Ahistorical

For those wondering - ahistorical refers to something that is not historical. Consider, as an example, Michael Medved's latest defense of President Bush.

Medved comments approvingly on the Presidents who served between the end of the Civil War and the turn of the century. He is dismayed that these Presidents get so little credit for how great things went during those days. In making this argument, however, Medved skips over a few key points. First of all, after the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, the President was effectively gelded. Not entirely powerless, but possessing barely a fraction of the power President Bush wields. The reason those presidents don't get credit for the great things that happened in those days is that, in reality, they probably had little to do with them.

Of course the second part of his argument is that we don't respect President Bush even though things are going great (apparently). People have a sense that, in general, their personal lives are going great, but they don't give credit to the President for that. Kind of a funny argument coming from a conservative. Don't they usually believe that we have to improve our lives ourselves, without Government intervention?

At any rate, the flaw in his argument is that President Bush's invasion of Iraq, probably the defining act of his presidency, hasn't gone all that well. So that might be dragging public approval down a bit.