Factchecking 43's Fuzzy Math
| Thu Oct. 30, 2008 10:17 AM PDT
George Bush has been giving us fuzzy math for eight long years, from faulty punch-card ballots, to misunderestimates on everything from Medicare costs to the Iraq War bill. Now, here's one more error that must be fixed for history's sake: the presidential tally.
Bush's nickname for Clinton—he has them for most everyone—is 42, a reference to his standing as the 42nd president of the United States, and his dad, George Sr., Bush calls 41. That makes him 43, and our next president 44. Straightforward enough math, simple addition, right? Yeah, but he still has it wrong, and so does everyone else who plays along. Here's why:
Advertisement
Advertisement
Grover Cleveland was president from 1885-89, and again from 1893-1897, with Benjamin Harrison serving the term in between. By current numeration, then, Cleveland was our 22nd and our 24th president, but this is just a matter of non-consecutive termage. To those who say, "he served as both 22 and 24" well then by that logic George Washington was both our 1st and 2nd president, Thomas Jefferson our 4th and 5th, and so on with all of our multi-termers who were newly elected each time.
Whitehouse.gov counts Cleveland twice and lands at 43 currently, but if we are truly talking terms then we have way more than 43 terms served. The sum total is the number of presidents we've had, not the number of terms served by all presidents. And any way you slice it, even if you want to parse out Cleveland's terms into two eras, we have actually only had 42 presidents total, meaning at least an asterisk is in order. Because what are people conveying when they refer to that historical number—that 43 men have served in that office. Besides who would vote to give Grover Cleveland, of all presidents, two ticks and guys like Teddy, FDR, and Washington only one?
This might be trivial trivia in the grand scheme of things, but it's worth correcting so we are historically accurate in referring to the chronology and legacy of our executive leaders. And even if the numbering system stays as is, people should take care not to say Obama/McCain is our 44th president, because, no matter how much they might want to flee from the association, one of these men will in fact be #43.
Consider this too: while Bush may have fooled us twice, wouldn't it be nice if 43 were a do-over?
Comments
George W. Bush hasn't given us Fuzzy Math he's given us a combination of non computational math and what I would call Milgram math. Non computational math is not math at all but it is propositional in nature except the conclusions drawn from the propositions are provably flawed and obviously wrong?that is no calculation can be made where the outcome will agree with what the president claims?so in this sense his policies are in general non computational but rather they build on an absurd faith and would require supernatural intervention if they were to become true.
The Milgram Math of the Bush administration is most likely best understood as a mathematical principle based upon how the majority behave in regards to authority. The majority will on average obey what authority demands of them?thus it is a form of mathematical certainty that if the leaders of authority are morally corrupt, then this moral corruption will filter downwards throughout the entire bureaucratic system with the most deplorable consequences?like Abu Ghraib. Milgram's case study of obedience showed that on average the majority of the population would obey a symbol of authority up to and including an order that would result in death. That study is the major argument against "We have a few rotten apples" hypothesis that was used to explain Abu Ghraib.
When we consider that we now live in a nation where we once had civil rights and now under the provisions of the Patriot Act see these rights stolen, that we have a leadership that protects torture and endorses it, when we have a system of justice that no longer respects habeas corpus or due process, that endorse the use of military aggression on the suspicion that someone will attack us and what you have is all the ingredients for Milgram's nightmare or if you prefer Bush mathematics.
George W. Bush hasn't given us Fuzzy Math he's given us a combination of non computational math and what I would call Milgram math. Non computational math is not math at all but it is propositional in nature except the conclusions drawn from the propositions are provably flawed and obviously wrong?that is no calculation can be made where the outcome will agree with what the president claims?so in this sense his policies are in general non computational but rather they build on an absurd faith and would require supernatural intervention if they were to become true.
The Milgram Math of the Bush administration is most likely best understood as a mathematical principle based upon how the majority behave in regards to authority. The majority will on average obey what authority demands of them?thus it is a form of mathematical certainty that if the leaders of authority are morally corrupt, then this moral corruption will filter downwards throughout the entire bureaucratic system with the most deplorable consequences?like Abu Ghraib. Milgram's case study of obedience showed that on average the majority of the population would obey a symbol of authority up to and including an order that would result in death. That study is the major argument against "We have a few rotten apples" hypothesis that was used to explain Abu Ghraib.
When we consider that we now live in a nation where we once had civil rights and now under the provisions of the Patriot Act see these rights stolen, that we have a leadership that protects torture and endorses it, when we have a system of justice that no longer respects habeas corpus or due process, that endorse the use of military aggression on the suspicion that someone will attack us and what you have is all the ingredients for Milgram's nightmare or if you prefer Bush mathematics.
Submitted by NewMexiKen (not verified) on Thu Oct. 30, 2008 11:23 AM PDT.
Umm, isn't Cleveland counted twice because his were two separate presidential administrations?
Fer cryin' out loud, did you have absolutely nothing else to do today? We've counted our presidents this way precisely because Cleveland's terms were split and it makes perfect sense to do it that way. And even if it doesn't; so what?
I know, I know; yeah, but...
It's good to see that all the rest of the worlds problems are solved and this is the last thing we have to straighten out. Oh, wait a minute; we still haven't decided the question, "Tastes great or Less filling?" I guess we can work on that one next.
Submitted by Presidential Numbering is a Critical Issue!! (not verified) on Thu Oct. 30, 2008 4:35 PM PDT.
I'm with T. Hunt!
Isn't there an occupation or two going on that we should be concerning ourselves with this election season?
Aren't there hundreds of thousands of American military troops stationed in over 100 foreign 'Imperial Outposts" we should be asking the candidates about?
Isn't there an economy in shambles that the government told us it was taking care of, even as it teetered, and now both candidates are telling us we have to fork over some more $$ so as to keep the rich, Rich?
And this is what you're building a case for your guy on?!?!
Is this supposed to be Humor, Elizabeth? Because I can't even tell...
Submitted by Squatty HJ (not verified) on Fri Oct. 31, 2008 6:03 AM PDT.
How about a do-over for this post?
So every time I saw "8643" it was wrong? Shoot, it was so easy to remember.
Actually, if we truly have nothing better to do today, we can debate whether President Bush is truly 42 or if he is 41, because John Tyler only took on the "powers and Duties" of the Presidency and not the Presidency itself.
Brian et al,
If the next prez is introduced on inauguration day as "the President of the 44th administration of the United States" then great, but just remember me when you hear the introduction of "the 44th President of the United States," which he definitely will not be.
And while I am not getting us out of Iraq or demystifying mortgage-backed securities I stand by the marginal worthiness of this post.
Submitted by Jilson Thomas (not verified) on Fri Oct. 31, 2008 10:42 PM PDT.
Aren't there hundreds of thousands of American military troops stationed in over 100 foreign 'Imperial Outposts" we should be asking the candidates about?
Way to go Mamma Jones!
George W. Bush hasn't given us Fuzzy Math he's given us a combination of non computational math and what I would call Milgram math. Non computational math is not math at all but it is propositional in nature except the conclusions drawn from the propositions are provably flawed and obviously wrongthat is no calculation can be made where the outcome will agree with what the president claimsso in this sense his policies are in general non computational but rather they build on an absurd faith and would require supernatural intervention if they were to become true.
The Milgram Math of the Bush administration is most likely best understood as a mathematical principle based upon how the majority behave in regards to authority. The majority will on average obey what authority demands of themthus it is a form of mathematical certainty that if the leaders of authority are morally corrupt, then this moral corruption will filter downwards throughout the entire bureaucratic system with the most deplorable consequenceslike Abu Ghraib. Milgram's case study of obedience showed that on average the majority of the population would obey a symbol of authority up to and including an order that would result in death. That study is the major argument against "We have a few rotten apples" hypothesis that was used to explain Abu Ghraib.
When we consider that we now live in a nation where we once had civil rights and now under the provisions of the Patriot Act see these rights stolen, that we have a leadership that protects torture and endorses it, when we have a system of justice that no longer respects habeas corpus or due process, that endorse the use of military aggression on the suspicion that someone will attack us and what you have is all the ingredients for Milgram's nightmare or if you prefer Bush mathematics.
To call George W. Bush the 43rd president is not wrong, even though only 42 different men have been president.
We need to distinguish between cardinal and ordinal numbers. When you count up the presidents (cardinal numbers), you come to 42. But when you look at the order of the presidents (1st, 2nd, 3rd...43rd), you need to call W. the 43rd so that the order in which they appeared is consistent.
As you point out, Cleveland caused the problem because he was elected to two non-consecutive terms. He was 22nd and 24th. If you called him only the 22nd president, then you would be mis-stating the order in which the presidents appeared, implying that he came before Harrison but not after.
Cardinal and ordinal numbers often are inconsistent (a baby who is one year old is in his second year). Perhaps it would be clearer if we said that W's is the 43rd presidency and that he is the 42nd man to hold the office.
Best wishes,
Jack Smith
Submitted by Uncertainty principle of American Presidents (not verified) on Sat Nov. 1, 2008 10:53 AM PDT.
1. Washington 1st
2. Adams 2nd
3. Jefferson 3rd
4. Madison 4th
5. Monroe 5th
6. Adams 6th
7. Jackson 7th
8. Van Burren 8th
9. Harrison 9th
10. Tyler 10th
11. Polk 11th
12. Taylor 12th
13. Fillmore 13th
14. Pierce 14th
15. Buchanan 15th
16. Lincoln 16th
17. Johnson 17th
18. Grant 18th
19. Hayes 19th
20. Garfield 20th
21. Arthur 21st
22. Cleveland 22nd
23. Harrison 23rd
24. McKinnley 24th
25. Roosevelt 25th
26. Taft 26th
27. Wilson 27th
28. Harding 28th
29. Coolidge 29th
30. Hoover 30th
31. Roosevelt 31st
32. Truman 32nd
33. Eisenhower 33rd
34. Kennedy 34th
35. Johnson 35th
36. Nixon 36th
37. Ford 37th
38. Carter 38th
39. Reagan 39th
40. Bush 40th
41. Clinton 41st
42. Bush 42nd
43. unknown
Submitted by Free xbox 360 System (not verified) on Sat Nov. 1, 2008 2:44 PM PDT.
Who cares? Seems like your time could have been spent writing a better article.
Submitted by Dan Mortenson (not verified) on Sat Nov. 1, 2008 4:33 PM PDT.
At the risk of offending the offended, might I remind you all that YOU chose to read and comment on this article. The headline is accurate that the count has problems, if a bit misleading by implying that GWB is the source of the confusion...
I understand that you shop for cogent articles on MJ, and that this isn't really one of them.
However, if you took the time to comment, then you are part of the problem you are complaining about: YOU made it even more of a "waste of time" than it was before you commented!
If you truly think that a post has nothing to tell, then don't add to the list of people commenting about "nothing." If there are no responses to a post, MJ will "get it" on their own. After all, for the website, the count of comments is a much more useful tool than the actual text in those comments, which has to be waded through and evaluated.
But your post was worth it Dan?
Sorry. Each and every post is worth it.
I go with most of the posters here that this post is a bit trivial. Considering the glaringly abysmal mistakes, stupidities and gross crassness of the current president to say nothing of his crimes against humanity, the presidents mistakes in counting how many presidents we have had is quite forgiveable.
In any of my ponderings on the terms of George W. Bush, never will I consider if he's made an error in numbering presidents.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
