I am not arguing to narrow our analysis, I am saying that historian's analysis is too narrow because of their lack of understanding of topics such as economics, military strategy, game theory, administrative theory, political philosophy, etc. You need a broader view, yes, as the concepts of economics, military strategy, yada yada yada cannot be justifiably ignored in just analysis of which President is best. They are ignored by historians who refer to the actions that happened and lack the theoretical framework which allows one to understand said actions as part of the larger system by which such judgments can be made.
You are arguing the point that I am making. A historian understands these concepts you say in the context of the history they are discussing. historians take a broader view, not the narrower view you are professing. An economist, a military strategist, or a game theorist will focus on those disciplines. The historian must understand each of these in the context of what they are studying. They have the broad view, not the narrow view.
Basically you're arguing against yourself, considering you're the one arguing that the topics are narrow enough that a group with as narrow of an understanding as the historians could possibly be specially qualified to make such judgments.
No, your giving inaccurate definitions to the disciplines. A historian is far more qualified to make these kinds of judgments than others simply because other disciplines only focus on their area. A historian must have knowledge in each area to understand the significance of the time.
What you mean is they look at it from a narrow perspective, rather than to broadly understand the context of the events which they are analyzing by understanding a number of fields of study which are essential to understanding the context of those events, which is why they get it wrong.
No, I mean what I said. They look at it from a broader perspective and address each of the issues that had impacts, which is why they tend to get it right.
And if it were 1937 I might be in a position where I'd actually believe economic theory like that. Luckily for you I've paid attention to what's happened over the last 70 some odd years and see that it's this Keynesian managed-economy economic theory combined with a complete abandonment of the rule of law (most notable the enumerated powers) that has led to us spending ourselves to the brink of oblivion. We are right now going through a period of stagflation for the second time in 30 years, and it's all a product of features of the system for which FDR is almost exclusively to blame. Reagan participated in this system, as has George W. Bush gleefully (and Mitt Romney has aspired to continue such bizarre economic policies). Supply side economics is a theory of tax revenue. What we're talking about is massive spending, and the consequence of having an economy that's completely dependent on the way our federal government manages its finances. The blame for making the system as it was falls squarely on the shoulders of FDR.
Stagflation for the 2nd time in 30 years. Prosperity during much of the rest. I am not the fatalist you are. FDR's policies have surrounded some of the greatest prosperity and increase in wealth/standard of living in history. People have stayed out of poverty, have stayed employed, and have the opportunity to bounce back if these things occur.
Your position does not have as much standing as mine any more than the arguments for the Earth being the center of the universe did not have the same standing as Galileo pointing that we were going around the sun. Just because people have accepted your arguments as being valid does not necessarily make them so, you cannot escape that what you are arguing for in a complete subversion of the rule of law and of the democratic ideals of this nation (as it puts unelected lifetime appointees in charge, as opposed to the law). You can believe the constitution needs to change, but you cannot justifiably believe that it's acceptable to change the constitution by means of combining common law with the text of the constitution as if it were somehow equal to the text of the constitution, because there is already means to change the constitution, an entire article is dedicated to explaining how to do it. If it needs to develop with us, fine, get 2/3 of each house of congress and 2/3 of the states to ratify whatever change needs to be made.
I am, and have argued, that the intention of the founding fathers was for the Constitution to be worded in such a way as to allow for interpretation in order to secure the importance of the document. The Constitution is amazing in it's ability to apply to many situations, even those that the founding fathers had no idea would occur. Pretty much everything we need is right there. The strength of my position lies in the Constitution itself.
Further I was not arguing that solely economists are qualified to make such a decision objectively, and it somewhat irks me that you would misrepresent my posts in such a way, considering I've been perfectly clear as to what my position is (which is that it's the same as just about everything else, everyone has their opinion, and even if there is an objective ranking of the presidents in terms of greatness no one's ever objective and informed enough about everything to know the ranking). Economists suffer from different shortcomings, but obviously there are limits to the perspective economists would give. The same could be said about a poll of generals or a poll of game theoreticians or sociologists.
This is true. I apologize if it was presented this way. No individual discipline can understand all the facets of a time period to, objectively state a 'best'. What I am arguing is that historians have more understanding of more diverse disciplines, than one who is an expert in one of those disciplines. Regardless, everyone has opinions, including you and I, which are subjective.
FDR was without a doubt the worst president we've ever had, and if you don't believe me now you'll believe me when you're eating your household pets because of the way he shaped the system (which is far more significant in determining where we go than the individuals simply conducting their affairs within the system). It is because of your narrow minded view of FDR's contributions to our legal, economic, and administrative structures (failing to see them in the context of the changes he made to the systems and how that has continued to influence our situation to this very day) that you fail to see this.
Again, I am not the fatalist you are. FDR was one of the best Presidents in history, but you fail to see this because of your ideological position. You oppose what FDR created, so of course you oppose him, even though his policies have helped shape the nation into the bastion of prosperity and security it is.
You have not in the least, you have stated your opinion with no supporting evidence and acted as if its status of being your opinion is sufficient to make it settled fact. You shrug off gaping holes in your logic with straw man arguments (i.e. as if I claimed that economists were the ones specially qualified to make such judgments). You're about as far away from "proving" anything as you could possibly be.
No, I have not only shown that the idea that historians are more qualified to make a judgment on a Presidency than other disciplines, but I have also shown that you are not looking at the larger picture. Your narrow view shapes your opinion, and this bias hurts your argument. I have seen no evidence on your side, except that of one who is ideologically opposed to what FDR did. This kind of bias does not make an argument.
Furthermore, your logic as to why historians have a broader perspective is faulty. First you made the arguments that to understand a specific event/period you have to understand these other topics, and thusly historians understood these other concepts. Now I don't know if you've taken courses in logical argumentation, but that argument structure is a big no no, because it doesn't add up. You have the unstated premise that historians understand the event/period, which is clearly not a premise I'm willing to accept (nor a premise you've given me any reason to accept. Similarly you argued that historians have a broader knowledge considering they have to know information pertaining to all kinds of other topics, failing to realize that all sciences are just as interconnected with other fields of study and how well a particular scientist of any kind is versed in other related fields of study is completely variable to the individual.
No, my logic is on point. When you say "You have the unstated premise that historians understand the event/period, which is clearly not a premise I'm willing to accept" you are, basically, arguing that a historian does not understand history, which is a non-sequitur. Your premise is faulty and that is the problem with your position. Also, above, you are arguing two positions: that historians do not have a broader knowledge (historians do not understand history) and that if they do have a broader knowledge, it doesn't matter, because
all disciplines have a broader knowledge. This doesn't make any sense.
