Delete comment from: Boston 1775
Bill, you write, “we have to realize that whatever Obama will really do about the economy, say, simply can't -- we have to hope! -- be found in the simplistic view of history he has been incessantly promoting.”
Indeed, the last place I hope any 2008 candidate would look for economic policy is in the eighteenth century. The policies and solutions of that time obviously don’t apply to our situation today.
In invoking the economic debates of the founding era, Obama seems to be doing two things. First, he’s trying to articulate principles from that period. Since history is immensely detailed and complex, it’s possible, given enough history, to support almost any principles one wants. However, we can nonetheless gauge what ideology Obama feels should be supported by how he interprets the past for us.
Second, Obama’s trying to use those references to root his ideas and himself in the American heritage, as all national candidates do. It’s part marketing, part genuine ideology.
Would good historians make good politicians? The last history professor we elected to the presidency was Woodrow Wilson. I believe the last one to be a major political figure was Newt Gingrich. Among major historians to hold political offices I can think of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., and George Bancroft. All of those men presented the American story as one of progress, liberty, and equality (as they chose to define it). Is it possible for a historian to be politically successful with any other point of view?
Mar 30, 2008, 8:54:00 PM
Posted to Barack Obama and the Founders