Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
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.
|
Well, here's the thing, though: you can't measure success or failure unless you know what either of them looks like. A comparative approach is the only worthwhile way to do that in the moment, because as you say the challenges each administration faces are different.
Incidentally, can you imagine if people tried to pass judgement on Abraham Lincoln after his first 60 days? Good lord. What a cluster**** he presided over. What a loser.