Why do historic presidents lists basically always have a very strong partisan bias and a very strong bias in favor of expanding federal power? There's also like a massive recency bias, you don't see the partisan bias before 1900. Oh and the other one you always see is if someone was president directly before a "great president" that president will be underrated on lists. Like McKinley, despite being a great president tends to be ranked lower because he was president right before Teddy Roosevelt or Taft ends up getting fucked in rankings a lot
>>18023413Propaganda saturation , make government and founders godlike
>>18023413They have the memetic idea that a president who didn't grossly abuse executive power was ineffective and didn't do anything.
>>18023413More centralized power = bigger effect on the countrySo those presidents just had larger reach whose wider effect on the people was more obvious.
larger populations require larger governments
Cretins really just want a big king man that they can grovel before, so they glorify individual heroic qualities and convince themselves that whoever they serve must have especially admirable qualities. Otherwise they would have to grapple with being an irrelevant nobody strapped into a heartless nation governed by sociopaths.
>>18023463projection>let's pretend the commies didn't do the exact same thing when the last 3 commies were in office
The professor class leans liberal, so Democratic presidents often get higher marks. Republicans seen as conservative about social change get marked down.
>>18023413>you don't see the partisan bias before 1900.This is correct. People from the South in no way shape or form have ever had different opinions on Lincoln or Grant compared to how they're viewed in the North
>>18023413JFK gets praised for doing almost as little as Coolidge.
Reminder it's an objectively good thing FDR expanded the size of the state so much, and if he hadn't America would have either gone Fashy or Commie
>>18024314no, retardo, I mean dems don't over rate Jackson, Van Buren, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson and Cleveland the same way they do with Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, El BJ, Carter, Clinton and beyond >>18024326GMS!!!!!! and shalom
>>18024358>no, retardo, I mean dems don't over rate Jackson, Van Buren, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson and Cleveland the same way they do with Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, El BJ, Carter, Clinton and beyondthe modern Democrat Party disowns everything from pre-20th century and pretends it didn't exist
>>18024361yeah that's what I'm saying
>>18024361I've heard some oddly claim XIX century Republicans as their own even though the Republican Party in that time was very much the party of big business and banking which seems pretty anathema to leftist ideology.
>>18024373they try to say there was a party switch/realignment thing but when they do that they claim Lincoln and Teddy, but not McKinley but then they also sometimes say wilson and sometimes don't and they say FDR was progressive but then say the party flip was with nixon. the whole thing is retarded.
>>18024373oh come on you know why that is. their entire ideology is based on rating presidents on if they were mean to black people or not.
>>18024385Lincoln was planning to deport all niggers until he decided they could stay as a Republican bulwark within in the otherwise Democratic South.
>>18023413Historians are TYRANTS
>>18024547you do realize there are 50 state government who all better represent their constituents than the federal government, right, yuro troon?
>commie got nukedbased
>>18024326but FDR was a commie lol
>>18023413McKinley fucking sucked.
>>18027044nah, he was based. conquered alaska
>>18024406uh no, there were several million of them so deporting them was a logistical impossibility
>>18024326Yes the US absolutely needed to be lead by the offspring of famous opium smugglers and the largest slave owners in the area
