Today's Choice: One Damned Election After Another Or Thoughtful Political History

The following essay about the demise of political history in US college and university classrooms did not mention the best practitioner in political history of the 20th century: Richard Hofstadter (1916-1970) known in this blog as St. Richard. This blogger first encountered St. Richard through his second book, The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It (1948, 1973, 1976, 1989). As far as this blogger is concerned, St. Richard is the gold standard for US political history. If this is (fair & balanced) Cliocentric appreciation, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
Why Did We Stop Teaching Political History?
By Fredrik Logevall and Kenneth Osgood

TagCrowd cloud of the following piece of writing

academic advertising america american career change college courses democratic departments doings dominant drying easy educate elected fell fewer governing graduate historian historical history important leaders list making movements nation party past policy political priority process profession role school specialized story students study subject teachers teaching turn understand universities vital women

created at TagCrowd.com

American political history, it would seem, is everywhere. Hardly a day passes without some columnist comparing Donald J. Trump to Huey Long, Father Coughlin or George Wallace. “All the Way,” a play about Lyndon B. Johnson, won a slew of awards and was turned into an HBO film.

But the public’s love for political stories belies a crisis in the profession. American political history as a field of study has cratered. Fewer scholars build careers on studying the political process, in part because few universities make space for them. Fewer courses are available, and fewer students are exposed to it. What was once a central part of the historical profession, a vital part of this country’s continuing democratic discussion, is disappearing.

This wasn’t always the case. Political history — a specialization in elections and elected officials, policy and policy making, parties and party politics — was once a dominant, if not the dominant, pursuit of American historians. Many of them, in turn, made vital contributions to the political process itself, whether it was Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s role in the Kennedy White House or C. Vann Woodward’s The Strange Career of Jim Crow (1955, 2002), which the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. called the “bible of the civil rights movement.”

But somewhere along the way, such work fell out of favor with history departments. According to the American Historical Association’s listing of academic departments, three-quarters of colleges and universities now lack full-time researchers and teachers in the subject.

There appears to be little effort to fill the void. A search of the leading website advertising academic jobs in history, H-Net, yielded just 15 advertisements in the last 10 years specifically seeking a tenure-track, junior historian specializing in American political history. That’s right: just 15 new jobs in the last decade.

As a result, the study of America’s political past is being marginalized. Many college catalogs list precious few specialized courses on the subject, and survey courses often give scant attention to political topics. The pipelines for new PhDs in the subject, and therefore new faculty, are drying up, and in many graduate programs one can earn a doctorate in American history with little exposure to politics.

How did it come to this? The trend began in the 1960s. America’s misadventure in Vietnam led to broad questioning of elite decision making and conventional politics, and by extension those historical narratives that merely recounted the doings of powerful men. Likewise, the movements of the 1960s and 1970s by African-Americans, Latinos, women, homosexuals and environmental activists brought a new emphasis on history from the bottom up, spotlighting the role of social movements in shaping the nation’s past.

The long overdue diversification of the academy also fostered changing perspectives. As a field once dominated by middle-class white males opened its doors to women, minorities and people from working-class backgrounds, recovering the lost experiences of these groups understandably became priority No. 1.

These transformations enriched the national story. But they also carried costs. Perceived “traditional” types of history that examined the doings of governing elites fell into disfavor, and political history suffered the effects (as did its cousins, diplomatic and military history).

The ramifications extend well beyond higher education. The drying up of scholarly expertise affects universities’ ability to educate teachers — as well as aspiring lawyers, politicians, journalists and business leaders — who will enter their professions having learned too little about the nation’s political history. Not least, in this age of extreme partisanship, they’ll be insufficiently aware of the importance that compromise has played in America’s past, of the vital role of mutual give-and-take in the democratic process.

Change will not be easy, and will not come from history departments facing tight budgets and competing demands. What is needed, to begin with, is for university administrators to identify political history as a priority, for students and families to lobby their schools, for benefactors to endow professorships and graduate fellowships and for lawmakers and school boards to enact policies that bolster its teaching — and without politicizing the enterprise.

This matters. Knowledge of our political past is important because it can serve as an antidote to the misuse of history by our leaders and save us from being bamboozled by analogies, by the easy “lessons of the past.” It can make us less egocentric by showing us how other politicians and governments in other times have responded to division and challenge. And it can help us better understand the likely effects of our actions, a vital step in the acquisition of insight and maturity.

Judging by the state of our political discourse during this dismal campaign season, the change can’t come soon enough. Ω

[Fredrik Logevall is the Laurence D. Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School and also Professor of History in the Department of History of Harvard University. His most important book to date is Embers of War: The Fall of an Empire and the Making of America’s Vietnam (2012), which won the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for History and the 2013 Francis Parkman Prize, as well as the 2013 American Library in Paris Book Award and the 2013 Arthur Ross Book Award from the Council on Foreign Relations. Longevall received a BA (political science) from Simon Fraser University, an MA (history) from the Univesity of Oregon, and a PhD (foreign relations history) from Yale University.

Kenneth Osgood is Professor of History and Director of the McBride Honors Program in Public Affairs at the Colorado School of Mines. He also is the associate editor of the journal Diplomatic History, and a series editor of Palgrave’s History of the Media series. He has written Total Cold War: Eisenhower’s Secret Propaganda Battle at Home and Abroad (2006), winner of the Herbert Hoover Book Award for best book on any aspect of US history during the early 20th century. Osgood received a BA (history, magna cum laude) from the University of Notre Dame, and both an MA and PhD (history) from the University of California at Santa Barbara.]

Copyright © 2016 The New York Times Company




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2016 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves