Week of Dec. 10, 2007

Who could refute Professor David Cannadine's argument that politicians would benefit from a rigorous study of history? Is it not obvious that our political masters would be far better placed to make the right choices if they knew how disastrously badly their predecessors had chosen? Did not George Santayana succinctly and truthfully point out a century ago that"those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"? And what could be wrong with putting policy-makers in touch with a network of engaged and learned historians, or even appointing a"Chief Historical Adviser" to Whitehall? Nothing. Unless we end up resurrecting that most dubious of species: the court historian.

One can imagine what a tempting offer it would be for a scholar. Think of the unimpeded access to primary sources. Consider the unique insights into the minds of the powerful. And did not Suetonius make a good fist of it? Ah, but the pitfalls! Politicians are unlikely to choose a scholar who will tell them that history is not on their side. They will want a courtier or, worse, a propagandist. And decent historians are constitutionally unable to perform either of those functions. A few bad, or vain, ones might be tempted, though.

Historians would be better advised to stick to the library (or, increasingly, the TV studio) rather than dabbling in the treacherous waters of politics. Let future generations of political leaders, rather than the present crop, reap the fruits of their insights and objectivity. After all, the important thing about good history is that it never goes out of date.

I have never disagreed with a book more than I have with The Secret History of the World. It is not just sloppily edited and littered with errors of fact: it is morally disingenuous. 'Jonathan Black' is the nom de plume of Mark Booth, head of Century, an imprint of the publishers Random House.

For many years, Booth has commissioned titles built around 'alternative' history and conspiracy theories. Now he has written a 'history' of civilisation that repeats some of the wildest claims of his authors and throws in some new ones of his own, such as the assertion that Pope John Paul II was a secret adept of an esoteric cult.

[I]t seems to me you have your Holocaust deniers, and then you have -- not to sound like [University of Alabama head football coach] Nick Saban ... I apologize already for saying this ... then you have your Giuliani deniers. And Giuliani deniers will tell you he had nothing to do with September 11th. Giuliani deniers will tell you he had nothing to do with cleaning up New York City in the 1990s.

It's not exactly reassuring to hear White House press secretary Dana Perino confess that, when asked by a reporter, she didn't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was.

Her theory?"It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I'm pretty sure."

Oprah Is to Iraq as Cronkite Was to Vietnam

To paraphrase Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for many people now, the only thing to fear is the politics of fear itself.

The irony of the week is that Oprah Winfrey has come out strongly for Barack Obama as president. Why is that ironic? Because the subtext of Oprah's television show is that men are unreliable and women have to stick together.

So she supports a man for president in preference to another woman.

I like Obama very much, it is no reflection on him. But I think Oprah has some splainin' to do.