I sure am thankful that I can feel superior to someone.

Hahahaha!

Excuse this rant. It's from a history major who LOVES his subject and is heartbroken over the present state of academia.

Up until the left took over the university system in the 50's-70's, it was considered bad form for a historian to comment on events that had occurred within the past couple of decades. The reason for that, obviously, is that such events are NOT HISTORY yet. One of the first things a historian has to learn when examining primary sources is that everyone close to an event has a particular perspective. That doesn't mean they are wrong, or untrustworthy, just that their perspective needs to be considered, and possibly adjusted for when interpreting the data. And yet, apparently not one of these professional academics had the integrity, or self-awareness to say, "You know what? I disagree with the man politically, and I'm still living through these events. Therefore, they are neither history, nor are they events that I can disassociate myself from emotionally. Sorry, but I have no comment." (Note: I distain equally the 2% who judged Bush as a success, for the same reasons.)

Let's assume for a moment that unbiased history will agree 100 years from now that Iraq was a horrendous mistake. Was it a costlier mistake than Vietnam? Obviously not, therefore how can GWB be a worse president than Kennedy or LBJ? Let's assume that future generations of economists and historians agree that George Bush's budgetary and economic decisions were bad ones. The average unemployment rate throughout his time in office has been about 4.5%, almost identical to the Clinton presidency (slightly better actually), and (as far as I know) the lowest in the history of the country. "Tax cuts for the rich" is a mindless mantra, not a considered argument, so I won't even bother refuting it. As far as America "alienating nations around the world", why is it that pro-American leaders have been elected in Germany and France, and continued their winning ways in Italy and Britain all the way until the end of the Bush presidency? The world's leftists have ALWAYS disliked America. They did under Clinton, Carter, and especially Reagan. Remember the riots over Ronaldus Magnus placing Pershing missiles in Europe? He was the original "dumb American cowboy", all while he guaranteed the safety of western Europe and the fall of the USSR.

So, if a BA from CSU Sacramento can poke apart the core arguments of professional historians from real universities in about five minutes with zero time to research because they are so caught up in their biases that they can't see straight, why should I have any respect for what the profession has become? Maybe the new slogan for the American Historical Association should be, "Historians. Because 50 years of propaganda can't be wrong."

Thus endeth the rant.

Judging the success or failure of a presidency during its term requires political judgment based on some value system. This means those historians are not speaking as 'historians.' They're political critics.

#3 Josh,

Glad to see I'm not the only History Major around.

Hmmm... maybe there is hope for history yet. I also am a professional historian who does not rank Pres. Bush as a failure. Of couse my concentration was in ancient history, a time when people were properly blood thirsty and not a wussified (actual history word).

C'mon guys. Expecting integrity from the socialist education/indoctrination complex? I send more truth and integrity down the drain every time I flush than these clowns can muster collectively. Sure, Bush has ticked me off, but Josh and Jimmy are absolutely correct in their analyses of the situation.

The timing of this post couldn't be better. I'm not a history major but I am taking Early American History and just LAST NIGHT (can you believe it?) my teacher said that up until 4 or 5 years ago historians regarded one of the guys preceding Lincoln to be the worst president. My reaction was the same as #3. I think I'll send this link to my teacher.

Very funny, Frank! You forgot the rest of the uniform! The requisite corduroy sport coat with the leather elbow patches, the rumpled pants that don’t fit, the sensible walking shoes and hiking socks from the correct and always “green” hiking store. Also there must be a quirky addition to the whole package like a pipe or a goofy looking set of glasses or a whacky hat that nobody except someone totally gay would ever buy let alone wear! And then Elmer Fudd must also drive either a Volvo or a SAAB which are the only two cars allowed by this fraternity!

Well said #3.

This part -
"it was considered bad form for a historian to comment on events that had occurred within the past couple of decades."

- brought back to mind how it also was not only bad form, but just not done PERIOD that former Presidents of either side would not publicly criticize the current sitting POTUS. And for that, as well as for 6-year-olds now knowing what a BJ is, we can thank Bubba.

And BTW, do we really want a President HRC, entrusting Bubba the First Philanderer to "entertain" all the world's First Ladies? OTOH, it would certainly give our side plenty of material.

Sweet, three other Historians/History Majors on here in just the first 10 comments. Don't worry, Frank, the history of the world isn't entirely lost to aging hippies and elitists.

Josh: Great rant.

This was great!!

I was a history major and philosophy major in college many years ago. I now feel superior to myself.

Well done, Harvey.

I don't think that history professors reek of pipe smoke any more, though; smoking (tobacco, that is; not marijuana or crack) must surely be prohibited in offices on nearly every campus.

Oh, that was Harvey? Dang... First time I've made that mistake, I swear!

In other news, Michael Wilson for President.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Genl242_ZU8

Hazel - don't feel bad, because:

a) I take it as a compliment to be mistaken for Frank.

b) After all the posts about readers mistaking Frank's entries for mine & vice versa, I just assume that people who call me Frank in the comments are doing it on purpose. The typed equivalent of a poke in the ribs :-)

In order for "historians" to judge something, shouldn't it first be history?

These same "historians" would have probably viewed World War II to be a 100-percent failure right before we won.

Interestingly, the same 98% of professional historians polled agree that the obvious massive amount of undisputed evidence proves Barack Obama to be our greatest President.