perfidy

Here is an excerpt from my journal, containing some of my thoughts on greatness and infamy. I wrote this about a year ago. 

I have devoted some thought to greatness, and what it is that makes someone great. I believe the first category of greatness is someone who leaves the world a better place than it was before their arrival and activities. Infamy, in contrast, is achieved when someone leaves the world in a worse position than it was before. Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Augusto Pinochet, Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Heinrich Himmler are just a few political and military examples of infamy, in my opinion. I doubt, however, that Hitler, Himmler, Pinochet, and Stalin would generate much dissent from other voices. But what about greatness? Can greatness be tainted with infamy? Is there no clear good and evil at all? I would think that Himmler, Hitler, and Stalin were the face of evil without any redeeming characteristics whatever.

But sticking with twentieth century political examples, the great have a taint of infamy. Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill have long been considered by some historians to be untouchable pillars of greatness. But Roosevelt was a racist who saved capitalism in the United States rather than overseeing its transition to a socially responsible welfare state. He fooled around on his wife too, but shit, most people do that, it's just normal. Roosevelt's greatness lies in his stewardship of the United States in its most dire economic times, and preventing a complete collapse and catastrophe. In addition his administration saw the United States mostly through the second World War and US assistance in the destruction of the aforementioned face of evil in Germany. His infamy does lie in racism and prejudice, for example the internment of Japanese American citizens under Executive Order 9066, as well as the racism inherent in several New Deal programs. His infamy also lies in his role as the savior of American capitalism, and not taking the New Deal far enough to the left. He is great for what he did. He is infamous both for what he did and what he did not. 

Churchill, don't get me started. He and Lord Birkenhead did more to condemn Ireland to partition and civil war than any other English bastard. Lloyd George was Welsh, he doesn't count. He did more to condemn Ireland to partition and civil war than any other Welsh bastard. Churchill was a wanton imperialist, a member of the Conservative party, and a fat fuck. But his infamy was balanced with greatness. Perhaps were it not for Churchill and the English people of World War II, this journal would be written in German and there would be only praise for Hitler and Himmler. A bit far fetched I agree, since the US was conventionally unconquerable in all likelihood, but the world would be a different and much worse place were it not for Churchill the fat English bastard. His greatness lies in keeping the world from getting worse, his infamy in making Ireland worse than it could have been. A 32 county republic would also have resulted in a civil war, but then so did partition. Consider the Troubles initiated in 1972, and the fact that they have yet to end entirely. 

But to move from political to social greatness and keeping with the twentieth century, an era of which I am fond, there are examples. The ordinary men in extraordinary times in the United States Army, Navy, and Marines who fought World War II achieved greatness in that they kept the world from getting worse. The Soviet people, the bulwark of resistance to German imperialism sacrificed their lives in the millions, but I would rather glorify their actions than their unnecessary deaths, because there simply is no glory in death. The English have already been mentioned, though I should add the British, northern Irish, and the Irish who crossed the border to serve in the English military to defeat the greater evil. 

But social greatness, of course, is not always so big. A few days ago I saw a program on the Animal Planet network that described a young girl's campaign to outfit the K-9 units of her suburban police department with kevlar jackets. She collected enough money to get a vest for each and every dog on the force, something like six. This could conceivably save the lives of those dogs serving on the force. Few people outside of her suburb who don't watch Animal Planet know this, and I confess that I cannot remember her name, but she is great. That's it. It goes without saying, so of course I'll say it, that greatness and infamy are highly subjective. Many seem to have a little of both.

It is interesting to note that almost all of Americas' good generals, and most generals in general, come from the south. True, Patton was from California, but his family raised him like he was from Virginia. He was steeped in that "War of Northern Aggression" ethos. Sherman, btw, was from Ohio. Some honorable mentions for the top five list: Francis Marion, MacArthur, and some Admirals - David Farragut, Raymond Spruance, Bull Halsey, and Chet Nimitz.

Also, a good one from Hanson.

Didn't say that Taft and Grant were great presidents. Just that you shouldn't pick on them. And as my friend Drew says, always be aware of when you're measuring on the "Bad" scale, which is certainly what I was doing with McKinley. You are certainly right about the Taft bloodline thinning, but really, it could hardly have done otherwise. Reports from my sources in Ohio, both Liberal and Conservative, say that the current incarnation of Taft is like number 4 in Multiplicity, a copy of a copy. While Grant's problems in office were serious, he was not coping with the Great War. (In fact, he might have done better with a war.) Greatness is a combination of ability and circumstance - as is the opposite. Grant really didn't have the opportunity to screw up that Wilson did. My mom and I have often had this discussion, so here is my top 5, with a brief indication of why they are there: 

• Washington - Founder of the Country, can't do more than that.
• Lincoln - Savior of the country - would be more important than Washington, except that without Geo., he wouldn't have had a country to save.
• Jefferson - First peaceful transfer of power between opposing parties. And he was a frickin genius.
• FDR - Arguably kept us from going completely south in the depression, and won the big game for us. Stumbled a bit at the end.
• Reagan - Won the cold war and restored American confidence after the whole Vietnam thingie. Plus, ended ridiculous things like price controls.

Honorable Mentions:

• Truman - start of the cold war, Korea
• Coolidge - 'cause he's really, really cool.
• TR - same

My list of most important would be subtly different. My bottom five, from worst to least worst, is:

• Wilson
• Nixon
• Buchanan or LBJ
• Hoover
• Clinton

I am judging by damage they did the country, rather than mere ineffectualism, incompetence, or corruption. Many presidents would score high on that basis. Added Bonus: Top Five Greatest American Generals

• Sherman
• Stonewall Jackson
• Patton
• Lee
• Andy Jackson or Nathan Bedford Forest - it's a toss up.

Taft may have been a man of many talents, but he wasn't a great president. Ditto Grant. He was masterful with a bottle, and masterful on the battlefield (though, more materiel and resources were a BIG help to him there), but as president, he, more than Wilson, was a disaster. McKinley was middling at best.

I think Wilson was better than you do, but reasonable people may differ.

Name your top five.

Addendum: Speaking of Ohio politicians, the Taft bloodline, whatever it may once have been, has inarguably grown very, very thin.

"You know, if you paw through the reams of resolutions put forth by the UN, I'm sure you'll find one that outlaws special jails for children, too. I'm no longer interested in reading the arguments of people who regard a war that empties the children's jails as a greater evil than the jails themselves. And I don't share their horror for the word "illegal," particularly in the context of international law. Is the worst thing about modern-day slavery its illegality? Or the fact that it's slavery?" 

The man has a real talent for the hammer-nail-hitting thingie. Read the whole article, its a good 'un. 
 

That almost half of the presidents come from just three states? And that Harding's middle name is Gamaliel? And that only one president was named Stephen? And that Grant was originally Hiram Simpson Grant? And that... *smack*

Before you go ripping on Ohio parsdents, remember that Garfield was assassinated before he got a chance to prove himself. And Taft was the only man in US history to be President, Speaker of the House and Supreme Court Chief Justice. And Mark Hanna, I mean McKinley, wasn't all that bad. And Grant was a decent genrul. (And his memoirs are one of the most interesting you'll ever read.) 

As a new Virginia resident, I am indeed proud of the Commonwealth's fine crop of presidents. Though to be honest, Madison really screwed the pooch on the whole declare war on Britain/get your capital burned concept. Johno is right on the lack of scintilating talent in Harrison, Taylor and Tyler, but completely missed the boat on Wilson. Wilson was a freakin' disaster, who, at every stage of America's involvement in the Great War and its aftermath, did exactly the wrong thing. 
 

Q: Look at this list of Presidents born in Ohio. What do you notice?

• Garfield, James Abram
• Grant, Ulysses Simpson
• Warren G. Harding
• Benjamin Harrison
• William Henry Harrison
• Rutherford B. Hayes
• William McKinley
• William Howard Taft

A: They suck. It seems that Ohio goes for quantity rather than quality. That's EIGHT Ohisian parsdents so far, and not a one among them was worth a damn. Now, look at this list of Presidents from Virginia:

• George Washington
• Thomas Jefferson
• James Madison
• James Monroe
• William Henry Harrison
• John Tyler
• Zachary Taylor
• Woodrow Wilson

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about! Four of the first five Presidents, and Wilson to boot! Granted, Taylor, Tyler and Harrison aren't much to be proud of, but that's fairly impressive. 

Q: If Ohio's going to go for nine, is Kucinich really the guy?? 

A: No. 
 

Democratic presidential candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich: "Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction. Homelessness is a weapon of mass destruction. Lack of adequate education is a weapon of mass destruction." I'm sick of Ohio politicians following me around the country. And that does include Voinovich. Though Daffy Denny is certainly the loopier politician