Jill Davis, Katie Vaughn and Josiah Newport
Senior Seminar Paper and Presentation
HIS492
5 March 2013
Political History: The Past and Present
History, as a field of study, has long been considered in a rather narrow light. Dr. Peter
Burke, in his article, “The New History: Its Past and its Future,” asserts that history has long
been seen as the history of politics.1 He quotes Sir John Seeley, Regius Professor of History, at
Cambridge, “History is past politics: politics is present history.”2 In this way history has been
seen as only having to do with international or national events. It focuses on history from the top
down, highlighting the lives and deeds of those that were “great men, statesmen, generals, or
occasionally churchmen.”3
However, within the past twenty to thirty years, there has been a drastic change within
the field of history. A more liberal, leftist, or socialistic bent has been applied to the study of
history. Due to that we have acquire many new “subfields” in history, the largest one being that
of social history.4 These new ideas in history have changed the “traditional distinction between
what is ‘central’ in history and what is ‘peripheral.’”5 Those that were giving a minor role in
history, because they were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths, now have found that
they too have a past, a beginning, and a heritage.6 There are, however, dangers and effects of this
focus on social history. Dr. Jim Sharpe, Professor of History at the University of York, warns us
that historical knowledge could become rather fragmented and essentially fall apart, as well as
Peter Burke, “Overture: The New History: Its Past and its Future,” in New Perspectives on Historical Writing, ed.
Peter Burke (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001), 3.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid, 4.
4
Ibid, 3.
5
Ibid, 4.
6
Jim Sharpe, “History from Below,” in New Perspectives on Historical Writing, ed. Peter Burke (University Park:
The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001), 39.
1
1
become “de-politicized,” if this holistic history gets out of hand.7 But there are some leftists and
social historians that see the benefit of political history and have revived it in their own way.
Modern trends in the historiography of United States’ politics have had lasting impacts
not just on the study of politics in the United States but also on the study of history in general. In
the early half of the twentieth century, “all history was political history.”8 From the 1970s until
the 1990s, the study of politics took a backburner to newer specialized trends in the field of
history such as the study of minorities and the study of economics to name a few.9 As political
history made its way into relevancy again during the 1990s, it reaped the benefits of the
specialized history trend. Now, political history includes many new factors and viewpoints. Not
only are historians arguing about the impacts of political decisions, but they are now researching
voting trends and how they affect elections which then, in turn, eventually cause these political
decisions. Through these practices, the trend of studying history from the bottom-up (emphasis
on the everyday citizen rather than leaders) has penetrated political history.
Another effect of modern U.S. political history is the more liberal leanings of leading
scholars. During the 1980s, some political historians began to research the impact of
conservatism in the American political landscape.10 Their findings began studies focusing on the
power and appeal of conservatism and what came to be known as the “New Right.” Historians
are also focusing on the political ideology from the other side of the spectrum. A quick search of
a journal article database on the keywords “U.S. political historiography” finds countless articles
focusing on conservatism or liberalism or a head-to-head look at both of them. While there are
Sharpe, “History from Below,” 35.
Pillarisetti Sudhir, “Political History Today: Plural Perspectives on a Protean Culture,” Perspectives on History
(May 2011), accessed March 3, 2013, http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2011/1105/1105for1.cfm.
9
Julian E. Zelizer, “The Interdisciplinarity of Political History,” Perspectives on History (May 2011), accessed
March 2, 2013, http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2011/1105/1105for2.cfm.
10
Darren Dochuk, “Searching out the Sacred in U.S. Political History,” Perspectives on History (May 2011),
accessed March 2, 2013, http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2011/1105/1105for13.cfm.
7
8
2
some respected conservative historians putting out new work, the majority of university
professors hold a more liberal political ideology which shows through in their lectures and
writings. This has led to the heavily liberal leaning political history scholarship of today.
Political historians are categorized as liberals or conservatives. Every political historian,
or any type of historian for that matter, comes with a bias. They either tend to lean to the left or
right of the ideological spectrum. Major political historians from the left include Arthur
Schlesinger Jr., Michael Kazin, Alan Brinkley, Gabriel Kolko, and James Weinstein. These five
men worked to rejuvenate political history when it was decreasing in prominence between the
1970s and 1990s. Political historians were having to rejuvenate their field of study because it
was being shadowed by social and culture history.11 People were more interested in studying
how people lived and experienced life instead of learning about public policy or how the
government worked.
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote books that focused on pluralism and American
Exceptionalism.12 Kazin recently wrote a book titled American Dreamers: How the Left
Changed a Nation that focuses on the history of the liberals in America, including reformers,
radicals, and idealists.13 Brinkley is a progressive political historian, and he tends to focus on the
New Deal. His two major works on the New Deal are Voices of Protest and The End of Reform.
In Voices of Protest, Brinkley describes how Charlie Coughlin and Huey Long influenced the
legislation of the Second New Deal as insurgent populists. The End of Reform discusses the
New Deal’s prime legacy, which is Keynesian spending.14 Kolko and Weinstein are categorized
Julian Zelizer, “The Interdisciplinarity of Political History,” The American Historical Association, March 1, 2013,
http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2011/1105/1105for2.cfm.
12
Ibid.
13
Michael Kazin, “American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation,” Michael Kazin, March 1, 2013,
http://michaelkazin.com/.
14
Kevin C. Murphy, “Alan Brinkley,” Kevin C. Murphy.com, March 1, 2013, http://www.kevincmurphy.com/
brinkley.html.
11
3
as New Left historians, and they attacked many liberals in their field for downplaying the role of
corporate interests in shaping modern public policy. They were categorized as part of the New
Left because they focused on pluralism by using research that could challenge other’s ideas; they
also focused on arguments of economics that allowed them to explain how industries captured
regulatory agencies and commissions. Even though political history was experiencing a decline,
these men have continued to contribute to political history, whereas others such as Richard
Hofstadter left the field to focus on different disciplines.15
Political history is needed in the field of history, even if it has a more liberal bent to it.
Without politics certain aspects of social history cannot be explained, such as voting or minority
issues. Even if the vast majority of historians are producing works on social history or “total
history”, as Burke calls it, they cannot exclude political history, because politics is still part of
the “total.”16
15
16
Zelizer, “The Interdisciplinarity of Political History.”
Burke, “Overture,” 3.
4
Bibliography
Burke, Peter. “Overture: The New History: Its Past and its Future.” New Perspectives on
Historical Writing, edited by Peter Burke. University Park: The Pennsylvania State
University Press, 2001. 1-24.
Dochuk, Darren. "Searching out the Sacred in U.S. Political History." Perspectives on History
(May 2011). Accessed March 2, 2013.
http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2011/1105/1105for13.cfm.
Kazin, Michael. “American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation.” Michael Kazin.
March1, 2013. http://michaelkazin.com/.
Murphy, Kevin C. “Alan Brinkley.” Kevin C. Murphy.com. March 1, 2013. http://www.kevinc
murphy.com/brinkley.html.
Sharpe, Jim. “History from Below.” New Perspectives on Historical Writing, edited by Peter
Burke. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001. 25-42.
Sudhir, Pillarisetti. "Political History Today: Plural Perspectives on a Protean Culture."
Perspectives on History (May 11). Accessed March 3, 2013.
http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2011/1105/1105for1.cfm
Zelizer, Julian E. “The Interdisciplinarity of Political History.” The American Historical
Association. March 1, 2013. http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2011/11
05/1105for2.cfm.
Zelizer, Julian E. "The Interdisciplinarity of Political History." Perspectives on History (May
11). Accessed March 2, 2013.
http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2011/1105/1105for2.cfm.
5