I noted the other day, the media has tentatively begun the Bush rehabilitation (i.e., he was 'astonishingly gracious' toward Obama). The media did the same when they were done bashing Reagan, Bush I, and Ford (though not so much Nixon). The reason they do this once the object of hate has left office is simple. Lies pile up and get in the way of slandering the next conservative. You can't claim the current occupant "worst President of all time" with all those other "worst Presidents" standing in the way. It won't be long before academia adds its own stamp of 'fairness' to the chorus.

In post #25, you said "… in a poll of historians regarding the GWB Presidency. After all it is the historians who will eventually give GWB his place in history. ¶ Doesn't look too good, and this was written before the latest economic meltdown. As you will see, an unprecedented 98% said that the GWB Presidency had failed. In fact, even before his latest drop in the opinion poles [polls], he was rated worst President ever."

Let’s see. Historians are mostly academics; academics are overwhelmingly liberals known for revisionism and radicalism; liberal-academics overwhelmingly condemn a president their party loathes far too often on the flimsiest of evidence of doing things their historical heroes often did in spades. When Bush I and Reagan left office, academia did much the same thing. This is the same thing and same excuses for attacking Bush the media flaunts, and with as little validity. So, who cares!

A Closer Look

Before dismissing your source (orig: http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html ) outright, let’s have a closer look at who they are, what they espouse, and, if accessible, their methodology. We have previously established polls and surveys are poor barometers of either opinion or fact because they are so easily manipulated to produce a particular result.

First, as to methodology, the article openly admits the poll was conducted “unscientific[ally]”; suggesting informally and, likely, unrepeatable. This can be as simple as sending out an email to your subscriber list requesting they rate a list of Bush Administration failures from 1 to 5 (which would not only be sloppy, but misleading). The actual survey consists of two questions; both of them highly subjective (see http://hnn.us/articles/47918.html ). Other than ‘school affiliation’, there is no criterion for who qualifies as a historian and eligible, therefore, to participate in the poll. The poll is a follow up to a similar one McElvaine conducted in 2004, and with the same partisan objective. It is not inconceivable McElvaine has conducted other polls; only publishing those providing the desired result (though that may be too harsh). In any case, canvassing a group known to be unsympathetic to Bush only tells us something of the group polled; not anything measurable regarding Bush, his real support, or history’s judgment of him.

I am hardly unique in critiquing the validity of this particular poll or of the HNS article. In “The Follies of Instant History: Another Meaningless Poll of Historians”, Larry DeWitt (a liberal) writes:

“The felt-need to do something urgently, is really the desire to strike a political blow (for or against) the Bush Administration on the part of those answering this survey. If we are honest with ourselves here, we would admit that this poll is an expression of the desire on the part of many of those answering it to repudiate President Bush’s own self-serving judgment that future historians will vindicate his presidency. Those down-ranking Bush want to say to him: “No we won’t!” But this striking of blows—for or against—is not historical scholarship. It is politics parading under false colors. When historians undertake to rebut the President’s politically-motivated claims about history with their own politically-motivated counter-claims, they drag the repute of the history profession down to his same level.”

Two things jump out at me from this last statement (as they should you). First is, how likely are respondents to the survey to be those recognizing and empathizing with McElvaine’s hidden objective of striking a low blow; and, second, how probable is it objective historians are far less to participate. Assuming these are true, it skews the results strongly anti-Bush-ward and will be totally unrepresentative of all historians (i.e., those with both strong credentials and professional ethics).

Looking at HNS’ ‘About Us’ page, I find, out of its editorial staff and advisors, eight are strongly liberal, one is strongly conservative, two are arguably conservative, and the remaining 23 are unidentifiable as to ideology. Of the non-liberals, only the possibly-conservative Sauerwein holds a significant editorial post. Of the two ‘arguables’, one scorns both the article and any participation in the survey (regardless of bias) as unprofessional (i.e., inappropriate to the business of history), and Sauerwein is properly skeptical of polls altogether. Of the liberals, three clearly place partisanship ahead of intellectual integrity. The page declares “… our pages are open to people of all political persuasions. Left, right, center: all are welcome”, but how much of a guide is this as regards the survey when the editorial staff is dominated by liberals and the survey’s author is a regular and highly-partisan contributor of the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-s-mcelvaine ).

HNS background checks

Editors:
Rick Shenkman, Publisher & Editor in Chief (L) – http://www.juancole.com/2008/06/shenkman-why-american-people-were-so.html

Bonnie K. Goodman (?) – no info

Jonathan Dresner (L) – http://hnn.us/articles/1251.html ; http://hnn.us/articles/1361.html

Daniel Sauerwein (C?) – “Let's not forget that many polls have come out showing that a vast majority of academics hate Bush and are Democrats. So, it can therefore be argued that if another Republican were in office, the same results would occur.” Responding to ‘Historians v. George W. Bush’ by Robert S. McElvaine; ( http://conservativefiles.blogspot.com/ – not certain same guy)

John Maass (C) – http://hnn.us/comments/90569.html “It is interesting to me that Wilentz has made a big splash in the public sphere (RS Magazine) with a question on ranking Bush. It’s not really a question, as we can tell by the forum that Wilentz will argue "yes", and more importantly, that he should do so. But should we also judge Wilentz then too, as an historian? I'm 126 pages into his tome THE RISE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY and have found a number of factual mistakes. Does that mean he should be ranked at the bottom of the heap too? Is he another historian who can't get it right?” – John Maass ; http://fusilier.wordpress.com/john-maass-a-short-history/ – Maass bio

Al Magary (?) – no info

Howard Shorr (L) – http://www.angelfire.com/blues/writing/shorr.html ; http://hnn.us/articles/20461.html (multiculturalist/revisionist historian)

Lee P. Ruddin – (?)

Murray Polner (L) – http://hnn.us/articles/4483.html ; http://hnn.us/articles/5455.html ; http://www.lewrockwell.com/polner/polner-arch.html (Polner, in his many articles, slanders conservatives shamelessly; most frequent of his lies being the ‘neo-cons resurrecting the draft’ ploy)

Advisors:
Joyce Appleby (L) – http://hnn.us/articles/23297.html

Pauline Maier (?) – no information

Walter Nugent (L) – http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/38.1/nugent.html ; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/books/26gord.html?em&ex=1214712000&en=b730ad6e5de4e635&ei=5087

Gil Troy (leans-Bush-ward, but mixed – C?) – http://hnn.us/articles/9777.html ; http://hnn.us/articles/42619.html [“My role as an historian is to analyze, explain, assess, what occurred in the past. Unlike too many colleagues, I don't believe in using my professorial podium as a political platform. I want my students studying politics without being political. I love when a student says, "I'm confused, are you a Republican or a Democrat, a leftist or a rightist?" ¶ ... my book "Hillary Clinton: Polarizing First Lady" is coming out this fall. But no, I did not start with the premise that she "bothers" me. I intended to measure her historical footprint, not predict her future or pass judgment on her.”]

Liz Cohen (L) – http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/10155.html

James Banner (?) –

Leonard Steinhorn (L) – http://hnn.us/articles/15583.html ; http://hnn.us/articles/20273.html ; http://hnn.us/articles/47817.html

Lewis Gold – (?)

http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html – how historians rate Presidents

Did you at least enjoy the story?

Clearly this qualifies you as an expert in political science, and politics in general, and your opinion is therefore beyond question. I think I speak on behalf of both MountainMan and myself when I say that we fully apologize and retract our viewpoints in light of this information. Obviously it is we who are deficient and lack the deep understanding of politics that an intensive background in science entails. We now realize that Sarah Palin is, indeed, a religious fundamentalist Alaskan separatist liar with no education who cannot speak in complete sentences and has never held public office and faked the birth of her daughters illegitimate incestuous love child. Not only that, but she's ugly too. She did not graduate from a university with a degree in communications and journalism, or chair a major Alaska energy commission, or defeat an incumbent from her own party as well as a two term former governor of the opposing party to serve as the youngest governor of a state. Just like the Daily Kos said. We just needed someone brilliant like you to show us the genius of the leftist political thought process. We see it now. We realize that you reached the exact same conclusion as the equally-brilliant folks in the above linked video through careful indpendpent research and deep, painstaking intellectual exercise. This matter is now closed. You have won. We are powerless to refute you.

First of all however, proving you wrong as to my intellectual skills, or lack thereof, probably means I have to change your mind. All I can do is offer evidence.

To start with, I might mention that I have authored or co-authored more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers, co-written three successful technical books, hold a dozen or so patents, and have founded two successful technology companies, one of which was in the Middle East.

I worked for several years in weapons of mass destruction stabilization programs (IPP) for the USDOE, DoD, and State Department, including classified work on electromagnetic pulse weapons defense.

The state of one's family and children can also reflect intellectual skill. My three sons all hold M.D. or Ph.D. degrees, as I do (with a post doc at MIT). All in all, I am quite comfortable with my intellectual skills.

My thinking processes and resulting conclusions might not be the same as yours. Nonetheless, they have lead to some success for me, my family, and for this country (which, contrary to what you might think, I love).

I certainly do not consider myself a leftist. I am a former Republican (now Independant). I served proudly in the USMC as a tanker and have punched a few other conservative tickets. But I suppose one's relative left or right position depends on where the observer is standing.

Again, please do not claim that I "pass on propaganda". If the information you read in my opinions looks like information on liberal blog sites, then I guess I think the same way as those authors do in many cases. As I said, my objections to Palin come from watching her directly and not from other folk's opinions.

As an apparent arch conservative (and I say that with all due respect), you might enjoy the following true story that involved my father (another arch conservative, whom I greatly admire).

In 1968, the far-left SDS was planning demonstrations (read riots) on the U of W campus in Seattle. My father is a beekeeper. In response to a request through the conservative network in Seattle, he drove about 200 miles with a load of bee hives on his truck, pulled onto the UW campus, and clamped on the brakes. This action spilled the hives off the truck, and released the (by now very angry) bees into marchers as they headed for a pile of construction debris to select their makeshift weapons for what was to follow.

This action quickly broke up what had promised to be a very destructive leftist-led student riot. Campus police (who were badly outnumbered) loved it, as did many others. My dad became and instant mini-celebrity (known for both good and evil). He was in the newspapers. Other universities (including Duke University) contacted him to find out about using bees to stop student riots.

Because of subsequent death threats from the SDS and Black Panthers, local police had to set up drive-by patrols of our home to provide round the clock protection for my parents and the younger kids. Encouraged by the local Sheriff, everyone in the family who was still at home learned to use firearms for self defense, and kept them close at hand.

Conservatives from all over the country (I am not kidding) came out in support of my dad for his near single handed break-up of the "student riot". Conservatives provided him with pro-bono legal defense in a "civil rights" law suit brought by the Seattle Times (because one of their reporters had been stung by one of his bees). One wealthy individual even put his private plane and pilot at my dad's disposal for the trial.

During the trial, it became apparent that liberal Seattle Times was really out for news copy and maybe a little right-wing conservative blood. At the high point of the trial, intent on showing that my dad was a far-right "nutjob", the Seattle Times attorney asked my dad if he was a member of the John Birch Society. My dad said "No". He was then asked if he had ever been a member. He again said "No".

The Seattle Times attorney was becoming frustrated because he had been told (incorrectly) that my dad was a "Bircher" and wanted to show that my father had strong political motivation and that the bee-spilling was no "accident".

After the third plaintiff attorney question about JBS membership, my dad's defense attorney objected. "Asked and answered, your Honor", he said. The plaintiff attorney thought he had lost the round and sat down.

Then, to the horror of his defense attorney, my always-honest father turned to the judge and said, "Your Honor, I see that the plaintiff attorney is very unhappy with me for my answers. Just so you know, the John Birch Society is far too left wing for me". The judge was stunned. My dad had just handed the Seattle Times their case on a silver platter.

But my dad knew exactly what he was doing. He had decided to make a defiant conservative statement of belief in open court in one of the most liberal cities in the US.

Needless to say, that comment brought an huge round of laughter and cheering from the mostly conservative gallery, and turned my dad from a mini-celebrity into a local conservative legend. The real meaning of his statement for the right wing was something like: "Yes, and if they try it again, we will stop them again, some way, some how".

(By the way, after this incident, there were no more SDS or Weatherman protests at U of W.)

In the end, the judge had to rule in favor of the plaintiff. With no loss of irony, he ordered my father to pay the Seattle Times the sum of ONE DOLLLAR.

We heard later that the Times had run up tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees for the trial (a lot of money in those days,) which they had to pay themselves. Due to the generosity of conservative attorneys in the area, the whole incident only cost my dad a tank of gas.

Absolutely true story. See what I mean about relative left and right?

(Just realized that you could look up this newspaper story in the archives, and probably use it to identify me. But what the hey? You seem like a nice guy. If you were to Google my name with the proper unusual spelling, you would find that everything I have told you about my career and family is true.)

All the best to you, Mountain Man.

Conservatives must work much harder than leftists to find information more in keeping with their worldview, since most of it is redacted by a hostile MSM. Conservatives must be much more tolerant than leftists, because conservatives exist in a left-leaning information environment. As a result, conservatives better understand the opposition viewpoint than do leftists understand conservatives.

Therefore, conservatives are more well rounded intellectually, better consumers of information, and more able to think about varying points of view.

Ok, polls. If Bush or Palin have a low favorability rating, it is largely because the left-leaning media have been pounding on them relentlessly. Polls are simply the measurement of how well the MSM have disseminated their propaganda.

I'm not complaining about legitimate criticism. That is the role of the press. But the press has to be an equal-opportunity criticizer. However, the MSM have been only too willing to simply pass on democratic talking points as if they were news.

That is why I am troubled by your presentation. When I read leftwing blogs and MSM reporting and find they are nearly verbatim, something's wrong. Then I read your posts and find exactly the same things. I can only conclude that you are simply passing on the propaganda you obtained from leftist blogs or their MSM soulmates.

From that it is an easy matter to conclude that you are simply regurgitating leftist fables that you believe implicitly. It calls into question your intellectual skills.

Prove me wrong.

Doesn't look too good, and this was written before the latest economic meltdown. As you will see, an unprecedented 98% said that the GWB Presidency had failed. In fact, even before his latest drop in the opinion poles, he was rated worst President ever.

See:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804

Agree. My views are biased by who I associate with, as are yours. If we want to talk about "objective reality" instead of "biased personal views based on objective reality", then we can turn to large data sets (polls and election results), or metadata sets (statistical analyses of many polls, the results from which can somehow be normalized).

According to every poll I can find (See Gallup Poll Nov. 13, for example), Palin is still rated unfavorably by more than half of the US voter population(i.e. most voters).

As for G.W. Bush as the worst President, my comments were again based on polling data. Judging from poll results and reinforced by events at the G20 Conference yesterday, if I am wrong about GWB, it is not by much.

(In an unprecedented show of distain for GWB and the US yesterday, many world leaders at the G20 would not even shake Bush's hand.)