Historians and the American public often disagree when assessing presidential
performance. I believe that Clinton was a greater president than Reagan or
either Bush. My reasoning is that Clinton did a better job of "fighting for the common citizen, and working to expand opportunity for all, <br>and seeking to strengthen liberty and justice". (see bottom quote box) I see those qualities
as being very presidential. I expect differing opinions to be posted here, but
I request that each post be accompanied by a link to factual research that
will bolster your opinions!
Quote:
<a href="http://presidency04.lmu.edu/archives/main/residential_greatness.htm">http://presidency04.lmu.edu/archives/main/residential_greatness.htm</a>
There is a gap between the ratings of the so-called experts and the way the general public rates presidents. For example, when the public is asked to rank the great presidents, John F. Kennedy and Ronald W. Reagan regularly make the top of the list. And yet, the experts place neither in the top ten. Why this gap?
The experts see the big picture, the entire record. Thus, President Kennedy, in office for such a brief time, does not get high ratings, and Reagan, who left behind massive deficits, sees his reputation suffer. Experts also take scandal and corruption seriously. This keeps Reagan, who presided over the Iran-Contra corruption, lower in the rankings. This is also why, when Bill Clinton is rated, he will not, despite a significant record of accomplishments, rate high on the list. The experts are also more "charisma immune" than the general public. Both Kennedy and Reagan exuded a charm that seduced many people. The experts often are able to see beyond the charm to the real record. (For those who fear a "liberal professional bias" in these ratings, one should note that two of the three highest rated presidents were regarded as conservatives.)
|
Quote:
<a href="http://presidency04.lmu.edu/archives/main/residential_greatness.htm">Link to Bottom Paragraph of above Article</a>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<h4>The standards we use to measure greatness tell us a lot about ourselves. If we honor presidents who openly violate the constitution, or too readily resort to war or violence, or willingly restrict civil liberties, that sends one message.</h4> If we honor presidents who fight for the common citizen, who work to expand opportunity for all, who seek to strengthen liberty and justice, that sends another message. Our heroes are the embodiment of how we see ourselves. Thus, we should be careful who we celebrate for that will tell us how we wish to live.
|