I generally shy away from politics on this blog, but the other day I saw a bumper sticker that really made me think, as bumper stickers often do to thoughtful people like myself. It read:
Well that hit me like a ton of bricks. How true! I mean, unless you count the death of the credibility of the feminist movement, which I don't.
For those of you who aren't as "up" on politics as I am, the bumper sticker was, of course, comparing the innocuous perjury and finger-wagging self-righteousness of Bill Clinton to FDR's devious maneuvers designed to get the U.S. into World War II. Until the day I encountered this bit of wisdom (wisdom = truth that rhymes), I had always figured that FDR's omissions and exaggerations were justified by the defeat of Nazism and Japanese imperialism, but that bumper sticker awoke me from the untroubled slumber of the credulous. To me, those five little words contained more truth than all of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Abridged edition).
Armed with this new paradigm, I was able to see the Nixon administration in a whole new light. What, after all, is the term "constitutional crisis" but a fancy way of saying "wacky hijinks in which no one died"? Yammer all you want about "high crimes" and the loss of faith in government, but I reply with these five words, zen-like in their simplicity: "Nobody died when Nixon lied." Game over, dude. The anti-dying side wins again. Those of you on the pro-dying faction might want to rethink your allegiances.
Really, lying is such a minor offense that it's hardly worth worrying about. As this bumper sticker makes clear, what really matters is whether people die as a result of the lie. In fact, the same could be said of anything someone says, whether it's true or not. If I yell "fire!" in a crowded theater and six people get trampled to death on the way to the exit, then I was probably in the wrong even if I did come up with the correct four letter word for "conflagration."
My point is that we should really focus on whether somebody dies because of something I say, not whether what I say is technically "true" or "false," or what the definition of "is" is. This is particularly true in the case of presidents, who are in a unique position to cause people to die merely by opening their mouths, whether or not they had been eating garlic fries at the time. Now I'm not saying we can determine the relative competence of our leaders simply by counting the number of people who died under their command. That would be a ridiculous oversimplification. To get a truly accurate measurement we would also need to include deaths from tornadoes, earthquakes, Great White concerts and the like. On such fine points I will defer to the historical statisticians, or perhaps statistical historians, who have, over the past 3 decades, outnumbered the former three to one.
I think, however, that comparing the number of combat-related deaths will still give us a pretty good indication of the mettle of each president. Unlike other methods, which take into account nebulous notions of "value," "leadership," and "context," my method has the virtue of being completely objective. After a little quick research, I was able to compile the following 100% objective list of the Best and Worst U.S. presidents.
The Worst Presidents in U.S. History
10. George H.W. Bush
9. George W. Bush
8. William McKinley
7. Dwight D. Eisenhower
6. Abraham Lincoln
5. Richard Nixon
4. Lyndon Johnson
3. Woodrow Wilson
2. Harry S. Truman
1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
The Best Presidents in U.S. History
10. Jimmy Carter
9. Calvin Coolidge
8. Franklin Pierce
7. Chester Arthur
6. Herbert Hoover
5. Andrew Johnson
4. Millard Fillmore
3. John Quincy Adams
2. Zachary Taylor
1. James Garfield
Makes you think, doesn't it? Oh, in case you're wondering what that smell is, that's Pulitzer, baby.
Mattress Tags: humor George W. Bush Bill Clinton
Well that hit me like a ton of bricks. How true! I mean, unless you count the death of the credibility of the feminist movement, which I don't.
For those of you who aren't as "up" on politics as I am, the bumper sticker was, of course, comparing the innocuous perjury and finger-wagging self-righteousness of Bill Clinton to FDR's devious maneuvers designed to get the U.S. into World War II. Until the day I encountered this bit of wisdom (wisdom = truth that rhymes), I had always figured that FDR's omissions and exaggerations were justified by the defeat of Nazism and Japanese imperialism, but that bumper sticker awoke me from the untroubled slumber of the credulous. To me, those five little words contained more truth than all of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Abridged edition).
Armed with this new paradigm, I was able to see the Nixon administration in a whole new light. What, after all, is the term "constitutional crisis" but a fancy way of saying "wacky hijinks in which no one died"? Yammer all you want about "high crimes" and the loss of faith in government, but I reply with these five words, zen-like in their simplicity: "Nobody died when Nixon lied." Game over, dude. The anti-dying side wins again. Those of you on the pro-dying faction might want to rethink your allegiances.
Really, lying is such a minor offense that it's hardly worth worrying about. As this bumper sticker makes clear, what really matters is whether people die as a result of the lie. In fact, the same could be said of anything someone says, whether it's true or not. If I yell "fire!" in a crowded theater and six people get trampled to death on the way to the exit, then I was probably in the wrong even if I did come up with the correct four letter word for "conflagration."
My point is that we should really focus on whether somebody dies because of something I say, not whether what I say is technically "true" or "false," or what the definition of "is" is. This is particularly true in the case of presidents, who are in a unique position to cause people to die merely by opening their mouths, whether or not they had been eating garlic fries at the time. Now I'm not saying we can determine the relative competence of our leaders simply by counting the number of people who died under their command. That would be a ridiculous oversimplification. To get a truly accurate measurement we would also need to include deaths from tornadoes, earthquakes, Great White concerts and the like. On such fine points I will defer to the historical statisticians, or perhaps statistical historians, who have, over the past 3 decades, outnumbered the former three to one.
I think, however, that comparing the number of combat-related deaths will still give us a pretty good indication of the mettle of each president. Unlike other methods, which take into account nebulous notions of "value," "leadership," and "context," my method has the virtue of being completely objective. After a little quick research, I was able to compile the following 100% objective list of the Best and Worst U.S. presidents.
The Worst Presidents in U.S. History
10. George H.W. Bush
9. George W. Bush
8. William McKinley
7. Dwight D. Eisenhower
6. Abraham Lincoln
5. Richard Nixon
4. Lyndon Johnson
3. Woodrow Wilson
2. Harry S. Truman
1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
The Best Presidents in U.S. History
10. Jimmy Carter
9. Calvin Coolidge
8. Franklin Pierce
7. Chester Arthur
6. Herbert Hoover
5. Andrew Johnson
4. Millard Fillmore
3. John Quincy Adams
2. Zachary Taylor
1. James Garfield
Makes you think, doesn't it? Oh, in case you're wondering what that smell is, that's Pulitzer, baby.
Mattress Tags: humor George W. Bush Bill Clinton
Labels: Politics
| posted by Diesel at Tuesday, January 16, 2007 |
|
Leave a comment! | ||||||
Polls are open now! Click on this dojobby to vote for me! => |  | ||||||
That's really rather good. Interesting how McKinley is in there at #8 and his Veep Theodore Roosevelt escapes scot-free.
Yet if TR had hung on a couple more terms (or been elected on the Bull Moose ticket -- which, by the way is a great name for a beer) he'd have been saddled with WW I.
And if FDR had followed his cousin's actions (though not desires) and stuck to two terms, he wouldn't be the #1 worst president in US history.
On your methodology though, I spot a weakness. Why doesn't George Washington bear culpability for the battle deaths of the Revolution? (4,435). That would push Bush pere off the list, and Bush fils to #10.
Think of the family slogan now: "Bush: Not as many died as when Washington was in command".
Also, James Polk (the Mexican War of 1846-1848) surely beats out George H.W. Bush. (Though he too would be pushed off the list by that terrible President, Washington).
Another slogan: "Bush: On average, as good as James Polk".
I sense more methodological inexactitude... or maybe I'm missing something. How does Eisenhower beat out Johnson? 6 months of the Korean War was worse than 6 years of Vietnam?
In any event, honor to those who serve, especially to those who have fallen.
-wolfe
When I was younger, my Father said (in almost as many words), "All Presidents lie, some get caught."
A lie is a lie and it does matter... the more people you hurt the more it matters... so I agree.
I just think back to the whole Oliver North thing... and who we gave guns and information to and how we lied about it and if we didnt maybe things would be differnt today
No William Henry Harrison on the "best" list? Surely he couldn't have caused that many combat deaths during his thirty illustrious days in office. ;)
Statistically speaking, Deez, 232,876 people drop dead worldwide every day. If it took Clinton five seconds to lie (and I heard it, and it was more like 10 seconds, but let's cut the guy some slack), then about a dozen people died as he lied. Coincidence? Ha! He lied, they died, end of story.
What? you doubt me? ~knock knock~ Hello? Political Science?
And, the Sainted Grover Cleveland should have made both lists.
Wolfe - I knew I should have run my lists past you first. Eisenhower and Johnson should definitely have been switched. Not sure what I was thinking there.
Teddy gets off pretty lightly because he got most of his killing out of the way before he was prez. Washington too. The Revolution makes him a lousy general, but not a bad president.
Polk should have been on there too.
Also, the list of "Best Presidents" is pretty much a random list of peacetime presidents, biased toward those who served shorter terms and served more distantly in the past (fewer people to kill, less sophisticated weapons).
Robin - All people lie. Some become president.
Citymouse - Like... the Sandinistas would still be in power?
Jess - Believe it or not, Harrison was president during the Second Seminole War. No idea how many people died during his term, but probably enough to knock him off the 'best' list.
Al - Good point about Clinton. I personally know six people who died laughing. As for Cleveland, he didn't serve during wartime, but I figure enough people died during his two terms (not to mention the ones in between!) that he shouldn't be in the top 10.
Ok, I've moved Eisenhower down a few notches. I think I was mistakenly giving him credit for the entire Korean War, which isn't fair, especially since it was technically a police action.
I didn't add Polk to the list, because I think it's unlikely that more people died in the Mexican War than in Gulf War I (counting deaths on both sides). Quibble if you must.
Is collateral damage in the deaths or lies column?
I'm so glad you freed us up from having to consider all that in some sort of context.
I think we should rate them according to facial hair.
Hayes was soooo bad.
I disagree with your list. FDR is the #1 Best President, and Andrew Johnson is the #1 Worst.
I heard the part about the two Bushes sucking so much...we live in the best of times...
Thanks for the info...it's good to know.
Joe - Good question.
Logo - That would work up until the point when facial hair became unacceptable on politicians in general. I think Teddy R. was the last one who could get away with it.
Malnurtured Snay - Perhaps you misunderstand the absolute scientific precision with which this exercise was conducted.
Cindra - You can't pick and choose. The Bushes are bad, but technically Lincoln was worse. And none of them can touch FDR.
In honor of my continuing effort to avoid talking about politics on the internet...
I think Jesus is the best president ever!
The presence of 4 Democrats as the four worst presidents of all time (though unfortunately the rest of the list is solidly Republican) does bring to mind a line from Bob Dole's amazingly successful campaign speeches from 1996:
When I think of all those who've died in Democrat Wars...
Oh well, he was 103, and even with viagra, apparently Britney Spears was cheating on him. Can hardly blame him for being cranky.
I still think Polk is worse than HW -- after all, you did specify combat-related deaths, and since when does the US care about the other side?
But nobody beats FDR as the worst, true enough.
-wolfe
Gregory - Amen.
Wolfe - Yes, were it not for the Bushes, one could make a pretty good argument that the Democrats are the bigger war-mongers, especially in the 20th century.
I guess I have a soft spot for Polk, since he's the first president I ever voted for.
Pft. Diesal, I can't be expected to abide by the rules. I'm a rule bender and breaker!
He's a bender and a breaker!
That's a rare combo.
Interesting. I came up with a slightly different "worst" list, based on numbers published here:
1. F. D. Roosevelt
2. Abraham Lincoln (no way his stats place him less than second, even if you only count Union casualties)
3. Woodrow Wilson
4. Richard Nixon
4. Lyndon Johnson (assumes approximately even responsibility for Vietnam, which is not quite true, but I'm too lazy to look up the split)
6. Harry S Truman (no dot after S)
6. Dwight D. Eisenhower (see under Johnson, except here we're talking Korea)
8. George H. W. Bush
9. James Madison (War of 1812)
10. James K. Polk (Mexican War)
11. William McKinley
12. George W. Bush
12. John F. Kennedy (depends on the split of 390 Vietnam deaths 1962-1964 between Kennedy and Johnson)
oops. swap GWB and GHWB.
oceallaigh - Geez, if I'd have found that site, I could have spent 2 hours less on the post and made it more accurate.
Although as Wolfe pointed out, Eisenhower was only prez for 6 months of Korea, and I don't think we had nearly enough troops in Vietnam by the time Kennedy left office to do much damage there either way.