As a companion to Eric’s post below, Kevin Murphy offered a helpful survey of the recent efforts among conservatives to say exceedingly dumb things about the past. (He wrote it a week ago, but [insert several tedious excuses here on the subject of infants and toddlers and the howling nexus thereof, plus some stuff about grading and general existential lethargy] and so I’m just beginning to catch up on my rss feeds.)
I don’t know if there’s something qualitatively unique about the historical butchery that’s dominated right wing discourse during the first few months of the Obama administration. As Eric and many others have been chronicling across the internets, the history of Great Depression and New Deal have been grotesquely misrepresented in a variety of venues — like cable news, the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal — that the young and/or the gullible continue to revere. As a result, my US survey course this semester had to devote a non-trivial amount of time to refuting an array of wingnut talking points about the causes, consequences and cures of the Great Depression. And yeah, I had to explain who Amity Shlaes is and why she’s properly regarded as a dishonest hack. In a way, though, it was a useful exercise, particularly to the degree that it allowed us to think about how historical knowledge matters to debates about public policy; to discuss historical methods in a preliminary way; and to raise questions about what historical study can and can’t teach us about the past. I was also able to make use of all the new economic history I’ve been trying to learn recently (e.g., Eric’s book, DeLong’s podcast), since that’s an area that’s been an enduring weak spot in my teaching.
But Murphy’s post covers material that isn’t even close to being serviceable. The Bush era took an especially awful toll on popular historical memory — a gentle casualty compared to all the rest — and perhaps their unreconstructed endorsement of the war on Iraq liberated a certain species of conservative to develop an entirely new, Rumsfeldian lifestyle oriented around the absence of evidence. It’s a remarkable thing, but they make people like Amity Shlaes seem like honest sparring partners.
12 comments
April 29, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Andy Vance
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
April 29, 2009 at 5:03 pm
kevin
Great links, both the one in the post and the first comment.
April 29, 2009 at 6:35 pm
davenoon
Another great link here, kevin.
April 29, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Urk
“As a result, my US survey course this semester had to devote a non-trivial amount of time to refuting an array of wingnut talking points about the causes, consequences and cures of the Great Depression.”
you know, I almost wish that this was more the case in the intro American studies sections that I TA. That is, I’d rather have them bring up those points for discussion/refutation than have them sit back and not say much because they figure that I’m part of the elite liberal establishment that’s trying to indoctrinate them.
April 29, 2009 at 7:30 pm
kid bitzer
topic for a post:
how much of obama’s success at press conferences has to do with his having been a teacher?
seems to me that a lot of what he does, analytically, is what a good teacher does (esp. in seminar or ‘socratic’ style teaching).
he listens. he rephrases. he separates out parts of complex questions. he keeps the focus on productive topics, ignores the dead ends.
granted, he is really, really good at it. and granted, no amount of technique can elevate you to that level of good. he’s also just very smart, clear, and confident. (and he does it with some of the least promising, dim-witted, contentious, entitled toddlers for ‘students’ that any teacher has ever had to deal with).
still, when i see him in action, part of what i see is a prof. yeah, a law prof as it happens. but many other types of humanities prof as well.
April 29, 2009 at 7:48 pm
kevin
Another great link here, kevin.
You’re too kind, Dave. Are you sure you’re friends with Eric and Ari?
April 29, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Urk
Bitzer, I see the same thing & that’s much of what I like. He has the mad socratic skilz.
April 30, 2009 at 10:34 am
herbert browne
My thanks to Andy for the link (“Bush, the dakini of stubborness” O yeah!)… and to Dave for allowing as how academics are susceptible to Spring Fever (hooda thunkit?). I had the same thought about Prof. Obama, last night, while listening to him respond to the newshounds.
While I couldn’t capture the link, I watched a clip of Rep. Foxx (R. NC)
postulate that the anti-hate-crimes bill bearing Matthew Shepard’s name was “a hoax”, because he was only a robbery victim… and not savaged for allegedly being gay. (I’m not sure of her Winston-Salem constituency, but she appears to project a certain archetype which brought to mind some SNL skits…) ^..^
April 30, 2009 at 10:51 am
bitchphd
KB, I completely agree. And I sort of suspect that it’s not just about press conferences, but also a big part of his enormous popularity. For whatever crazy-ass reason, the Rs have decided to be the party that deliberately embraces ignorance, and while there is definitely a sizable minority of America (and probably everywhere) that’s fully on board with “I may not know much but I know what I believe,” I think *most* people would really rather be led by someone who seems to actually think that governing requires facts and nuance, and who respects our ability to understand stuff, in general if not in all the details.
April 30, 2009 at 12:30 pm
jazzbumpa
Not being an academic-type, I missed Dr. Obama’s professoriality. From my perspective, he’s thoughtful, thorough, unflappable, and really on top of his game. He’s also forthright, and realizes he has an important job with (if i can borrow a phrase from Sarah Palin) real responsibilities.
Unlike his predecessor.
I reluctantly admit that W. was not quite the mental midget I prefer to think of him as, but isn’t it an irony the we had arguably the dumbest president ever sandwiched between probably the two most brilliant?!?
April 30, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Vance
probably the two most brilliant
Trolling our beloved blog, jb? What would Ari say?
May 4, 2009 at 3:54 am
Platypus
Not to make your collective heads explode, but this video from the Republican re-branding tour has potentially the most inane statement I’ve heard in years regarding education:
Here’s part of the question, “I mean quite honestly I think people learn more from listening to Rush Limbaugh’s show than they do in high school and college.”
And yes, the answer from Jeb Bush involves Shlaes.
Here’s the link to the video via crooksandliars:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/gop-listening-gives-jeb-bush-some-answers