Analysis & Opinions - The New York Times
Historians Shouldn’t Be Pundits
Donald Trump might be disastrous for most Americans and a danger to the world, but he has been a boon to historians. The more grotesque his presidency appears, the more historians are called on to make sense of it, often in 30-second blasts on cable news or in quick-take quotes in a news article.
As a historian, I’m glad to see my profession getting some much deserved publicity. But I also worry about the rapid-fire, superficial way history is being presented, as if it’s mostly a matter of drawing historical analogies. The result is that readers and viewers get history lessons that are often misleading when it comes to Mr. Trump, and shed little light on our current travails.
This is partly because this is not what historians should be doing. We teach our students to be wary of analogies, which are popular with politicians and policy makers (who choose them to serve their agendas) but often distort both the past and the present.
To take just one example, during his campaign, Mr. Trump was frequently compared to Huey Long, the Depression-era governor of Louisiana. Sure, there are similarities: Like Mr. Trump, Long ran in the name of the “people,” attacked the establishment and was labeled a demagogue and fascist by his critics. But the differences are even more important: Long was self-made, a genuine populist who took on powerful interests, and as governor was responsible for building roads, bridges and hospitals and helping the poor. He never engaged in race baiting — astonishing for a populist Southern politician in that era. The point isn’t that Mr. Trump is or is not like Long (and he’s not); it’s that the analogy is meaningless.
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.
For more information on this publication:
Belfer Communications Office
For Academic Citation:
Temkin, Moshik.“Historians Shouldn’t Be Pundits.” The New York Times, June 26, 2017.
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Magazine Article
- The Atlantic
Why the President Needs a Council of Historians
Analysis & Opinions
- Nation
Ferguson, Human Rights and America's Interests Abroad
Analysis & Opinions
- Los Angeles Times
How to Kill the Death Penalty
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Analysis & Opinions
- New Straits Times
Gorbachev and the End of the Cold War
Report
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea: A Practical Guide
Journal Article
- Research Policy
The Relationship Between Science and Technology
Donald Trump might be disastrous for most Americans and a danger to the world, but he has been a boon to historians. The more grotesque his presidency appears, the more historians are called on to make sense of it, often in 30-second blasts on cable news or in quick-take quotes in a news article.
As a historian, I’m glad to see my profession getting some much deserved publicity. But I also worry about the rapid-fire, superficial way history is being presented, as if it’s mostly a matter of drawing historical analogies. The result is that readers and viewers get history lessons that are often misleading when it comes to Mr. Trump, and shed little light on our current travails.
This is partly because this is not what historians should be doing. We teach our students to be wary of analogies, which are popular with politicians and policy makers (who choose them to serve their agendas) but often distort both the past and the present.
To take just one example, during his campaign, Mr. Trump was frequently compared to Huey Long, the Depression-era governor of Louisiana. Sure, there are similarities: Like Mr. Trump, Long ran in the name of the “people,” attacked the establishment and was labeled a demagogue and fascist by his critics. But the differences are even more important: Long was self-made, a genuine populist who took on powerful interests, and as governor was responsible for building roads, bridges and hospitals and helping the poor. He never engaged in race baiting — astonishing for a populist Southern politician in that era. The point isn’t that Mr. Trump is or is not like Long (and he’s not); it’s that the analogy is meaningless.
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Magazine Article - The Atlantic
Why the President Needs a Council of Historians
Analysis & Opinions - Nation
Ferguson, Human Rights and America's Interests Abroad
Analysis & Opinions - Los Angeles Times
How to Kill the Death Penalty
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Analysis & Opinions - New Straits Times
Gorbachev and the End of the Cold War
Report - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea: A Practical Guide
Journal Article - Research Policy
The Relationship Between Science and Technology