In final press conference, Bush defends his legacy

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Oh, I don't pretend to "completely understand" any aspect of politics - like every other average citizen, I have to make my judgements using the information that is out there. My husband is a political columnist, so I do have an opportunity to access some information that maybe isn't out in the mainstream media. But in this day and age, I'd say the average citizen can access, with a little work, plenty of information regarding the issues of the day.

The success or failure of a political action is the ultimate deciding factor. You don't have to have all the classified information regarding Katrina to be able to look at New Orleans and decide whether or not the city, state and federal responses were effective. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I'll leave the first paragraph alone, because that can be a whole different thread (how relevant information is analyzed by the media, and what information is actually released to the media), but I will say that your second paragraph takes an interesting view.

Going by your second paragraph, that all you have to do is "taste the pudding", would mean that you knew exactly how things should have turned out, given the finances available, the issues with local authorities, and every other factor. No one on this thread is saying that everything was done correctly in this Presidency - but by the same token, I think it's quite a logical leap (including making a lot of assumptions about the process) to say that you can look solely at the results of a decision and know how things should have been handled.

[SWTXBelle]

I don't think you can decide whether or not every individual decision was correct, but you can decide if all of the decisions together equaled a successful outcome. That doesn't mean that you can decide how "things should have been handled" (although close analysis may indeed suggest ways things could have been done differently) , but you can decide if the way they WERE was ultimately effective.

I am intrigued by the idea that there are no good or bad presidents, and that we are "incorrect" if we criticize a president. I consider moral relativism to be a very, VERY slippery slope. I always think of the sociology experiment where college students were asked if Hitler was evil, and the number who made relativist arguments that no, he wasn't evil, there were extenuating circumstances.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I don't think you can decide whether or not every individual decision was correct, but you can decide if all of the decisions together equaled a successful outcome. That doesn't mean that you can decide how "things should have been handled" (although close analysis may indeed suggest ways things could have been done differently) , but you can decide if the way they WERE was ultimately effective.

I am intrigued by the idea that there are no good or bad presidents, and that we are "incorrect" if we criticize a president. I consider moral relativism to be a very, VERY slippery slope. I always think of the sociology experiment where college students were asked if Hitler was evil, and the number who made relativist arguments that no, he wasn't evil, there were extenuating circumstances.

I think you're overstating things again. No one is saying that "there are no good or bad presidents," or that you're "incorrect" if you criticize a president. What we are saying, or at least what I'm saying, is that it's far too early to make some of these judgments.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I think you're overstating things again. No one is saying that "there are no good or bad presidents," or that you're "incorrect" if you criticize a president. What we are saying, or at least what I'm saying, is that it's far too early to make some of these judgments.

An overall judgment? Perhaps - but I do think it is possible to have an opinion regarding certain actions taken by his administration at this "early" date.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

An overall judgment? Perhaps - but I do think it is possible to have an opinion regarding certain actions taken by his administration at this "early" date.

I understand that's your opinion - while the news media and political pundits do make these types of observations during and soon after the end of someone's term. I just don't agree with the wisdom of it from my point of view as a history major and someone with a rather broad base of knowledge in Presidential politics (and politics as a whole).

History may say that Bush's presidency was a success or that it was a failure, or that it was something in between, but I don't agree with these final judgments so early, whether it's a negative judgment or a positive judgment. Once the Presidential papers are released, and more information is available, then I'll be more comfortable making a judgment one way or another.

[SWTXBelle]

By definition you won't have a "final" judgment until . . .well, I guess you never really do have a final judgment. I think political judgments regarding officials and their actions are in a constant state of flux. As more is known, as time passes, often that initial judgment will change. It doesn't mean that officials should somehow avoid having their actions discussed and analyzed - it just means that we should all realize nothing is written in stone.