Comments on: The Cynic’s Guide to American Presidents

By: Benjamin Mako Hill

Benjamin Mako Hill — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:19:36 +0000

FDR was also in office during the firebombing of Tokyo which killed four time as many people as in Dresden in a single night. Nearly every other major and medium-sized city in Japan was firebombed with more than half a million dead and many million homeless. FDR wasn’t in charge during all of that, but he was for much of it.

By: Kirklin

Kirklin — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:47:09 +0000

Every one claims to be for the truth…but few can tolerate it and fully incorporate its lessons into their lives. The human capacity to rationalize remains our most remarkably intact fault. It would be interesting to be able to measure irony and paradox and see if it did not, in fact, occur more often than its counter parts…thus requiring either some new words or changing some definitions. The saying “Fact is stranger than fiction” was not formed in a vacuum.

The Optimist/Idealist’s Guide: It would be much more delusional than Johns’ “Cynic’s Guide”.

By: Matthew W. S. Bell

Matthew W. S. Bell — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:37:54 +0000

Yadda satire yadda, however, I fear that the most important thing for the USA with the current president is whether it can admit the approach, not whether the objectives are eventually achieved.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:47:51 +0000

Yuck, I forgot, that too.

I just can’t decide whether I should continue to call myself a Republican and just go through the pain of constantly reminding people that the GOP is an ideologically diverse party; instead call myself a moderate Libertarian; or take the easy way out and become an “independent”.

By: Branden Robinson

Branden Robinson — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:26:16 +0000

I like it! Wouldn’t change a thing.

I like how the final line works on two levels, especially given the emotions Republicans projected onto Democrats regarding Obama.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:45:16 +0000

Interesting, especially since I don’t care that much about history. I would also be interested in an Optimist/Idealist’s Guide to American Presidents, for contrast.

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:44:28 +0000

@Brian: Dubya managed to convince most non-US that Republican = neocon, too — his legacy is very much international.

By: Andres Salomon

Andres Salomon — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:35:45 +0000

What, no mention of President Cheney? ;)

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:27:27 +0000

I’ll try not to nitpick too much, because as you stated this post is not intended as a serious, objective analysis.

FDR: Japan, hell-bent on hegemonizing the Pacific, declared war against the United States. What course of action ought he have taken besides military engagement?

Truman: North Korea initiated the Korean War. In the wake of World War II, the U.S., with military assets swelled in the region, was understandably reluctant to pull a Neville Chamberlain.

Truman, pt. II: Dedicated huge sums of taxpayer money to rebuild other nations, foes and allies alike.

Eisenhower: I think the Interstate system just might have contributed somewhat to commerce, too.

Reagan: Performed the calculated escalation of the Cold War that led to its end.

GW Bush: Had nothing to do with the corruption and ineptitude of local governments in Louisiana. Also had little to do with the fundamental issue with FEMA, that the federal government is ill-equipped to address matters local in scope.

Bush, pt. II: Swallowed his pride and admitted that he’d erred in judgement, taking upon himself enormous risk by initiating the ultimately successful “surge”.

Bush, pt. III: Lowered tax rates for all income brackets.

Obama: McCain == Goldwater? McCain was (and is) among the most moderate, bipartisan Republicans in Congress. Pre-election, he probably took as much criticism from his own party as he did from the Democrats.

Obama, pt. II: Gained national prominence for a single astounding achievement: making a nice speech at the ’04 Democratic Convention.

Obama, pt. III: Ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility. Has instead of reducing debt contributed further to its rise.

Obama, pt. IV: Honesty and long-range planning? …nevermind, I’ve spent too much time on this comment already.

A few notes, so that I might not be labeled a hawk, a neocon, etc.:
-> Dresden, Vietnam, Iran (propping up the Shah; Iran-Contra), Iraq (propping up Hussein), et al. were disgraceful. I shudder to think that we were actually involved in such debacles.
-> All listed have made their own significant contributions to the ravage of the United States Constitution.
-> I very much wish GW Bush had not so effectively convinced the nation (many Republicans included) that Republican == neoconservative.

Best regards,
Brian

By: John Goerzen

John Goerzen — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:04:43 +0000

This is a piece of satire, and I stated at the outset that it was biased. So you aren’t pointing out anything new.

In all seriousness, however, I would refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki for a good treatment of both sides of the debate. I am opposed to the bombings, and agree with most of the reasons presented against their use.