Why are eloquent Presidents automatically favored by mainstream historians?

[Anarchist420]

Two examples are that Wilson was a smooth orator and Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address and they're among the best Presidents in the minds of mainstream scholars.

Contrast Warren G Harding to FDR. The former may not have been the most eloquent, but he started one of the most peaceful and prosperous eras while the latter delivered his "Day of Infamy" speech and was a war time President by his own choice who made a depression longer.

Jefferson, who was also eloquent, is the only libertarian favored by mainstream historians.

Why do mainstream historians prefer hyper-eloquent, usually warlike, usually fiscally liberal Presidents over libertarians who were sufficiently eloquent and/or delivered no significant speeches?

To illustrate my point... if Hitler had been President of the U.S., then he would've been popular among the mainstream historians because he was a strong leader and an incredibly skilled public speaker.

Do you see the problem with the mainstream historians? They're the same as the mainstream economists (i.e., the Chicago Schoolers and the hardcore Keynesians). That is, they all think they're hot shit and that they're always right because of their Ivy League educations. The irony is that they're usually, if not always wrong.

 

[MovingTarget]

Godwin's law is hereby invoked in the first post.

Lets leave history to people who actively study and research it.....you know, historians. They are much more objective about their field than the average joe.

 

[Doppel]

Because history says people like George Dubya are fvcking idiots.

There is of course a very strong positive correlation between ability to speak properly and use one's brain properly.

 

[Lemon law]

As a non believer in Godwin law, I still have to maintain this is just another hyper stupid stupid Anarchist 420 post.

Simply because temproray populaity of a given politician does not equate to a later long term judgment by historians. As historians ask did a given political leader improve the lot of a given population or were their longer term effects negative.

To a certain extent, the Presidency of Truman was marked by extreme unpopularity, but the judgment of later historians is that Truman was one of our better Presidents. In a similar manner, historians now conclude the great communicator Ronald Reagan sent our country on the wrong course.

As the problem with Anarchist420, IMHO, is that he has a mind of a child, and seeks easy answers to complex questions to prove his lack enlightenment fits his shallow understanding of human history.

But still Anarchist420 has a right to ask questions to this forum. But still as Anarchist 420 is a serial abuser of asking stupid question, Anarchist420 may not always like the answers he gets.

 

[wirelessenabled]

...

Contrast Warren G Harding to FDR. The former may not have been the most eloquent, but he started one of the most peaceful and prosperous eras while the latter delivered his "Day of Infamy" speech and was a war time President by his own choice who made a depression longer.

...

At least try to have some reasonable facsimile of truth .... FDR was sworn in on March 4, 1933. He gave his Day of Infamy speech on Dec 8, 1941 following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, after being President for 8-3/4 years. He then presided over the US war effort for 3 years and a third before he died. Mostly a President during peacetime.

How did he choose to make the Depression longer?

 

[CallMeJoe]

...Contrast Warren G Harding to FDR...

Anarchist never fails to deliver The Fail.

 

[halik]

As a non believer in Godwin law, I still have to maintain this is just another hyper stupid stupid Anarchist 420 post.

Simply because temproray populaity of a given politician does not equate to a later long term judgment by historians. As historians ask did a given political leader improve the lot of a given population or were their longer term effects negative.

To a certain extent, the Presidency of Truman was marked by extreme unpopularity, but the judgment of later historians is that Truman was one of our better Presidents. In a similar manner, historians now conclude the great communicator Ronald Reagan sent our country on the wrong course.

As the problem with Anarchist420, IMHO, is that he has a mind of a child, and seeks easy answers to complex questions to prove his lack enlightenment fits his shallow understanding of human history.

But still Anarchist420 has a right to ask questions to this forum. But still as Anarchist 420 is a serial abuser of asking stupid question, Anarchist420 may not always like the answers he gets.

I concur, sir.

 

[cybrsage]

Because history says people like George Dubya are fvcking idiots.

It says no such thing.

There is of course a very strong positive correlation between ability to speak properly and use one's brain properly.

You make Hawking cry...

 

[cybrsage]

The reason historians like eloquent speakers over the others is due to their ability to get people to follow them. One of the primary purposes of a leader is to lead. To lead, you must convince the people to follow. To do this, you must be a good speaker.

 

[ky54]

I'm not sure that's true. Truman has been given a pretty fair shake and if you've ever heard one of his speeches you'd run screaming down the streets.

 

[piasabird]

My take on this is that Americans like being lied to. Maybe we should call it the Car Salesman Syndrome (CSS). I think people like believing the smooth talking liars. I also think the political machine would rather deal with untrustworthy liars than with a reputable person that tells the truth.

Have you ever noticed that Left wing politicians want to convince you they are somehow conservative right before an election? Why do people believe their lies instead of looking at their actual voting record and actions. They are selling a bill of goods that does not exist like a Snake Oil Salesman selling a wonder drug.

 

[piasabird]

If you look at someone like Reagan, he had the ability to convince people to do what he wanted them to do. Even when he wanted an outcome that might not be in agreement with their way of thinking he would step up and fight for his proposed plan in a way that was convincing and genuine. His speech writers thought he was crazy when he gave the "Tear down this Wall" speech standing in front of the Berlin Wall. He dared to dream it was possible and had the leadership to make it happen. You just can not teach this.

We need a leader like him to convince North and South Korea to go through Reunification. We have to believe it is possible to make it happen. Dream the impossible dream!

 

[piasabird]

Look at people like Brigham Young. He led the Mormons to the West and was instrumental in bringing about 60,000 settlers to settle all over the Northwest from Idaho to Las Vegas. He purposely had people settle in Utah and also sent people out in all directions to establish communities in the surrounding region. He is personally responsible for settling much of the north west territory.

 

[SagaLore]

Why are eloquent Presidents automatically favored by mainstream historians?

Uh, because they're eloquent?

 

[Lemon law]

The reason historians like eloquent speakers over the others is due to their ability to get people to follow them. One of the primary purposes of a leader is to lead. To lead, you must convince the people to follow. To do this, you must be a good speaker.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What an especially stupid thing to say cybrsage, maybe eloquent speakers can get people to follow them, but the real question is does that leader lead his people to disaster, or a better future,

Civil war copperhead were mainly dominated by eloquent speakers, but they subsequently led the South to disaster drumming up a war they could not possibly win. Never in world history has there been a lack of eloquent speakers, but there is, IMHO, a glaring lack of wise leaders.

 

[cybrsage]

If the south won the war, the copperheads would have been treated as heros by history.

 

[DaveSimmons]

If the south won the war, the copperheads would have been treated as heros by history.

Since it's a Godwinned thread:

You know who else would have been treated better by history if he'd won?

 

[CallMeJoe]

...Civil war copperhead were mainly dominated by eloquent speakers, but they subsequently led the South to disaster drumming up a war they could not possibly win...

FWIW, Copperheads were Northerners who opposed the war and favored a peaceful settlement with the Confederacy.