In a recent interview with CBS 60 Minutes, President Barack Obama said: "I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history."
If one takes this boast seriously, President Obama is saying that his accomplishments, particularly in the areas of foreign policy and what he's gotten through Congress, are thus far greater than those of every single one of his predecessors, except PERHAPS (note he says "possible exception") Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. This means Barack Obama essentially considers himself a better President than George Washington! The first President of the United States doesn't even rank as a "possible exception" to Obama's sweeping boast.
For more on this incredible display of hubris, read "Is Barack Obama the Fourth Best President? Obama Says His Accomplishments Rank Higher Than Those of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson" over at my blog, the American Revolution & Founding Era.
54 comments:
"American Creation is a group blog dedicated to the religious history of America's founding."
I don't see anything in Brian Tubbs's posting that pertains to the religious history of America's founding.
Some strong emotion is obviously motivating him, however. Some visceral feeling.
Yah, as a gentleperson of the right, I enjoyed this, Brian, but I'm rather with Mr. Bell on this re the partisanship.
Although, Mr. Bell, non-religious American history isn't outlawed here, although we seldom get to it. We've had a few Newt-bashes
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/10/newt-gingrich-on-founders-here-we-go.html
so Mr. Tubbs isn't completely out of order here [altho we're pushing the boundary].
To clarify, Mr. Bell, our blogtop reads:
"A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the history, particularly religious, of America's founding."
not
"American Creation is a group blog dedicated to the religious history of America's founding."
which may have been a previous mission statement, but not the current one. [Although I personally favor the latter.]
"...in modern history."
Although it can be argued that Lincoln isn't exactly modern, his presidency and its consequences do signal a sharp break with the past.
At worst this is confusing.
While the veracity of the boast might be challenged it isn't beyond the pale if someone would want to make a meaningful evaluation.
He did add one other note that some might also find somewhat intriguing.
"We're not done yet. I've got five more years of stuff to do."
I guess we'll see.
I think JRB make a good point.
I think it would be interesting if a comparative analysis were done.
If our Editor in Chief, Mr. Hart, deems this post inappropriate, he is welcome to remove it. No offense will be taken if that is the case.
However, I recall it being said several times in the past by my fellow bloggers that we should widen the scope of the blog to include things other than religious history. If that is not the direction we wish to go, then I'm fine to have this taken down.
As for my "visceral feeling," I think one could describe my reaction as being shock. I'm shocked that President Obama would effectively say that he's accomplished more than founding era Presidents like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. And I would think that readers of a blog geared toward the founding era would be interested in that and some of them may share in my being shocked.
But, again, if this blog post is deemed inappropriate by Brad, he's welcome to remove it.
While I'd prefer to avoid strong partisan content, I like the idea of broadening the scope, and think it would be interesting to compare foreign policy during Washington's administration with Obama's.
I wish I had the time to dig into that, but I'm rather busy at the moment.
"I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history."
Seriously. Reading Comprehension. He has not said that he's accomplished more as president than any other presidents or that he's a better President than George Washington (it's not even implied), only that he would put his legislative and foreign policy record up against the same record of other presidents - with the exceptions that he notes. He obviously feels that he can hold his own in these areas - that he would do well in a compare/contrast. He might be right and he might be wrong. It might be too close to call. It might be an interesting discussion using some facts and figures.
(He also does not say that he's the 4th best president in history. He also does not say that George Washington was a poopy head or that T.J. was an atheistic devil worshiper with no foreign policy cred. I'm sure that there are many other things not said in that statement.)
I don't know though, maybe if you play the recording backwards or hold the transcript up to a mirror.....
Where's the Newt bashing post - I looked back to mid November? I thought it would be interesting to compare it with what his Republican brethren and sistren are saying these days. And, just saw a CNN video of some Iowa farmer-looking guy in cammo calling him a .... well, I probably shouldn't say, but it wasn't nice. And to his face. Ouch.
I don't think Brian should remove this post. I don't agree with its overall tenor, but I have similarly taken indulgences here at AC. I think that it DOES relate to the Founding and mission of AC insofar as it discusses George Washington.
.
With respect, Brian is expressing his distaste for his current president. I'm sure it goes over very well with the choir.
.
But, it's a simple matter to compare the present administration's record with that of any other president starting with George Washington. President Obama is easily among the front runners. Just take a few moments and list the George Washington administration's foreign policy accomplishments--during his presidency--and compare that list to a list next to any ohter president, Harry Truman for example.
.
But, if we think about General George Washington...
.
So, given the times, maybe Tyler could have made first chair?
.
.
Even if one generously interprets Obama's statement (as several of you have done, especially jimmiraybob), he still warrants criticism. Andrew Rosenthal of The New York Times puts it well. Though Rosenthal agrees with jimmiraybob that Obama didn't claim to be the fourth best President, Rosenthal nevertheless says the comments didn't serve Obama well. He writes:
"I guess it’s the 'possible' hedge that did him in. And I should say, whatever his intention, the whole thing was inadvisable. It makes him look egotistical, and pompous, character traits he definitely should not be reinforcing in voters’ minds. And he should have known better, because his rivals regularly make themselves look foolish with similar statements."
You all are making a lot of assumptions about my "visceral feeling," "distaste" for the President, "partisan" feelings, etc., etc., etc. These are the kinds of things that Obama's defenders often say about ANY of his critics, no matter the tone of the criticism.
The fact is that Obama listed only three Presidents who POSSIBLY have more foreign policy or legislative accomplishments than his administration. By saying it that way, he's expressing confidence that his foreign policy and legislative record compares favorably (i.e., better than) with that of all the other Presidents, including the founding era Presidents.
Come on, folks. Do you honestly think Barack Obama has accomplished more foreign-policy wise than Thomas Jefferson who gave us the Louisiana Purchase?
That's just one example. If you all want to do a side-by-side comparison, knock yourselves out. It's frankly laughable that anyone would seriously entertain the idea that Barack Obama, in just two years in office, has accomplished more legislatively and foreign policy-wise than Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. Frankly, even comparing him to James Madison would be pushing it.
Follow up on GW specifically....
I may do a full article on the accomplishments of President Washington, particularly in the area of foreign policy. When you put Washington in context, the only assessment you can make of his foreign policy achievements is "amazing." I can make the argument that Washington, as President (not simply as General), saved the United States of America from being swallowed up by the European powers of France and Britain (especially Britain). Washington also positioned the United States to thrive and prosper as an independent member of the family of nations. That speaks to both his foreign policy achievements, but also his legislative and economic accomplishments. With the "possible exception" of Lincoln, George Washington is easily the greatest President in American history. Obama doesn't even come close to Washington's legacy.
Brian,
To be fair, the war was done when GW was elected President.
This post is some lame horsheshit. Did you borrow from Fox News?
Regarding GW's foreign policy as President, Wikipedia has a section titled Foreign affairs. They list;
(1) Taking a global position.
(2) Peace with Great Britain.
(3) And the treaties with Algiers (Treaty of Tripoli) and Spain.
The Wikipedia page on Barack Obama's foreign policy is much more details. There is also a page on Foreigh policy of the Barack Obama administration.
I think some of his claims have yet to play out to the end, but also think Obama's foreign policy is the hight-light of his administration.
@Ben - I know the war with Britain was over when GW became President. I wasn't referring to Washington's handling of the British during his generalship and the American Revolution. I was talking about how GW handled the British during his presidency, such as with the Jay Treaty. The British still had troops on American soil when Washington became President. There was high tension with Great Britain and the possibility of renewed war, especially if the Jeffersonians had had their way and Washington would've sided with the French. Washington walked a razor-thin tight rope, and did it well.
The stakes also must be taken into account. A failed Obama presidency leaves the USA weaker. A failed Washington presidency and the USA arguably doesn't even exist any longer. There was a lot more riding on GW's shoulders.
Let me make three remaining points on this post...
1) The headline is written to gain attention and provoke discussion. Obama did NOT directly say he was a better President than GW, but he did imply it. If I could go back and re-write the post, I would say "Obama Implies He's a Better President than George Washington." I suppose I could, but I'll be fair to those who have already discussed this post. Changing it out would be misleading.
2) I stand by my position that Obama implied he was a more accomplished President (in just two years) than all of his predecessors, except POSSIBLY for the three he mentioned. If his assertion is true, that effectively means he's accomplished more in two years than George Washington did in eight. That's a pretty audacious claim in my opinion. And not just in my opinion. And not just Fox News. The Wall Street Journal was also all over Obama for his remarks, and even the New York Times (cited earlier) said Obama should've known better.
3) Some of you have argued that Obama was only talking about "legislative" and "foreign policy" accomplishments." I'd like to point out that these are HUGE aspects of a presidency. A President who is more accomplished than his predecessors in the areas of foreign policy and getting things through Congress is arguably the most influential President in U.S. history. Obama is picking out two very critical and very significant areas of a presidency....arguably areas that are at the top of the list in how we rank our Presidents.
Wrapping this up, if several of you like Obama and think he's a wonderful President, that's fine. I am not slamming Mr. Obama in my post in any way, EXCEPT to argue that he significantly over-reached in comparing himself so favorably to so many of his predecessors. As the New York Times (not a conservative newspaper, mind you) said, his comments made Obama look "egotistical and pompous." It's NOT unreasonable for us to acknowledge this. Even if you are a strong admirer of Obama, even you should concede that his comments were ill-advised and you should not be surprised that they will draw criticism.
Forget Lincoln. The only question is whether he's any better than Jimmy Carter.
.
I think--in comparison to George Washington--we should consider the cooperation and support any succeeding president and his administration have received.
.
For one thing, there were no political parties as there are today and that is a major difference presidents have had to overcome since partics were instituted. Abraham Lincoln had the same problem we see with which Barak Obama must wrestle. Another relates to the situation with which a president is faced when the oath of office is administered. Presidenht Washington had almost one hundred percent support--in fact so much so that some wanted to crown him king. Washington, unlike Obama, took office when our fledgling nation was on an upward roll. He acted with the enthusiastic support of a nation excited with the very thought of liberty--they had come to the promised land. Mr. Obama inherited one of the worst messes a president might imagine with opposition vowing to destroy any chances he might have for a second term of office.
.
Your post is one more deleterious shot at a courageous young man who is doing what few have ever had required of them.
.
Yes, I admire the man for what he has been able to accomplish. And, I also find fault in his behavior. But, what do I know about the threats under which he must act out his role? What would any of us do if we tried to work under those threats? Not much. They killed JFK for his stand. Could they come up with something worse than simple assassination in full view of the American public?
.
.
Could they?
.
Huh?
.
Nobody's going to shoot him. Biden would take over.
Phil, you're wrong on several points. First, there WERE political parties during Washington's era. The genesis of those parties was evident in the debate over ratification of the Constitution between the Federalists and anti-Federalists. Then, almost as soon as Washington finished taking his oath, the country polarized between the Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians - i.e., the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party. Washington warned against political parties - or "factions" - in his Farewell Address, but the party system had already taken hold.
Second, Washington may have enjoyed near universal support at the beginning of his presidency, but that was certainly not the case throughout this presidency. The country was very polarized and the political climate was very contentious. Washington was, more often than not, caught in the middle.
Third, you speak in terms of "they" and associate the ones who killed JFK with those who wish to do harm to Obama. I hope I'm misunderstanding you here. I also hope you're not suggesting that all those who criticize Obama wish the man personal harm. From the pulpit, I've prayed for and encouraged others to pray for our President, including praying for his personal safety and that of his family. I've done that numerous times. I wish absolutely NO harm on Mr. Obama. But, good grief, don't tell me that I can't even criticize the man when he makes what I consider to be an outrageous comparison. Barack Obama is not above criticism, Phil. No one, other than Jesus Christ, is above criticism.
Even if one generously interprets Obama's statement (as several of you have done, especially jimmiraybob)...
For crying out loud. I was not being generous except to actually attempt a reading of the words instead of reading my own biases into the words, inventing things not actually said, and then whipping myself into a frenzy of indignation.
If you think that saying "He might be right and he might be wrong...It might be too close to call" and calling for some actual analysis is being too one sided - too generous - then there's nothing more to say.
Good luck with that new direction thing.
.
That I am wrong is your opinion.
.
And, I won't argue the points with you; but the existence of a party called the AntiFederalists is questionable except in the minds of those who called themselves the Federalists. The beginnings of party politics do not add up to the situation we are experiencing today. Party organization is a highly complex matter--to say someone ran on a "slate" is not the same as what we call party politics today.
Washington almost attained the position of sainthood. I don't think we're going to see a rendering of any other president ascending into the heavens on the ceilings of the Capitol Dome.
.
I do not know who killed JFK. But, it eoesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out his death was related to his politics. Some circumstantial evidence points in certain directions. It's obvious to me that whoever "they" are, they are very powerful. The stakes at the level of the presidency of the United States are the highest stakes the world has ever known. I do not for one minute doubt that such a force as "they" exists. Do you?
.
.
That I am wrong is your opinion.
.
And, I won't argue the points with you; but the existence of a party called the AntiFederalists is questionable except in the minds of those who called themselves the Federalists. The beginnings of party politics do not add up to the situation we are experiencing today. Party organization is a highly complex matter--to say someone ran on a "slate" is not the same as what we call party politics today.
Washington almost attained the position of sainthood. I don't think we're going to see a rendering of any other president ascending into the heavens on the ceilings of the Capitol Dome.
.
I do not know who killed JFK. But, it eoesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out his death was related to his politics. Some circumstantial evidence points in certain directions. It's obvious to me that whoever "they" are, they are very powerful. The stakes at the level of the presidency of the United States are the highest stakes the world has ever known. I do not for one minute doubt that such a force as "they" exists. Do you?
.
@jimmiraybob - If you are going to categorize my criticism of Barack Obama's comments during the 60 Minutes interview in question as coming from a state of "frenzy," then you're right in saying that there's nothing more to be said.
Re: " Nobody's going to shoot him. Biden would take over."
I'd wonder about choosing Biden as VP.
A left of center President is wise to pick a VP further left than he.
Same goes for those to the right.
Although, I think Bush over-compensated with Cheney ;-)
Phil, there's absolutely no evidence to seriously suggest some kind of conspiratorial "they" that took out JFK and likewise wishes to take out Mr. Obama. Unless and until such evidence can be produced, debating that kind of conspiracy theory is not something I wish to do.
Washington ended his presidency and his life on a public high note, because he EARNED that level of respect from the American people. You're right that we won't see that kind of adulation of a President again, but this isn't because the cards were dealt in some unfair way on Mr. Washington's behalf. It's because George Washington was a genuinely great man who earned the respect of the American people.
All,
I mean no offense, and am not offended by anyone's opinion, but from my perspective many comments and the original post are painted with very bright partisan colors. I don't say that to discourage anyone. What I'd like to do is encourage all to make a case in a manner that is persuasive to those with other views.
I may be wrong, but I think divisive partisan coloring has motivated most of the objections above. This blog has a rather special civility between individuals with very different view points. I'd like to see that maintained.
Regarding Phil's and Brian's comments on the political divide now and in the past. I was reminded of this graphic.
The divide over the last 30 yrs is widening. I wish I had data for 200 yrs ago.
Respectfully, what is missing from the president's remarks are the absence of humility, recognition of mortal limitations, and respect for forefathers that are taken for granted in leaders who acknowledge their inferiority to a Supreme Being.
That is what makes this post worthy of discussion on American Creation.
The current president claims he is Christian, citing as proof his decades-long membership in a congregation that is more political than theological. He was taught Us vs. Them, rather than Brotherhood of Man, which I believe is how he comes to think of himself as the winner of some ridiculous contest that exists only in his unenlightened mind.
George Washington, by contrast, believed in God, worshipped in Anglican congregations, was unabashed in publicly thanking a higher power for the many blessings bestowed and, to my knowledge, not only never crowed about his very real and historic accomplishments, but went home to his farm when his SERVICE was complete.
The contrast could not be greater, and I attribute it not to personality, but to reverence of deity and appreciation for humanity.
Jay
.
My entire point, Brian, is that George Washington enjoyed the enthusiastic support of what might have been the highest level of support any president has ever had.
.
Period.
.
You're acting like he had a tough time of it.
.
Obama is having a tough time of it just like Abraham Lincoln had a tough time of it.
.
.
I'm sorry to read your provacative comments, Magpie. You have exposed a nasty side of yourself.
.
BTW, I personally knew the man who claims Alfred E. Newman was his personal creation. He showed me an old drawing he had. His name was William Schmeck. He was a pharmacist in Saginaw, Michigan.
.
Phil, I wouldn't think you would be old enough to know such a man. Early likenesses of AEN date back more than 100 years.
Jay
.
I'm eighty. Bill Schmeck was going on seventy at the time he showed me the drawing and that was at least fifty years ago.
.
Jay, I agree entirely. Obama's comment are far removed from the impressive solid humility of GW. Fair assessment, imo.
Might GW have been the only President who didn't fit the mold of a politician ?
I encourage everyone to look for common ground. This is a strategy I see reflected in many of the founder's behavior ... at least up to the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
Ben, your appeal to civility and common ground is well taken.
I appreciate everyone here and the time they invest in these discussions.
The current president claims he is Christian, citing as proof his decades-long membership in a congregation that is more political than theological. He was taught Us vs. Them, rather than Brotherhood of Man
Actually, Brother Magpie, I've been writing tonight on another blog on precisely this issue, re James Hal Cone. You are not just shooting from the hip.
But I fear, even though this has become the most-commented upon post in recently here at AC, that we shall lose what we are by embracing this path of partisan politics.
The internet is lousy with such stuff, political fangs-on-throat. AC should be an oasis from that savagery, not just another truck stop.
Hi Tom,
I'm not interested in partisan political or, for that matter, sectarian religious division either. I'm just addressing the president's attitude and behavior as juxtaposed against George Washington's. The current president lacks a perspective that people of faith have, which I believe is the main difference between him and his predecessors.
Not to protest too much, but let me conclude by pointing out how Thomas Jefferson didn't even have his presidency mentioned on his tombstone.
Jay
Jay and Tom,
Your points are well taken. The fact that Obama comes from a very polarizing denomination, one that is definitely more about "us" vs "them," than about uniting people, is something that's too often overlooked. Obama has gotten way too much of a pass for it.
Sadly, between the Saul Alinsky radicalism that has infested American political discourse the last 20-30 years AND the general breakdown in civility and manners on the Internet, it's becoming increasingly difficult to discuss anything without differences of opinion degenerating into "political fangs-on-throat" nonsense.
.
I don't know if I'm going to vote for Obama to have a second term or not--I probably will seeing what is being expressed on the other side.
.
But, your comment< "I'm not interested in partisan political or, for that matter, sectarian religious division either. I'm just addressing the president's attitude and behavior as juxtaposed against George Washington's. The current president lacks a perspective that people of faith have, which I believe is the main difference between him and his predecessors." seems awfully partisan to me. You cannot CLAIM to understand his strategy when it comes to designing his campaign for 2012. You cannot imagine he's going to let his opposition set the rules, can you?
.
:^)
.
What do you know about the president's attitude anyway? You thinking he's going to expose his hand to the opposition? Give me a break!!
.
He's pulled it off before. Keep your eyes open, he's going to do it again.
.
.
.
Brian writes, "... AND the general breakdown in civility and manners on the Internet, it's becoming increasingly difficult to discuss anything without differences of opinion degenerating into "political fangs-on-throat" nonsense. "
.
I hope you can take a look at how you are coming across here.
,
Phil, I am not addressing the president's campaign strategy options. I am talking about his self-proclaimed apotheosis. Are you not following what is being discussed here?
Jay
Re: "the fact that Obama comes from a very polarizing denomination, one that is definitely more about "us" vs "them," than about uniting people, is something that's too often overlooked. Obama has gotten way too much of a pass for it..
This has been a troubling fact for me.
I see similar problems for Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, and others.
The unique aspect of GW that I don't see in any later President is that his political and religious habits align themselves with the "middle of the road". GW's words aligned themselves nicely with his actions (pre-Presidency, Presidency, post-Presidency).
I see this intent in nearly all sitting Presidents (from Adams to Obama). In my opinion, GW sets the high water mark as a genuine man of integrity with a span that begins before his Presidency and continues to end of his life.
In any event, I don't know what lies in Obama's heart, and can only speculate on the level of his cognitive skills (his understanding of economics looks weak to me). As it is, I see no conclusive evidence that he seeks to gain for "us" are the expense of "them".
I don't have time to comment ... but one of the blogs I follow posted on this subject.
Is President Obama’s Recent Self-Comparison with Teddy Roosevelt a Valid One?
Am I following this thread? Word for word, Jay, everyone of them.
.
I get the sense that the bias is so overpowering that it is giving the participants the false idea they are speaking in a nonpartison tones.
.
Some of the comments are quite onerous to a free thinking person. That may be hard for any ideologists to understand. But, try. You might be able to free yourself.
.
I know you think you aren't talking about Obama's campaign strategy. What I am saying is that what you are seeing IS his campaign strategy and it is pretty slick if you ask me. He is a master at bringing in the Big White Shark once he has got it on the hook. Watch him--he is masterful.
I'm beginning to see a value in present day American culture that means that style is far more important than content. And, while Obama is overflowing with content, he presents great style in the minimalist sense.
.
Do you get my point?
.
The idea is to get elected with a majority in both houses. They you have the power to truly enact change. He is playing the competition--giving it more line. It's fun to watch once you get the understanding that it's all about getting elected.
.
*There was a typo in the previous post that changed the meaning.
Oy.
.
You didn't like the metaphorical use of the Great White Shark as symbolic of the present encarnation of conservatism in American politics?
.
Too pedestrian?
.
.
tsk tsk
Phil, I don't think I've said or done anything in this thread that rises to the level of what I'm talking about when I refer to the breakdown of civility on the Internet. Frankly, there's been only one post in this thread (not by you) that really gets to that level. I don't mind a vigorous debate. In fact, we should welcome that.
What I'm talking about is what you so often see in social media today like on YouTube for example. Personal attacks, slander, name-calling, profanity, etc., etc.
It's not out of bounds for any of us to criticize comments made by the President (which is what I've done) or any other public figure. It's also not out of bounds to strongly criticize such comments.
We should be able, though, as a society to discuss things rationally and to do so without resorting to personal attacks, name-calling, slander, excessive profanity, intimidation, heckling, etc., etc.
Again, I don't think I've crossed any of those lines here. If I have, please point it out to me.
.
:^)
.
Civility. Yeah, right.
.
You brought up a very interesting question, Brian.
.
"What is religion?"
.
I'm sure you know that question would not have even been asked in the Middle Ages; but, that it was just understood as a question in the eighteenth century.
.
I see religion as a human institution that has stages like everything else that evolves.
.
I don't particularly think the present stage of religion is very conducive to healthy social relationships.
.
Actually, Phil, we're making PROGRESS in the area of civility as it relates to religion, if you look at today versus the Middle Ages. At least in the West.
.
Responding to Brian.
.
Religion is not the same as theology in my thinking. Instead, theology is an aspect of religion.
.
I post that to clarify my thought of religion being experienced in stages. There was a time when religion was in its primitive stages. The Middle Ages expressed an evolving stage and Modernity expresses yet another. There is a stage that has not yet expressed itself. I see that stage as being Universalism's dream.
.
Post a Comment