Do you think it's possible to objectively evaluate a president?

Question

Is it possible to evaluate a president without including your own biases?

Answer 1

"Objectively evaluate a president"?

"without including your own biases"?

Hmmmm.

To evaluate, one needs criteria.

A political evaluation will use criteria based on what the evaluator thinks relevant and important.

This arises out of one's political views, assumptions, perspective, basic stance.

Thus, those with different values, perspectives, whatevers will have different criteria, and so judge differently.

But then, isn't that sort of the point of democracy and freedom of thought?

Thing is, there's biases and biases -- there are the basic components of one's perspective -- these can be well-thought-out, or not (well, to varying degrees they're all both, but relatively well- or ill-thought-out).

And there's the facts used to do the evaluation -- is it a reasonably complete set, are the sources of information reliable, are they the relevant facts?

I guess what I'm saying is, our evaluations depend on non-facty things, as well as facts. This is right and good -- that's the point of evaluating -- see, got the root 'value' right in there.

So the question is, do you start with an evaluation, and bend the process to support it, or do you start with your values, and the facts, and come to a conclusion based and how they fit together?

I have problems with how the concept 'objectivity' is commonly understood: as though to be objective means to not have goals, values, and such -- which is not only impossible, but would NOT be a good thing.

That's not the same concept as basing one's evaluation on a thought-through and consistent perspecive, and on a well-rounded and accurate collection of facts, versus starting with the evaluation, and bending everything towards it (cherry-picking the facts, twisting values, stuff like that).

So, it possible to come to strong, well-founded, rational evaluations of presidents, and this is better than a priori, self-contradictorily-based, cherry-picking evaluations.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not fond of your wording, and want to look at it differently.

What constitutes a sound, strong, well-based, fair evaluation of a president, and how do you get one?

Sorry for the rambly, somewhat incoherent non-response; but your question forced me to THINK.

Egad! How DARE you?

;-)

Answer 2

Yes. Take into consideration all policies instead of just the bone headed ones and weigh them evenly. The only people that can't objectively evaluate a president are those that are loyalists to a political party or even now religion.

Answer 3

We can only try. Don’t confine your news sources to broadcast media and liberal networks like CNN. Do yourself a favor and give FOXNEWS a chance. You will find some liberal and some conservative hosts. You will see film clips and hear audio sound bytes you will not have seen or heard on broadcast media. My favorite program is hosted by Brit Hume — just straightforward news, not cutsey or accompanied by drum rolls, etc. See the last segment of his daily broadcast where democrats and republicans discuss important issues of the day.

I do not claim that Pres. Bush is infallible, but I do believe he was not given a fair chance since Day 1 of his presidency. He may have a Master’s Degree in Business Administration, a no-nonsense businessman, but is not a good public speaker. There are others who may be good public speakers, but who I would not trust as far as I could throw them.

1. There is good news in Iraq. Baghdad remains the worst holdout and we are currently trying to change that.
2. There are hospitals, schools, electricity and running water in many places in Iraq. Were you aware of that?
3. President Bush’ tax cuts took 3 years to kick in, but we have the best economy on the planet with a less than 5 percent unemployment rate. Did you know that?
4. Whatever Pres. Bush has done, we have not had a horrific attack such as “9/11” since that time. How many times have you heard that stressed?
5. Independent examinations of the votes in Florida proved that although Pres. Bush won by an unbelievably small margin, he did win — fair and square. Did you know that?

If our country is so bad, why are people from all over the world literally “dying to get in”?
Hear and see both sides of an issue then make up your own mind.

Answer 4

You ask two questions.

It is possible to objectively evaluate a president, without political bias, on those issues which are objective. The economy is a good example. Can it be perfectly unbiased, no, but one can judge effectiveness - did he do what he set out to do, even if you don't think that's what ought to have been done - and one can judge results - how did the economy perform and how much of that is traceable to the POTUS' policies, to the Fed, or both, and/or to other factors.

It is not possible to come to an overall judgment that is free from bias however it is possible to be honest about your bias and put the judgment in that context.

Any political position is going to be subjective because it is an application of a set of values to a set of facts. But as long as you are honest about what those values are, you can come to a position that is genuine and you can have an interesting discussion with someone who applies different values to the same set of facts.

The problems we run into on this board and in other discussions stem mainly from people operating with their own set of facts - - - 'true believer' liberals who think JFK was about to pull out of 'Nam, Lou Dobbs fans who truly believe in this "two Americas" and "declining middle class" nonsense, etc....

Answer 5

Sure. Just evaluate based on objective criteria.

Ratio of consensus built when passing laws (as opposed to 51%-49% votes).

Amount of deficit spending.

How the country's economic base grew or shrank. Inflation or recession. Employment rates.

Number of laws the president broke while in office, as defined solely by the courts (to avoid personal bias).

Lots of objectively measurable factors.

Answer 6

Sure, it just may take 100 years or more to come to an unbiased determination once all personal preconceptions have expired. Take Gerald Ford for example. He was very unpopular for pardoning Nixon; but 30+ years later, at his funeral, everyone agreed it was the right thing to do to move the country forward; and he had the courage to do it even though he knew it was political suicide.

Answer 7

It is possible, you just have to do some quality research, and stop basing your bias on the media and heresy. Do as much research on that president as possible and rely only on academic sources or scholarly sources, which are less bias. Don't depend on media reports, editorials and opinion websites because they're not accurate.

Answer 8

Yes.

While Reagan was in office almost every democrat in this Country hated his guts.

Ten years later they realized the man was a great President.


edit: Wow, two thumbs down!
Maybe I should have used John F. Kennedy as an example.
Schools taught us what a hero he was, and outside of school we learn about the whore who Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis allowed David C. Heymann write about in his book, A Woman Named Jackie: An Intimate Biography of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis. 1989.

Interesting. lol

Answer 9

Great question. I would say no, it's not possible. because we all tend to relate to individuals who have the same mindset as ourselves. And we very rarely can admit fallacys in our own ideology. Therefore we wont see the fallacys in the president who shares our ideology.

Answer 10

if it is possible it has to with a president whose term is over- perferable one is dead so there is no sugar-coating, fear of insulting them (especially if they are older, many feel awful verbally critizing a senior),
and its a bit more fair since you can judge their full political carreer where as someone alive and out of office can still be politically active until they die.