One More Point on the Lessons of History
Historical analogizing is essential in private, risky in public. Any time policymakers meet in the White House, at State, Defense or CIA to discuss a thorny foreign challenge, they must have people at the table with an historical sensibility. They don't have to be professional historians, as Andre has proven with his book. But they must be able to "think in time" if they are to have any hope of arriving at a wise decision. The analogizing should not be the primary frame of the discussions; that must be about the interests at stake and the particulars of the situation. But once it's time to drill down into the decision, historical comparisons can help structure the conversation. Exploring how various analogies apply and how they don't will almost always bring greater clarity.
But as Condi Rice's simplistic analogizing suggests, history can be a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. That is usually the case when it is used publicly in speeches and interviews to sell a policy. There is no time in public forums to explore the complexities of the analogy--where it fits and where it doesn't. Instead you get a crude historical reductionism that actually sets back the debate. It's important for journalists and others to introduce history into public conversation. But policymakers should reserve their insights for private deliberations, or only those public forums that allow for lengthy exploration of the analogy. Otherwise it becomes a talking point instead of an insight.
Condi Rice was also full of sh*t when she commented on The Werewolves in post war Germany.
This group, what few there were, was the gang that couldn't shoot straight. As one who was there, I know of no actions they took against anyone or anything. On the contrary, Germany was quite peaceful after the surrender.
Rice is nothing more than window dressing for the Bush gang.
June 6, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Condi is a master at making the absurd sound reasonable. Luckily the admininstration never really capitalized on this talent. Imagine what a press secretary she would have made. We would still be dizzy. She often wraps her spin in revised semi-history. This works very well with people who know no history at all (an unfortunately large group). Its an easy way to fabricate credibility.
June 6, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
chumpralph,
I agree, she's a master at using the filibuster to obfuscate when answering questions.
June 7, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's important for journalists and others to introduce history into public conversation
Mr Alter,
I was wondering if you could offer some insight here. Is the press moving in this direction? To my mind Joe Klein is the only major reporter to have shifted to a more check-before-you-accept reporting style. What about Newsweek, Time, ABC, etc.. Is old school journalism making a comeback? (obviously you get it too!)
Thanks.
June 6, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Northern Observer,
Joe Klein got his head handed to him by Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com and others on the blogosphere when he wrote a column based solely on what he was told by Republican Pete Hoekstra about the Democrats' FISA plan. As it turned out, the eniter column was based on a lie.
This is what should happen to all supposedly objective journalists that act as stenographers for the right. If Greenwald didn't "out" Klein, Klein would still be shoveling the shit he's shoveled in the past.
June 7, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You pretty much nail the issues with regard to historical analogizing in a public venue.
Analogies operate like myths. The specific event get talked about in a seemingly innocent way, bolstered with justifications, promotes simplicity of essences and things appear to mean something transparently by themselves. All this leads to crude historical reductionism. To wit – the recent flap about "appeasement."
June 8, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink