event, and if we have any sense of whether they have a positive or negative impact on later history (which you probably have to go back many decades to even begin to have a sense of this). With this in mind, just off the top of my head Obama (ACA), Teddy (National Parks), LBJ (civil rights act) and FDR (WWII) are severely underrated. Particularly regarding healthcare and the parks system, these are things that fundamentally changed American culture and disregarding those just makes me think Shapiro is out of touch with the country he lives in.
Reagan is a tricky one. I get the sense that as we get more removed from the Trump era, history will draw a clearer line from Reagan to Trump. It probably depends on where we end up with Trump, but I do think their historic legacies will be somewhat intertwined. Whether that is to the benefit or detriment to Reagan, I'm not sure, but it kinda speaks to my point that it is still too early for even some of these late 20th century presidents.
JudasMyGuide
The resident reactionary recalcitrant
I trust LC's erudition - I'm quite sure he knows more of history than I do - but as someone who has two uni degrees and has been working at a university for the past five years, I simply don't tend to overrate formal college education. Don't denigrate it either, but it still is people with the same blind spots, biases etc. as the uneducated hoi polloi - sometimes even more so. Really, working with academicians, I've come to the opinion that only rarely you'll come across someone as stupid as a genuinely well-educated and potentially very intelligent person. "Being smarter, my mistakes are bigger" and all that shite; also, it is overall rather hard for people to come to terms with their own brilliance - I have met/known several people who were so used to being the smartest person in most rooms they ever were in, they started to ... actually get dumber. Simplistic. Shallow. So in love with their own wit, they didn't notice they ended up completely witless and so convinced of their own brilliance, they didn't notice they keep using the same shallow points, bon mots and strawmen and actually stopped thinking several years ago. Let alone even hearing what the other person has to say.
Which of course isn't Loosey's case (at least I sincerely hope so!), but historian or not, you can disagree and criticise, especially if we're talking not just about pure facts, but their implications, etc. And besides, ethics is a different discipline than history.
It's quite possible your own political and philosophical leanings are very similar to Loosey's, so what you say makes sense, but me as someone who differs fom his worldview in pretty much everything (and yet there is probably a lot we'd agree upon - but those are intertwined boughs of trees that were planted and are rooted on the opposing sides of the planet, really) would certainly dare to differ.
Yeah, that's true and that's something that VLogging himself mentions there (and accuses Shapiro of being inconsistent about) - there are criteria like
- the way he handles the issues at hand, 1. from the immediate POV, 2. from the view of the long-term consequences
- whether he's more of a principles bloke or someone who performs more of a Realpolitik - and also, if he breaks his own principles, does he do that because of what reason? The good of the country? His own comfort/benefit/power?
- the way he uses and/or abuses the presidential office itself
- personal character/personality/outward behaviour + how much of a leader it is - unifying capability, likability, trustworthiness, the "cool factor"
- whether he's more of a federalist or if he's more for subsidiarization, both regarding the presidential office and the state as a whole
- actual political acumen and capability to get shite done
- personal preference for the politics at hand (which in cases of "small/big state"/"social policies" makes up 50 % of Shapiro's opinion, for example)
and possibly more.
This is something that I find particularly important and problematic - as a Catholic, I need several aspects of the behaviour to be "good" and it's quite problematic to assess:
- someone breaking their office/usurping authority for a good thing or
- standing behind principles I wholeheartedly disagree with, even against the popular voice or
- going against their principles for the good of the country (where there's the criteria of integrity, my personal alignment with the principles and/or the behaviour AND altruism, for example)
I am somewhere between a classical/traditional conservative and an Integralist (maybe?) - economically left (definitely well-enough left for the US), socially/culturally right, with stress upon legitimate means in internal consistence of behaviour and definitely more of a deontologist than a consequentialist - which in theory gives me more or less solid opinion on individual actions - (e. g. the concept of Just War tells me exactly when, where and how you can wage war so it would be legitimate, in theory) - but the assessment of individual people would be a subject to a much greater debate.
I know I'd have Washington, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt in my S Tier and Reagan and Trump in my F Tier (which already probably shows what type of a conservative I am) but it's much more of a gut feeling - I wonder how much the actual presidency of the latter two (as opposed to a general "influence") comes into play.
Heck, relatively recently I realised in this very thread I vibed with the actual politics of Nixon quite a lot:
But then again, in the words of Peter Garrett: "This next song is for Henry Kissinger who got the Nobel peace prize for bombing the living daylights out of Cambodia.”
Last edited:
Flaming Blimp Crash
Ancient Mariner
Conservative not aligned with Reagan or Trump, intriguing. Not doubting it or anything of the sort, but I find it fascinating.
I strongly dislike VTH. For reference, I moderate a Discord server for a moderately prominent Youtube historian (I won't mention it here, because he does not want his opinions to get out on this guy) and the various other Youtubers really dislike how this guy steals their content to add "reaction" videos without even asking. If you want a guy who is middleish of the road, look up Mr. Beat. I don't always agree with Mr. Beat, but I always, always respect his opinion. He's a legitimate high school history teacher.
Yeah, a commented discography is a good way to put it. The idea was to go through the presidents in random order and try to rank them as a group on several different areas. I'm actually still reading presidential biographies, at a slow pace (I'm about 1/8th done) to prepare for the concept. Whether or not we'll get there - as you've noted, the GMSC is going to take precedent.
But, to be honest, this conversation has me thinking about how to do it, because this is correct here:
That said, I can come up with a few ideas pretty quickly. I'd need to fine-tune them, but we could probably get it sorted out, yeah.
The good news is that I've been out of university for almost 20 years at this point, but history remains a passion. I read at a high level, including journals, but I also engage with American history and politics at a more grassroots level on a regular, if not daily, basis. So I wouldn't want to give my list as the definitive one - and to be fair, it changes whenever I ponder it - but I think I'm capable of curating the discussion and putting out what needs to be put out from a summary basis, and let the posters determine what works for them.
Diesel 11
As you scream into the web of silence...
Didn't know about the VTH controversy as I've seen a few of his videos here and there, but absolutely second you on Mr. Beat. The guy's fantastic and always respectable and respectful.
I would definitely follow a presidential discography discussion if it ever happened. Otherwise, I would be curious if you have recommendations for presidential bios as I would like to take on a similar project at some point. I’ve already read McCullough’s Adams and Truman books.
Yeah, I have a few. I'm partway through the Adams book myself currently.
JudasMyGuide
The resident reactionary recalcitrant
Fair point, I don't know much about the bloke, YT has recommended his reaction to some Atun-Shei video (I think it was the Gods and Generals reaction), where it was precisely about what I've implied above, that is, admitting and recognising one's own biases; I mildly dislike A-S not because I'm a raging Confederate-leaning hick, but because I come from the academic background where recognising one's own presuppositions and preconceptions (and limits) and admitting them beforehand is absolutely essential and I find it particularly important in history too. VTH then at least pretended to agree with me - agreeing with A-S, actually, on many things, but pushing for a more moderate stance and approach and less "objective truthism"; whereas Atun-Shei, precisely because of his bias as an ex-Lost-Causer goes the completely opposite way and has this sometimes knee-jerk, reactive and at times slightly unreasonable reaction (like the Gods and Generals one, though that film isn't exactly the hill I'm willing to die on, but still)
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check Mr. Beat out.
I have previously tried to describe here my own political position which, while idiosyncratic to a degree (inasmuch as it is a result ... an accessory to the general worldview and philosophy which I espouse) is not entirely unique - fist of all, that is more or less the "official" Catholic option (including championing potential Distributism as a third way between Socialism and Capitalism), with pro-social politics etc. (however, a honest, integral Catholic literally can't vote for any of the two options in the upcoming elections, but that's a different story altogether).
Also, beside the Church, I have already come across other traditional conservatives, rare as they are, who don't subscribe to the neo-liberal devouring machine.
In fact, just that little tidbit about me being a conservative, yet economically left-leaning must sound absolutely insane in a "USA Politics" thread, which is one of the reasons I hate Reagan and Thatcher, btw.
For what it's worth, on the contrary I find it fascinating that there are self-proclaimed conservatives that actually support Trump - just prima facie, I'd expect someone so vulgar and so sensationalistic to elicit a strenuous dislike, or at least displeasure, in a conservative person.
(that means actively support - I can, or at least could imagine a conservative turning a blind eye to some of his shenanigans and reluctantly vote for him as the lesser evil in certain areas - but that is something that would require progressively bigger cognitive dissonance over time, IMHO)
Respect, mate, that tangent of mine was merely against Mosh's "the bloke is educated, so I'll do my best to think his opinions" and I'm not even sure if he fully meant it that way. Like I said, I'm 100% sure your erudition exceeds mine thousandfold.
I'd be interested as well - with all the stuff I have to manage, I'm not sure if I'll manage a biography on each single president, but I'd definitely be interested to devour some books to come along with it. I vaguely remember the last time when we were talking about the Presidentvivor, I decided to start with the first book I had a physical copy of in my personal library and picked up Stephen Graubard's The Presidents: The Transformation of the American Presidency from Theodore Roosevelt to Barack Obama, but I haven't finished it then.
Currently I have Godwin's Team of Rivals opened; I don't know what it is, when autumn hits, it always starts my Civil War (and WW 1 and 2) periods. Weirdly it became mostly prominent after we've moved out to the country
Yeah, I wouldn't necessarily recommend trying to read a biography of every president casually. I thought I'd rip through it but I find it taxing to focus on that one subject for such a long period of time, so it comes and goes. I have enjoyed getting some perspectives on the presidents. Especially the lesser-known presidents, there aren't always a variety of views, so you can get some interesting ones. My favourite was the biography of Ford I picked up, because it was written by someone who was a close aide of Ford, and basically, his theory is that "Ford was well-meaning and tried his best, but he was just kind of stupid and that led to him making mistakes". And, yeah, I can see that.