The Conservative war on history

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the Conservative war on science (AGW and Evolution being two examples), there are imaginary wars like John Gibson's/Oh Reallys supposed War on Christmas, but have any of you been watching books that have been relased of late that go far beyond Pat Buchannan's "Culture War" hyperbole and attacked history itself?

Two recent books have come to my attention. Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" and Bruce Bartlett's "Wrong On Race". I haven't read either, but as I've been listening to the media tour/promotion campeign for these books I'm starting to think most of the Conserative apparachnicks have taken the Ann Coulter modus operandi when it comes to writing about history.

My biggest problem with Goldberg is that he engages in fallacious equivocation. In a skreed before the Heritage Foundation I watched on bookTV, he noted that fascist political movements were nationalistic. He further noted that they nationalized infrastructure. He then noted that "nationalizing" infrastructure was the same as socializing it and therefore "Nationalism" = "Socialism". Am I the only one who sees a problem with that semantic game?

Bruce Barlett's sematicism is much more subtle, but is again rooted in equivocation. He spent a lot of his airtime (heard him on the radio) talking about Jefferson and Jackson as if they were representative of the Democratic party in 2007 and early Republicans as if they were representative of the Republican party in 2007. Let's leave the fact that Lincoln didn't become an abolitionist until he came to fully understand the depravity of slavery, but let's look at three periods - Reconstruction, the 1920s and the 1960s.

Reconstruction - where liberal Republicans punished the South for rebellion set the Republican party back 120 years until the 1980s. Conservatives in the South, especially those who supported segregation, Jim Crow and general racism against blacks could not be elected if they were "carpetbagger" Republicans. The Conservatives dominated the racist Democrat South. So for Conservatives to claim that racism in the South was eqivalent to the liberal Democratic party is just non-sense.

And then there's the KKK and the 1920s. Liberal northestern Republicans and Conservative southern Democrats... again, not the same political party affiliations came to loggerheads over Jim Crow. It was Conservatives not particularly Democrats or Republicans who encouraged lynchings and cross burnings.

Then we come to the Civil Rights Act. It was Democratic governors that stood on the steps of schoolhouses proclaiming Segregation forever, but they were Conservative Democrats - see my comment above about Reconstruction - not progressive or liberal Democrats or Republicans.

I'm sorry Jonah and Bruce, facism (aka Nationalism, not Nationalization) and racism has not been imposed by liberal or progressive or Democratic governments, but by Conservative ones. You cannot hijack history from those of us who have studied it.

[bigred]

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the Conservative war on science (AGW and Evolution being two examples), there are imaginary wars like John Gibson's/Oh Reallys supposed War on Christmas, but have any of you been watching books that have been relased of late that go far beyond Pat Buchannan's "Culture War" hyperbole and attacked history itself?
Afraid you lost me from the start. What is this "Conservative" entity you speak of? Some group or organization I'm not aware of? Surely you don't simply mean all people w/viewpoints that generally tend to be conservative - ??

Anyway, to answer your question, no. If I read your right, basically there are a couple of guys who wrote a book comparing Repubs/Dems of old to those today and saying they're the same-?

[Charlie Monoxide]

If it's any consolation, these douchebags are usually preaching to their own choirs ....

Charlie (who then further footnote their references a la Ann Coulter) MOnoxide

[Gazpacho]

Sorry US, but having fought my own battles with confederate apologists, I have to say it's just not that simple.

The southern democrats who promoted racism saw themselves as quite progressive, and were viewed as such by voters. They saw themselves as the great white fathers to black people who were incapable of helping themselves. I'd encourage you to read this transcript (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/filmmore/transcript/index.html) from a PBS program about George Wallace.

Highlights:
George Wallace has built trade schools all over this state. George Wallace has raised the salaries of teachers three times in a row. We have free textbooks in the schools. And look at the cad who’s running against George Wallace. I don’t care what my son is, I’m voting for George Wallace.

You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about n-----s, and they stomped the floor.

To give another very prominent example: Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat who co-opted progressivism to defeat Roosevelt and Taft in 1912. He is often seen as a forerunner of FDR. He was also a confederate apologist and the most segregationist president of the 20th century.

[Nogbad]

History has often been used as a way to make the past define the present and to pander to petty political prejudice.

It can be argued that any fresh look at a period or body of work is revisionist in that can, and often does, tease out a new and perhaps hitherto unnoticed or overlooked facet of the details. This is however quite different from an a priori position which itself determines the nature of the lens history is to be viewed through. A Marxist critique would traditionally lean more towards economic determinism whereas a more liberal historian would perhaps concentrate on the relationships between key players. Conservative historians of the sort being discussed (as opposed to classical conservative historians like Clark or even the modern Starkey) are simply using history as a tool to pursue current political ideologies. People like Irvine may wet the sponges of certain political groups but they cut little ice within the academic community of their chosen discipline. Likewise the works mentioned above may get breathless book reviews on Fox News but are more likely to earn an "Oh dear God!" in peer journals (if they even make the journals).

History as political propaganda is not new and has been used by both right and left but the only interesting thing about it is, ironically, its historical context in relation to the political arguments of the day. For example, a Nazi era school text book may be lamentable history but is a document worthy of study in its own right because of what it was trying to do. These books will fall into the same category - although obviously they do not attain the same levels of odious malevolence.

[dudalb]

I have seen plenty of "War On History" from the political left as well.
Having said that,the "Neo Confederates" are some of the worst crackpot historians out there.

The ability of some people to wear political blinders and see nothing but good on one side of the political spectrum and nothing but evil on the other drives me crazy.

[bigred]

The ability of some people to wear political blinders and see nothing but good on one side of the political spectrum and nothing but evil on the other drives me crazy.

:eek: FINALLY - someone else who feels this way.

It's all the rage though.

[Nogbad]

:eek: FINALLY - someone else who feels this way.

It's all the rage though.

It is pretty generally deplored in academic circles though. As an undergraduate I once veered down the economic determinism route in an essay and my tutor had a long chat with me about the pitfalls of blinkers. On reflection I am glad he did :)

[bigred]

It is pretty generally deplored in academic circles though.

We have obviously had quite different "academic circle" experiences.

[bruto]

Sorry US, but having fought my own battles with confederate apologists, I have to say it's just not that simple.

The southern democrats who promoted racism saw themselves as quite progressive, and were viewed as such by voters. They saw themselves as the great white fathers to black people who were incapable of helping themselves. I'd encourage you to read this transcript (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/filmmore/transcript/index.html) from a PBS program about George Wallace.

Highlights:




To give another very prominent example: Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat who co-opted progressivism to defeat Roosevelt and Taft in 1912. He is often seen as a forerunner of FDR. He was also a confederate apologist and the most segregationist president of the 20th century.Indeed, this part of history can be pretty tricky. Witness Robert Byrd, erstwhile Exalted Cyclops. Or J. William Fulbright, so right on so many issues, so wrong on others. Not simple for sure.

I must say as I get older, the revisionism of "history" that is part of my own lifetime becomes more and more irritating. The current conservative attempt to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy makes my blood boil! I've so far managed to skirt being suspended or banned responding to racists like XenonII, but I think "tailgunner Joe" might nudge me over to the dark side.

[Nogbad]

We have obviously had quite different "academic circle" experiences.

Yes, to be fair, after I wrote that a few examples of work that carried a health warning sprung to mind and it would seem reasonable to assume that the authors taught somewhere. We were encouraged not only to read widely but also to get a feel for the lens they were using to view events - extra Brownie points were awarded for good critques of the history and the lens used. It would have been a profoundly depressing experience of academia if we had been herded and driven down one route.

[proxywar]

http://www.amazon.com/Bamboozled-Americans-Exploited-Liberal-Agenda/dp/1595550909/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200990812&sr=8-2

I liked this book.

[NeilC]

I wouldn't have said that historical revisionism is limited to conservatives (not exactly sure who is included under that banner).

I've noticed the left framing history in their own way too. E.g. brusing over the role of black africans in the slave trade etc.

[Polaris]

Indeed, this part of history can be pretty tricky. Witness Robert Byrd, erstwhile Exalted Cyclops. Or J. William Fulbright, so right on so many issues, so wrong on others. Not simple for sure.

I must say as I get older, the revisionism of "history" that is part of my own lifetime becomes more and more irritating. The current conservative attempt to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy makes my blood boil! I've so far managed to skirt being suspended or banned responding to racists like XenonII, but I think "tailgunner Joe" might nudge me over to the dark side.

That anybody's buying that attempt just says to me that a better job needs to be done explaining why he was a monster and why Venona doesn't let him off the hook that easily. Maybe it's just me but it seems like every time he's brought up in popular culture and very frequently in academia, it's just assumed everybody knows they're supposed to hate him and understands why. That assumption leaves a gap for a creature like Coulter to come along and declare the whole thing a "neo-Commie smear campaign" or what have you to the ignorant.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Some of you are taking me to task with what I meant when I used the word "Conservative".

I'm referring to the people who refer to John McCain as a "liberal" or who, like a writer to the Dallas Morning News back in 1991 or so, objected to a story describing Kremlin "conservatives" since you couldn't be a communist and a conserative.

I guess as a moderate and political science student, I delve into Conservative talk radio and think tanks waaaay to much for the general, thinking public to not know which particular group I was referring to in my OP.