The Role of Historians in Public Affairs

 All views in this blog are my own and represent the views of no other person, organization, or institution.

I'm on leave today. Not working.  

So, this article is interesting. 

I'm interested in what other historians think of this article. 

I've generally found Heather Cox Richardson's "Letters from an American" insightful and useful. I'm a historian myself, yet as my historian friends know, I have nowhere near her reputation within the field or with the general public. I'm often very critical of other historians, but I have mostly found her essays connecting current American politics to the past insightful. She especially has a solid grasp on the history of white supremacy and authoritarianism in the United States. She is a recognized authority on American political history.

On the other hand, as a military historian I have found her foreign policy analysis a bit basic, not wrong exactly but not as insightful as her other work. And I have certainly found her to be too much of a fan of Biden, she cuts him slack when he probably should be criticized a bit (on Afghanistan, for example).

I agree with the article, she should not have made the statement claiming historical precedent concerning our current political situation this past weekend - that stepped from historian offering analysis to flat-out campaigning for Biden. The election contest between Biden and Trump is unprecedented in American history, and you have to be even more careful then usual when using history to understand it. 

But William Hogeland is definitely making a more extensive argument here, his point concerns the role of historians in public affairs and the uses of history. History never repeats itself, drawing lessons from history is difficult - ironically, history is littered with examples of people who based their actions on "lessons" they drew from history and failed spectacularly. On the other hand, my own work only exists because the military needs to draw concrete lessons from history - a practical use of history that many academic historians flat-out reject. 

In his article he implies that Richardson should be addressing the current crisis in the liberal arts that has slammed the American higher education system. I'm not certain that her work is not addressing those issues, albeit indirectly. 

More to the point, since Trump and the Heritage Foundation have adopted the Communist policy of rewriting history to suit their personal desires, who is supposed to oppose that? If historians like Richardson are not speaking up, who will correct the outright historical lies?  

The Trump Supreme Court has shown what lawyers will do to to history if no one opposes them, what will historians do to protect it? 

This turned more partisan than I intended when I began writing it. A useful lesson in how a historian of Richardson's skill might make a misstep like she did this past weekend. I think I would prefer the occasional mistake of that sort to silence in an ivory tower. 

I just don't see Hogeland offering a practical alternative. 

All views in this blog are my own and represent the views of no other person, organization, or institution.