History & Bush

University of San Diego School of Law Professor Michael Rappaport, on The Right Coast, expresses some indignation at historian views of the Bush Presidency. Professor Rappaport writes in part:

One would think that historians would understand that a judgment of this kind requires us to wait many years. After all, certainly it is possible that George Bush has helped to launch a movement towards democracy throughout the world that would render his presidency a success. Apparently, these 'experts' don't need the knowledge that time would provide.

Such a view appears to exclude historians from ever commenting on current events. Of course historians should understand that the outcome of policy is unpredictable, but should their expertise of history foreclose analogy to past events? I'm sure Professor Rappaport would quickly point to the historical failure of communism as Democracts advocated some socialist policy like universal healthcare. Moreover, I would think that Professor Rappaport would value the positive historical expertise provided by Victor Davis Hanson. In fact, Professor Rappaport often refers to the famous historian's frequently published articles. Does VDH not "understand that a judgment of this kind requires us to wait many years"?

Historical analysis is not contending that idealistic policy should never be pursued, it is only contending that similar policy failed in the past. Each person can come to his own conclusions about how much weight should be placed on that evidence, and of course history professors place great weight on what they know. Simply dismissing the analysis because it opposes Bush Administration policy or is within the scope of "academic elite" rhetoric, without making competing historical arguments, is small. There are two proper approaches to take: (1) Show how historians are manipulating analogies to history to meet their personal "liberal" political agenda; or if the historical analogies are well-grounded; (2) Argue historical evidence offers little reliable evidence to predict the future of President Bush's policies. "Liberal elite" diatribe does not change history. Such attacks are especially inappropriate against history professors when factual evidence should be readily available for Professor Rappaport's counter-arguments.