Porteroso said:
historian said:
FLBear5630 said:
historian said:
My point is that Clinton's "accomplishments" had little to do with him and more to do with others and with circumstances. I will give credit where credit is due. Clinton deserves very little.
You will give credit if you like the person. Also, you will give the person a pass, if you like them. If you dont it does not matter. Trump is a changed man. Even though if you look at how he governed. He has spent like Biden, not worked with Congress, and not come close to balancing the budget. Clinton did all the things you profess to want. But...
Historically, I will give credit to people I don't like. It's the only honest way to go.
It might be emotionally honest, but leads to intellectual dishonesty. "Like" is subjective and one of the furthest things from "factual" or "objective."
Of course "like" is subjective. I could say, "people I agree with" but it means the same thing in this context. That's the most intellectually honest way to put it. And it's perfectly capable of being factual. It is the opposite of "objective", however. Words mean things as do their accurate definitions.
For specific examples, I don't particularly like LBJ, Nixon or Carter but I can acknowledge their accomplishments as president. LBJ was crucial to passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, one of the most important pieces of legislation in US history. Nixon's foreign policy accomplishments were real, particularly with China & aiding Israel during the Yom Kippur War. He also negotiated an end to the Vietnam War that could have succeeded. Carter was mostly a disaster but he did appoint Paul Volcker, who proved important to the economy, and he facilitated the Camp David Accords, one of the most important agreements in the Middle East in the past century. None of these examples was perfect but each was consequential despite their flaws and the presidential leadership in each case was significant.
