I was just looking at the lineup of new articles on HNN. Not surprisingly the election’s big. Perhaps a bit more surprisingly they are just about all on foreign policy. Most surprising, and disconcerting, with the exception of Judy Rubin’s discussion of anti-Americanism, they are all Bush-bashers.

Now, as an opponent of Bush, perhaps I should simply conclude that no rational historian can support him. But that’s BS. Heck, if I had to, I could sit down and create a pro-Bush article. It wouldn’t be that strong, but, still, I could do it. So why isn’t there one on HNN by someone whose heart is in it?

I’m pretty sure that HNN is not to blame. The HNN editor is to a considerable extent the prisoner of submissions. If the lack of pro-Bush submissions is the problem, perhaps this is an example of the weakness of blogs and the web in general. People opt for forums where they find support for their ideas and leave the ones where the majority of posters are opposed to his or her views.

That also may indicate the increasingly strident rants on both sides. The election is Armageddon!
The fate of the world and the fate of all our hopes and dreams hinge upon it!
Ruin or renewal! Good or Evil!
You get the drift. You know the drift.

And I feel it. As I wrote those phrases in italics, I felt the messed-up-stomach-adrenaline-surge of a person who thinks that it may be true. If Bush wins, we remain stuck with a bad war administrated incompetently and with a vision of society in which everything in the lives of most people gets subordinated to an ceaseless economic scramble in which there are fewer and fewer victories that last more than a day.

But if both sides go on thinking that way, then we will almost certainly come out of the election with a country filled with anger. The losers will use every opportunity to kneecap the winners, and the winners will be tempted to more and more extreme tactics to discredit the losers.

Am I wrong that as academics and historians we should, at least occasionally, lean against such a trend? That we should work even harder to understand those opposed to us not simply for its own sake but as a lesson to others in a better way to think and decide?

I don’t ask scholars not to state the reasons why they support or oppose someone. Such public commentary is a legitimate activity. But if Bush is not the chosen of God, as some of his supporters think, neither is he the anti-Christ. He’s a man, supported by many people who are decent and have decent goals. Maybe those of us who oppose him should remember that in our comments on occasion, even when we don’t get the same respect in return.

If the ethic alone isn’t a good enough reason, consider this. A reputation of restraint makes criticism more telling.