Ok, but for one thing I only put that in there to provide the perspective from which I was hating on the article, and for another I agree that that’s typical an

Ok, but for one thing I only put that in there to provide the perspective from which I was hating on the article, and for another I agree that that’s typical and my point is that I don’t think we’re dealing with a Carter or a Reagan or even a Nixon, in terms of historical judgement, but, like, a Buchanan or a Johnson (and no, not LBJ) [edit] to illustrate: it’s 2080 and you’re a politically-motivated hack historian making a worst ten Presidents list. Do you list 10 political enemies? No. You make 5-8 uncontroversial safe picks, and 2-5 are your political enemies. My contention is that, due to his effectiveness in and execution of the office, Trump is likely to eventually land on a lot of those lists due to being in the “safe pick”, legitimacy-lending category, not the political one. Meanwhile, yes, he’ll be on those plenty for political reasons for the next decade or three.