Comments on: The Perversity of Legacy http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/19/the-perversity-of-legacy/ The Sweet Release of Reason Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:11:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: Michael http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/19/the-perversity-of-legacy/#comment-19977 Michael Wed, 21 Jan 2009 06:00:37 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2451#comment-19977 Nice points, Huadpe, but I think they address the converse of the actual claim made in Healy's piece and apparently seconded by Will: the claim is not that all warmongers are well remembered presidents, but that all well-remembered presidents are war-mongers (or activists, revolutionaries...). This should be taken as a general rather than a universal claim, and it is probably generally true. I just don't see why anyone should be surprised by this. It's something like being surprised that people like tasty and unexpected foods over plain but nutritious foods, or that everyone like pretty Angelina while ignoring regular plain Jane, etc., etc.. Nice points, Huadpe, but I think they address the converse of the actual claim made in Healy's piece and apparently seconded by Will: the claim is not that all warmongers are well remembered presidents, but that all well-remembered presidents are war-mongers (or activists, revolutionaries…). This should be taken as a general rather than a universal claim, and it is probably generally true. I just don't see why anyone should be surprised by this. It's something like being surprised that people like tasty and unexpected foods over plain but nutritious foods, or that everyone like pretty Angelina while ignoring regular plain Jane, etc., etc..

]]> By: Michael http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/19/the-perversity-of-legacy/#comment-19976 Michael Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:00:37 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2451#comment-19976 Nice points, Huadpe, but I think they address the converse of the actual claim made in Healy's piece and apparently seconded by Will: the claim is not that all warmongers are well remembered presidents, but that all well-remembered presidents are war-mongers (or activists, revolutionaries...). This should be taken as a general rather than a universal claim, and it is probably generally true. I just don't see why anyone should be surprised by this. It's something like being surprised that people like tasty and unexpected foods over plain but nutritious foods, or that everyone like pretty Angelina while ignoring regular plain Jane, etc., etc.. Nice points, Huadpe, but I think they address the converse of the actual claim made in Healy's piece and apparently seconded by Will: the claim is not that all warmongers are well remembered presidents, but that all well-remembered presidents are war-mongers (or activists, revolutionaries…). This should be taken as a general rather than a universal claim, and it is probably generally true. I just don't see why anyone should be surprised by this. It's something like being surprised that people like tasty and unexpected foods over plain but nutritious foods, or that everyone like pretty Angelina while ignoring regular plain Jane, etc., etc..

]]> By: huadpe http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/19/the-perversity-of-legacy/#comment-19975 huadpe Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:42:27 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2451#comment-19975 I agree that land wars are odious, but the notion of allowing ones nation to be ripped asunder for the sole purpose of sectioning off a half as an openly oppressive state is I believe just cause for war. The seceding states wanted to destroy liberty, and if a government has the duty to protect its citizens from the use of force, then in this case, the federal government was morally obligated to prevent half the country from becoming an oppressive state whose primary raison d'etre was the enslavement of a large part of its people. I agree that land wars are odious, but the notion of allowing ones nation to be ripped asunder for the sole purpose of sectioning off a half as an openly oppressive state is I believe just cause for war. The seceding states wanted to destroy liberty, and if a government has the duty to protect its citizens from the use of force, then in this case, the federal government was morally obligated to prevent half the country from becoming an oppressive state whose primary raison d'etre was the enslavement of a large part of its people.

]]> By: Matthew Tievsky http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/19/the-perversity-of-legacy/#comment-19974 Matthew Tievsky Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:15:01 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2451#comment-19974 Secession pre-dated Lincoln's inauguration, but the war did not begin until afterwardn (at Ft. Sumter) . Whatever the merits of the Civil War--and they are substantial (for freeing the slaves, not for preserving the unity of the state--wars for land are odious things)--it was largely a war of Lincoln's choosing, and it's that war that made him "great." Secession pre-dated Lincoln's inauguration, but the war did not begin until afterwardn (at Ft. Sumter) . Whatever the merits of the Civil War–and they are substantial (for freeing the slaves, not for preserving the unity of the state–wars for land are odious things)–it was largely a war of Lincoln's choosing, and it's that war that made him “great.”

]]> By: libfree http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/19/the-perversity-of-legacy/#comment-19973 libfree Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:24:53 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2451#comment-19973 Such an impossible standard, I wish I knew the catastrophe's our former Presidents averted. Such an impossible standard, I wish I knew the catastrophe's our former Presidents averted.

]]> By: Huadpe http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/19/the-perversity-of-legacy/#comment-19972 Huadpe Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:54:46 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2451#comment-19972 I dispute your original posit (via Healy) that the highest ranking presidents are warmongering, or at least that if they are, they fought wars which were necessary and just. In particular, two of the most highly rated presidents are Washington and Lincoln. Washington did indeed start a war, of independence, whose product was the first free nation to have a place on this Earth in almost two thousand years. Lincoln fought a war (begun before he took office) to preserve that nation and liberate its most persecuted group from the shackles of slavery.<br><br>The only warmonger who generally makes the list would be LBJ, with Vietnam. The other four big warmonger presidents McKinley (Spanish-American war), Polk (Mexican-American war), Nixon (Vietnam continued) and Bush II (Iraq), generally are rated poorly.<br><br>Activists on the domestic front tend to fare better, but still exceptions exist, and make the correlation weak. Jefferson was not a big government man, for example. I dispute your original posit (via Healy) that the highest ranking presidents are warmongering, or at least that if they are, they fought wars which were necessary and just. In particular, two of the most highly rated presidents are Washington and Lincoln. Washington did indeed start a war, of independence, whose product was the first free nation to have a place on this Earth in almost two thousand years. Lincoln fought a war (begun before he took office) to preserve that nation and liberate its most persecuted group from the shackles of slavery.

The only warmonger who generally makes the list would be LBJ, with Vietnam. The other four big warmonger presidents McKinley (Spanish-American war), Polk (Mexican-American war), Nixon (Vietnam continued) and Bush II (Iraq), generally are rated poorly.

Activists on the domestic front tend to fare better, but still exceptions exist, and make the correlation weak. Jefferson was not a big government man, for example.

]]> By: Huadpe http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/19/the-perversity-of-legacy/#comment-19971 Huadpe Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:52:27 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2451#comment-19971 I dispute your original posit (via Healy) that the highest ranking presidents are warmongering, or at least that if they are, they fought wars which were necessary and just. In particular, two of the most highly rated presidents are Washington and Lincoln. Washington did indeed start a war, of independence, whose product was the first free nation to have a place on this Earth in almost two thousand years. Lincoln fought a war (begun before he took office) to preserve that nation and liberate its most persecuted group from the shackles of slavery.<br><br>The only warmonger who generally makes the list would be LBJ, with Vietnam. The other four big warmonger presidents McKinley (Spanish-American war), Polk (Mexican-American war), Nixon (Vietnam continued) and Bush II (Iraq), generally are rated poorly.<br><br>Activists on the domestic front tend to fare better, but still exceptions exist, and make the correlation weak. Jefferson was not a big government man, for example. I dispute your original posit (via Healy) that the highest ranking presidents are warmongering, or at least that if they are, they fought wars which were necessary and just. In particular, two of the most highly rated presidents are Washington and Lincoln. Washington did indeed start a war, of independence, whose product was the first free nation to have a place on this Earth in almost two thousand years. Lincoln fought a war (begun before he took office) to preserve that nation and liberate its most persecuted group from the shackles of slavery.

The only warmonger who generally makes the list would be LBJ, with Vietnam. The other four big warmonger presidents McKinley (Spanish-American war), Polk (Mexican-American war), Nixon (Vietnam continued) and Bush II (Iraq), generally are rated poorly.

Activists on the domestic front tend to fare better, but still exceptions exist, and make the correlation weak. Jefferson was not a big government man, for example.

]]> By: Michael http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/19/the-perversity-of-legacy/#comment-19970 Michael Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:14:17 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2451#comment-19970 "something’s gone wrong" implies that there's a norm according to which things "go right." This is demanding too much, too soon, of a still relatively immature polity. If Americans are naive by this standard, then they are hardly a prey to some irrational exuberance, save that that irrational exuberance is genetically embedded. I was just trying to think of an example of a historical figure--in world history--who is NOT known for 'captializing on crises in order to spur revolutionary change,' or who is lionized by his or her descendants for actually standing athwart history and yelling, "Whoa, Now!?"....So, Gene could be more right: she could be accurate. “something’s gone wrong” implies that there's a norm according to which things “go right.” This is demanding too much, too soon, of a still relatively immature polity. If Americans are naive by this standard, then they are hardly a prey to some irrational exuberance, save that that irrational exuberance is genetically embedded. I was just trying to think of an example of a historical figure–in world history–who is NOT known for 'captializing on crises in order to spur revolutionary change,' or who is lionized by his or her descendants for actually standing athwart history and yelling, “Whoa, Now!?”….So, Gene could be more right: she could be accurate.

]]>