Sean Wilentz and Julian E. Zelizer: Teaching 'W' as History
[Sean Wilentz is a professor of history at Princeton University and author of The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008 (Harper, 2008) and Bob Dylan in America, to be published by Doubleday in September. Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs and author of Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security—From World War II to the War on Terrorism (Basic Books, 2010) and editor of The Presidency of George W. Bush: A First Historical Assessment, to be released by Princeton University Press in September.]
Even before the 2008 election, debate had begun about how President George W. Bush would be remembered in American history. There were many reasons that so many people were so quickly interested in Bush's historical reputation. Given how intensely polarized voters were about his presidency, it was natural that experts and pundits would scramble to evaluate it. Bush's spectacular highs and lows—the stratospheric rise in his public approval following the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the erosion of that support by 2005—seemed to beg for explication and assessment. Our media age's round-the-clock coverage and weakness for superlatives has also encouraged perpetual introspection, and often sensationalized reporting, about Washington.
We plead guilty to sharing this interest. Both of us teach American history at Princeton University, and both of us were among the first historians to jump into the debate over Bush. In addition to op-ed pieces and quotations for news stories, Sean wrote a cover story for Rolling Stone in 2006 that asked if Bush was the worst president in American history. In addition to his own commentary pieces, Julian convened a small conference of historians, whose papers placing Bush's presidency in broader historical context will be published in the fall. Both of us have recently published books—Sean on the age of Reagan and Julian on the politics of national security since World War II—that end with President Bush and begin the process of situating him in long-range political narratives....
Indeed, the challenge of contemporary history has been of growing interest to the historical profession. Scholars have often shied away from the recent past, feeling that they have not had enough time to gain a perspective on times they have lived through or to understand which events are of truly enduring importance, and which not. But in recent years, more historians have been questioning those presumptions, realizing that the markers distinguishing history from current events are often artificial, and that some of the best work on periods like the New Deal was written soon after the moments passed. The startling fall of Communism in the 1980s and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, pushed historians to realize that events transpiring before their eyes called for some kind of historical analysis to make sense of them....
Together, such works offer broad contours for serious historical debate that can engage undergraduates. Above all, they show that most college programs in United States history will need to start extending their time frames later into the 20th century—and even into the 21st—if they are to make the world and the national realities we live with even vaguely comprehensible....
A seminar like ours is just the beginning of the conversation—of both the Bush presidency and the study of contemporary history. Political questions are too often left in the hands of economists, political scientists, and other social scientists. But historical analysis is extraordinarily valuable as well. Analyzing our recent political past is not just an important intellectual exercise. It can help scholars, policy makers, and citizens gain a stronger foundation for making vital political decisions in the coming years....
Read entire article at CHE
Even before the 2008 election, debate had begun about how President George W. Bush would be remembered in American history. There were many reasons that so many people were so quickly interested in Bush's historical reputation. Given how intensely polarized voters were about his presidency, it was natural that experts and pundits would scramble to evaluate it. Bush's spectacular highs and lows—the stratospheric rise in his public approval following the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the erosion of that support by 2005—seemed to beg for explication and assessment. Our media age's round-the-clock coverage and weakness for superlatives has also encouraged perpetual introspection, and often sensationalized reporting, about Washington.
We plead guilty to sharing this interest. Both of us teach American history at Princeton University, and both of us were among the first historians to jump into the debate over Bush. In addition to op-ed pieces and quotations for news stories, Sean wrote a cover story for Rolling Stone in 2006 that asked if Bush was the worst president in American history. In addition to his own commentary pieces, Julian convened a small conference of historians, whose papers placing Bush's presidency in broader historical context will be published in the fall. Both of us have recently published books—Sean on the age of Reagan and Julian on the politics of national security since World War II—that end with President Bush and begin the process of situating him in long-range political narratives....
Indeed, the challenge of contemporary history has been of growing interest to the historical profession. Scholars have often shied away from the recent past, feeling that they have not had enough time to gain a perspective on times they have lived through or to understand which events are of truly enduring importance, and which not. But in recent years, more historians have been questioning those presumptions, realizing that the markers distinguishing history from current events are often artificial, and that some of the best work on periods like the New Deal was written soon after the moments passed. The startling fall of Communism in the 1980s and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, pushed historians to realize that events transpiring before their eyes called for some kind of historical analysis to make sense of them....
Together, such works offer broad contours for serious historical debate that can engage undergraduates. Above all, they show that most college programs in United States history will need to start extending their time frames later into the 20th century—and even into the 21st—if they are to make the world and the national realities we live with even vaguely comprehensible....
A seminar like ours is just the beginning of the conversation—of both the Bush presidency and the study of contemporary history. Political questions are too often left in the hands of economists, political scientists, and other social scientists. But historical analysis is extraordinarily valuable as well. Analyzing our recent political past is not just an important intellectual exercise. It can help scholars, policy makers, and citizens gain a stronger foundation for making vital political decisions in the coming years....