Skip to forum content

You are not logged in. Please login or register.

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → NYT Op-Ed: "Historians Shouldn’t Be Pundits"

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

RSS topic feed

Posts: 16


Trump doesn't become Hitler until Trump declares martial law, then the comparison will seem URGENT.


The problem with throwing around these comparisons is that one day a corrupt leader Republican or Democrat, Tory or Labor,  this nation or other nations will be ignored because every leader that does something the citizens don't like he or she is compared to Hitler, Moussilini, Nixon is one I have not heard. But in the USA first Bush was the most evil, then o bama, now Trump is Satan incarnate and Hitler. Its stupid and some democrats are starting to see that obstruction was not the best option cause now Donald is getting a second pick on the SCOTUS and when Ginsberg takes a dirt nap that will give him three and that will INFURIATE liberals even more than losing the White House.


Who compared Obama to Lincoln, and how do you know the Times had no qualms? You sound like an Obama hater with an ideological grudge. Your opinion is pretty much worthless. Any historical comparison, for any President, is silly because no set of circumstances that they have to deal with is identical, and it is those circumstances that define the Presidency.



I am merely observing a set of facts. Any perceived ''hate'' on your portion is merely intrigue and can be ignored. In fact, many in the media during that time made such comparisons. Thus when you ask ''Who'', I can readily reply,
There is no end of these comparisons, which as I noted in the passage of later history, were ''ludicrously'' applied.
I stand by my earlier post in its entirety, being a long-time student of the nations 16th president and a living witness to the nations 44th...........


I don't see the New York Times in any of that. Why is it that you are only worried about Obama being compared to a prior President? Could it be that your hatred for Obama has blinded you? I think  so...well you have Trump to worship---happy butt-kissing!


The real issue here (with respect to this particular issue, on this particular site, at this particular time) is not so much how Hitler is represented, but how by implication Trump is. If the Left fails to destroy the Trump Presidency "by any means possible"--and that's a fairly big "If,"--and if it lasts a full four years, the odds are very high that comparisons by implication of Trump thereafter are more likely to be with one or more of our more highly regarded (historically) Presidents.
PS It is not inappropriate to think of, to call, or to describe the United States as a "Christian country." From a religious perspective it is far more that than anything else, and from that perspective it's not a close call.


I see no problem with historians providing context to current events, even if they draw parallels with which other historians might disagree.
Personally, I find some aspects of the Long/Trump parallel apt.  Long was a populist that threatened to split his party and used the populist media of his day (Father Charles Coughlin's radio show) to circumvent traditional intra-party politics and deal making. He tied himself to anti-semitic voices in order to create a 'them', as well as promising to make government work for the people (Long's approach was income redistribution, Trump's to drain the swamp).
The differences between the two was that Long was virtually a socialist, and he had plenty of government experience both as a governor and a senator.
But there ARE interesting parallels to be drawn and saying that historians should sit on their hands and not add their voices to the political debates of our times is the wrong approach, IMO.


Yet was this not what Bush was supposed to have done in his own time, but never did?


I am looking right at it. I have no such ''worries''. I am simply observing historical facts. If you desire to cheapen the discussion, that will be on your own dime.
Not mine.
also see:
The New York Times.


Historians usually have their writing turned into punditry but I've never heard of a historian being called a pundit. Historians interpret the event of the past and draw a conclusion from that interpretation that is debated by other historians. It is up the rest of us to decide if something is like something or not. Like many pundits believe that the nation is a badly divide as it was in the period between 1850-1865 while is seems like that there is no proof that we as a nation are. Its the same with comparing Trump to Nixon while Nixon is the watershed of corruption in modern times there is nothing but circumstantial evidence the Mr. Trump is as corrupt as that.


I would say that these ideas perpetuate the state. If people do not agree that there is a state and live in such a manner, then there is no state quite literally. You cannot do this with a thing.


Have you ever heard on of the interviews? I guess not . Watch one, one time and learn.


I would respond that believing there is no state is not entirely possible, as people internalize many things that implicate a state, and it is not surprising we see, for instance, the recreation of the French Empire in the ashes of the Revolution.  Napoleon was the embodiment and transcendence of the Ancien Regime's late social habits.


Obama was not "compared" to Lincoln in the sense of being considered in any way equal to him -- in my opinion NO president was Lincoln's equal -- and it is rather disingenuous to imply he was. It WAS hoped that the election of an articulate "black" president (who was also half "white") might mark a turning point in the nation's troubled racial history, like Lincoln's emancipation of the slaves. It was HOPED that some of the country's racial demons might be put to rest.
Instead, as we now see all too well, eight years of Obama's presidency -- in a period when the disruptions of economic globalization peaked and the inevitable decline of the "American Century" continued unabated -- led to a backlash, an upsurge in "white grievance" and a blind patriotic desire to "Make America Great Again."
I certainly don't think Obama provided the leadership required, but I suspect history will judge his successor far more severely than he. In any case, while today pundits rule in Washington, in the media, and in the leading councils of both major political parties, tomorrow history will render its own decision.


That view is a matter of culture in my mind more than anything else. Oftentimes (generally speaking) the French or German philosophers and the public of these nations were not able to see outside of the paradigm of the state. If we look to American or East Asian philosophers this isn't always the case though.
Societal views are dependent on the starting points of their respective culture quite a bit. France was nothing until it became a Frankish empire, the same could be said of the HRE. This I opposed to areas of the Far East that remain living in an anarchist fashion until this very day and the US where the state was always treated with the utmost of suspicion. These historical societal birthing effect the thinking of their citizens... if you can control what one thinks is possible, then you can control their outcomes. This works well for those in power in Central and Western Europe.

Posts: 16

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → NYT Op-Ed: "Historians Shouldn’t Be Pundits"

Similar topics in this forum