A place for people interested in US presidential/political history.
Historians Against Trump
I'm not sure if you have seen the article from the Times, but Ken Burns and David McCullough have gathered togethers some of our most prominent presidential historians/biographers to make their opposition to Donald Trump known.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/nyregion/donald-trump-david-mccullough-ken-burns.html
I'm curious what you all think of historians making this kind of judgment on the present moment. Obviously they are free to say what they want, but are they overstepping? Does their historical work give them a better insight on one's suitability for the office?




Historians have a right to their opinion just like everyone else. And I certainly believe that they have a special insight with the amount of research and writing they have accomplished in their lives.
If they feel it will sway people to their point of view, more power to them.
I would also point out that more than a few of the presidential bios I have read contain a decidedly favorable point of view of the subject. So, it's not like these historians don't already have their own opinions.
I tend to agree with you, Mike. It's always struck me as odd that there's an assumption that any writer -- journalist or historian-- is somehow capable of being purely objective.
As a lover of history, I want us to place current moments in context, whenever possible. And I think Burns, McCullough, and the others are doing an admirable job of that.
The very idea of being completely objective is, in my opinion, laughable. Everyone is biased. To paraphrase E.H. Carr, historians are people and are molded by their individual experiences, the environment in which they are raised, the cultures to which they are exposed, and the society to which they belong. All of that is naturally going to shape the way in which historians process and interpret history. That being said, historians are supposed to be trained to realize and reflect upon their bias so as to be more aware of themselves as they interpret and write about history.
You said it better than I could have.
This is a great article, but unfortunately the people who are going to vote for Donald Trump - or those like him - won't read it.
I think you're right. My hunch is that this is more about getting people to vote who might not otherwise. More than swaying Trump supporters, that is.
It was interesting to see recently Andrew Roberts, the author of the wonderful Napoleon biography, spend time as a pro-leave Brexit talking head. I'd never seen a historian have much of an opinion about forthcoming issues, as opposed to being retrospective about something (even recent history).
I guess I agree with a lot of the comments, but I have to say that I think that presidential historians would probably bias toward presidents continuing to fall into a mold, for better or worse. I don't think they have any better insight about future presidents negotiating unknown problems. Wish they could!
Also @smelliso85 is totally right, trump supporters don't give a shit what Ken Burns and McCullough say about him, if anything it'll fit right into their anti-media narrative.
Hmmm, Historians against Trump? Should have read Academics against Capitalists. Does a day go by when there is some news of university administration caving (with pleasure) to some ridicules demand? "Caucasians can't cut their hair in something which MIGHT be traditional Black"? Some one writes "Trump" and some little girl demands it be removed and anyone/everyone get visits to a shrink? Welcome to Wonderland Alice.........
Not sure what your point has to do with individual historians making an argument based on their vast personal experience studying politics/history.