Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
This summer's edition of the Claremont Review of Books is out. Yours truly has a piece reviewing a book by Steve Knott -- Rush to Judgment: George W. Bush, the War on Terror, and His Critics -- that details how the historical profession went crazy in its opposition to the Bush Administration.
Here are the first few paragraphs of my review, to tempt the interested reader:
President Barack Obama has many supporters, but none more fervent than academics. Professors' donations to political campaigns run about three or four to one in favor of Democrats. According to a recent study, the ratio of registered Democrats to Republicans at the University of California, Berkeley (where I teach), is 17 to 1 in the humanities and 21 to 1 in the social sciences. Apparently, the figure is only 4 to 1 in the professional schools, which leads me to wonder: where are they all hiding?
According to Naval War College professor Stephen F. Knott, this radical and unhealthy imbalance does not just register in voting rolls, but has infected the substance of presidential studies. In Rush to Judgment: George W. Bush, the War on Terror, and His Critics, Knott shows that the Bush Administration could claim constitutional support for its controversial terrorism policies from Franklin Roosevelt to Abraham Lincoln back to Alexander Hamilton. But he goes further. He also calls to account the many historians, both professional and popular, whose criticism of the 43rd president "bordered on the unprofessional and made a mockery of the principle of academic objectivity."
These are not just obscure academic historians who are screaming as loudly as possible in order to get noticed. Rather, Knott reproduces embarrassingly biased statements from some of the leading lights of the profession, such as Sean Wilentz (Princeton), Eric Foner (Columbia), Robert Dallek (Boston University), Joyce Appleby (UCLA), Joseph Ellis (Mount Holyoke), Douglas Brinkley (Rice), H.W. Brands (Texas), Garry Wills (Northwestern), Jack Rakove (Stanford), and, of course, the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Knott, in other words, names names. He lets their own words display the "visceral animus some American historians felt toward the Bush-Cheney ‘regime.'"
I think the CRB should be in every conservative's inbox -- it's a measured view of books in politics, philosophy, history, the classics, and constitutional law. This issue features articles by Charles Kesler, Mark Helperin, Jonah Goldberg, Steve Hayward, Ramesh Ponnuru, Claire Berlinski, Joe Epstein, and Harvey Mansfield, among others.
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
I don't know if it was the historians d0ing it, but it was particularly irritating to me when the pundits implied that Vice President Cheney's opinions on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were related to the fortunes of Halliburton. Cheney made it clear, and continued to make it clear, that he divested himself from Halliburton. Their success or failure affected his personal fortune not one bit. He was receiving a fixed payment over time--a type of annuity--as part of his retirement from Halliburton, but the amount wouldn't change if Halliburton went broke, or if Halliburton bought Exxon. The amount of his retirement income was carved in stone before he became Vice President. Beyond insulting his character, bad enough, they were just plain lying for political advantage. That's just one example of the undeserved accusations that Bush and Cheney had to put up with.
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
The Claremont Review of Books just arrived in my mailbox yesterday. I look forward to starting with Professor Yoo's article this evening after dinner.
Dec '11
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
I never understood why the left lost their mind over Bush. He was a pretty moderate guy.
Apr '11
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
<<<According to a recent study, the ratio of registered Democrats to Republicans at the University of California, Berkeley (where I teach), is 17 to 1 in the humanities and 21 to 1 in the social sciences. Apparently, the figure is only 4 to 1 in the professional schools, which leads me to wonder: where are they all hiding?>>>
You don't mention the hard sciences. My daughter is matriculating at Berkeley this week, intending to major in microbiology. I'm hoping that the sciences are not as much a part of the "Indoctrinate U." from which Ricochet and NRO have been such a help to me in trying to innoculate her.
Her first class of the term will be "Drugs and the Brain". I can't wait to find out what the lab assignments are like.
Her dorm is one officially designated as "substance free"---no drugs or alcohol allowed. I guess that means she has to visit a different dorm to do her biology 'homework'.
Seriously, though, are the hard sciences faculties less deranged?
May '10
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
Welcome to the party. The National Association of Scholars compiled a lengthy report documenting the fact that bias at the University of California is so extreme that it precludes obtaining a good education in the arts and humanities and social sciences. They point out that, even if you are a liberal, you can't get a good education in liberalism because the bias excludes the competition of ideas that would make liberals sharper. The result is that the product of UC's arts, humanities, and social sciences is not only biased, it is mediocre.
And as one who worked in the UC system for more than 35 years, it isn't a new problem.
Mar '12
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
Thanks, John. I'm a longtime subscriber to the CRB -- it's my favorite publication -- and will look forward to reading your piece in this edition.
Aug '10
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
Doctor John,
I highly recommend the Summer 2011 issue, specifically The Chosen One.
This is an article that the country needs read to them .
BDS is as serious as it is sincere , ploddingly apparatchik . Mass stupidity vamping as some kind of faux collective realpolitik .
Jun '10
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
Ditto. Don't you think a lot of it was liberal insanity over the 2000 election? I don't put W in my pantheon of great presidents, but he is a fundamentally decent man who did a mostly good job in trying times. I can't say the same if his successor.
The idea that he or Cheney were evil is an obvious derangement syndrome.
Yesterday on the Member Feed I expressed how much I love the CRB. As everything moves to digital format, I can only hope it will continue to be published in its distinctive tabloid format. I just feels right in the hand.
Edited on August 23, 2012 at 4:06amAug '12
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
My suspicion is that they went nuts because he was so civil and moderate. If he'd come out taking an axe to the welfare state, lowering taxes exclusively or disproportionately on "the rich," using scorched-earth tactics in the GWoT, and accusing his opponents of a lack of patriotism, they could've sat back and felt smug, with their preconceptions validated.
The rage and the accusations we saw would then have been a substitute for that validation.
Oct '10
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
I couldn't agree more. A truly superb publication from a dynamite organization.
Moderate, perhaps, but definitely a member of America's Ruling Class: I lost my mind as he proposed and implemented more and more liberal ideas, the worst being a) attempting to become the world's policeman instead of focusing narrowly on our national interest, and b) buying off the libs in the media and elsewhere with the Medicare prescription drug giveaway.
Mar '11
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
One of the reasons I stopped reading the History News Network site was that for awhile they more or less became a Daily Kos with PhD's. I just couldn't stand the Moonbattery anymore. And HNN is sponsored by George Mason U., which doesn't have the reputation for leftism that many other schools do. But the leftist voices were the loudest voices. Lots of "worst president ever" stuff before Bush had even left office.
Apr '11
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
Jubal
My suspicion is that they went nuts becausehe was so civil and moderate.
Isn't it strange that the two most absolutely despised Republicans - Nixon and George W -- were also among the most liberal? I don't think the left is able to conjure up that degree of frothing anger over conservatives like, say, Reagan or Goldwater. (Though I guess we'll see what happens to Paul Ryan soon enough;-)
Nov '10
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
Thanks John, I researched CRB this morning and signed up. Sorry I have not done this sooner.
Aug '12
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
I suppose we should prepare for RDS - Ryan Derangement Syndrome, or should it be R2DS (Romney-Ryan)? I'm tempted to encourage other conservatives to help defend them, but the MSM (along with these liberal nutcase professors) don't seem to appreciate reason. We'll have to weather the storm (like Hurricane Ike) and pick our spots to retaliate.
It is surprising the GWB was the recipient of so much hate after passing liberal programs like No Child Left Behind and Medicare D, as well as letting Fannie Mae underwrite houses to everybody (he didn't rally the troops to stop this program). They saw their bogeyman and kept gnawing at him like a junkyard dog on a soup bone.
The hard sciences are less liberal because many of those professors work with and seek funding from businessmen who operate in the marketplace. Conservatives tend to favor free and open markets and minimal government intrusion.
Dec '10
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
"I suppose we should prepare for RDS - Ryan Derangement Syndrome..."
Agreed. I've thought for a while now that we're in for somebody-derangement from here on out. The left was very successful in motivating people to hate Dubya, and I think it's a trick we'll keep seeing as long as it works.
Look at the press and Romney. They divide their coverage about 50-50 between pointing out how liberal he was as governor and making dire predictions about what a radical right-wing president he'll be. Derangement means not having to make sense.
Apr '12
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
Emotion is where the Left is at! Progressives hate the world as it is, and want to recreate it into their ideas of Utopia. Any arguments they put forward are a rationalization of their world view. It is a waste of time and breath trying to reason with them, as we have all found.
Business people are conservative because they have experienced emotionally what the free market is all about. Their reasoning is based on hard factual evidence of what does and does not work in reality.
Professor Yoo: Steve Knott's book sounds fascinating and highly instructive. I wish I thought it would change the thinking of Progressives. On the other hand, it will help conservatives justify their own thinking, and help them argue the point with Progressives, should they care to try.
Jul '10
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
I have always taken Professor Yoo's advice, not least because I grew up in Upper Darby. But on the latest podcast he gushed over the Zen mysteries. I spent 34 hours one Sunday evening watching a single episode of this dreadful mess, hoping against hope that something sensible would happen. I will continue to follow his work so long as he stays away from entertainment.
Apr '12
Re: Professional Historians and Bush Derangement Syndrome
Professors as a class, in my experience, didn't like W because they perceived him as unintelligent, based on the flimsy evidence of his bumpkinish (to them) accent, and his malapropisms and fumble-mouthedness ("It's hard to put food on your family.") I always found it amusing to point out to a professor that Bush had higher SAT scores than Gore, and better grades at Harvard than Kerry. Most professors outside of business and econ (and unfortunately this includes the hard sciences) are not capable of discerning that the crucial intelligence of a political leader is his ability to understand: how the world works; how his nation's enemies think; where prosperity comes from; and most importantly, the principles and arrangements necessary to maintain a constitutional republic. Bush understood all of this. Guess who doesn't.