Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
There's a whole field of political science called Comparative Politics. In order to measure someone like Obama (assuming a neutral measurement is what you're looking for), you have to contextualize him with other world leaders, as well as previous Presidents.
Without measuring Obama against previous Presidents, it's pretty tough to judge how good of a job he's doing. Bush was the most recent example of someone who had the same job Obama was elected to, I'd say comparisons aren't just useful, they're necessary to figure out what is improving and what isn't. You also need a 'sample' amount of time... 60 days isn't enough.
But, if the goal is to say 'Obama sucks', then I suppose comparing him to the next most recent US President is out of the question.
|
As a guy who has a lot of experience in political science, I think Comparative Politics is actually fairly useless for the purposes you are suggesting. The purpose is to draw comparisons between various political and ideological trends. It does not have the capability nor the specialization to examine presidencies on a scale, regardless of context.
In fact, context is precisely what makes the measurement useless. The precise experiences and policies of all US Administrations have been in response to vastly different times and situations. I'd say we can begin examining the similar Keynesian practices of both Bush and Obama with some of his predecessors, but to say that we can actually compare the efficacy of Presidents themselves is a fruitless statement.