When History Will be Able to Show Its True Colors
Last November, I wrote my first-ever op-ed released in the Washington Examiner, claiming how Lee Zeldin was the future of the Republican party, a figure I still believe a year later. But I can’t help myself to grasp writing yet another op-ed piece.
Historians slack in the current events department, for better or for worse, because let's face it, historians are not equipped to predict the future. We are better off using historical precedent to guide us to come to grasps with various viewpoints and conclusions that historiography leads us to tether with.
If anything, I remember the quote of the great David McCullough, who said that the congressional Muse of history, Clio, kept note of the actions of men while holding the clock. He would attain that, “what they did there didn’t just matter at the moment, but for time to come, that they would be measured by history, and that they had to live up to standards that would be set by historical precedent…” before letting it be known that politicians of the modern age look up towards the television cameras.
Frankly, I'm worried about this nation’s stain on “saving democracy,” and how much that phrase is willing to go.
In one instance we have a former president who is the leading candidate in Republican polling to be the party’s contender for the nation’s highest office, while we have a current executive administration making havoc that calling out that half of America is a MAGA (Make America Great Again) extremists, despite calling for unity during its inaugural address in early January 2021.
At the same time, there has been an effort for the legal sector to keep Donald Trump off the ballot, via the judicial system of Colorado, not to mention the change of congressional map redistricting in the state of New York, which may affect the now-Republican House majority.
God knows where all this is going to go. But needless to say, 2024 is going to turn ugly, and there will be nothing like it. Will we see another NY Post story swept under the rug? As much as I hate to say it, only time will tell.
To paraphrase Lex Fridman, there was an old Winston Churchill line, whereby historians were the worst ones to write about current events except everybody else.
This doesn’t mean historical context is to be absent, for many are still eager to grasp such context. As a friend of mine said to me earlier this week, having a historical-nuanced mindset may be something modern-day journalists fail to touch upon.
At the end of the day, where does the pen meet the paper, and what type of audience meets such a paper?
I’ve stayed away from op-ed writing because it seemed to not serve much of a purpose as a historian, but at the same time, I understand the importance of such a free speech avenue. There lies the imperfection, where some readers may view op-eds strictly as factual based, although that should never be the case, it’s only there to persuade, not to tell as gospel.
While only a handful of my current readership, I am blessed to come to terms that there are people out there who want more, more context, more research-based information, more time to tackle historiography, a commitment to get into the weeds of info that many hardly consider to take the time to look into depth.
There’s something there, and it's the only time when history will be able to show its true colors.