Conventional popularity hold that presidents like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt are our "best" presidents because they went out of their way to bring the nation out of a struggle and right-the-ship, so to speak.
But have you ever noticed that famous presidents are often connected with war and the destruction of individual liberties?
This should be disconcerting to anyone who reads my blog (all three of you), but this seems to be a point that is indisputable.
I can hypothesize this rather odd notion, and deduct that mobs (democracy) are often in favor of war in general, but there is no empirical evidence to support this train of thought.
By why aren't unknown presidents more lauded? I think a better way of going about how to rate presidents would be by their merits of keeping the peace and not interfering with the personal lives of their fellow citizens.
In this regard, then the best presidents would have to be the unknown ones. Men like Grover Cleveland and John Tyler.
I'd think that these are the men who are to be lauded for doing a great job while in pubic office, and not the warmongers. Because great crises are what makes the history books, and if presidents are able to make it through their jobs without a crisis, then they should be the ones who are celebrated, right? Am I crazy?
Ho hum.
Busy Buzy Bee
-
Hey all, life is busy! I am just doing the school thang. I’ll be working
all spring break to make up for lost shifts over this quarter. But, on the
brigh...
2 hours ago
0 comments:
Post a Comment