Are History Op-Eds Making Us Dumber?

Yesterday I read an op-ed in a major publication in which the author drew a direct connection between the recent assault against the husband of Nancy Pelosi and the violence on the Kansas frontier in the 1850s. I actually went back and read it again to see if I had missed a key statement that would give this particular piece even a grain of legitimacy.

Over the past few years we’ve seen an increased demand for the skills of historians to help explain, among other things, the election and presidency of Donald Trump, the debate surrounding the removal of Civil War monuments, increased political and racial violence, and, of course, the January 6 insurrection at the United States Capitol. Historians and other writers have stepped into the breach in a number of ways, including writing op-eds for major newspapers, magazines, and various websites.

I welcome this engagement and interest and have learned a great deal from regularly reading my fellow historians at sites like The Washington Post’s “Made By History” page. At the same time I have also noticed some troubling trends among these op-eds that perhaps point to the limits to which historians are able to showcase their skills and knowledge in this particular medium.

Historians want to be relevant and there is nothing wrong with this. Writing an op-ed for a major publication can bring you in touch with a whole new readership and demonstrate why the study of history is necessary, but it also comes with numerous challenges.

One of the most difficult challenges is attempting to condense a historical subject into a roughly 1500 word op-ed that needs to quickly engage the attention of the general reader. There is little room or even desire for analysis or subtle distinctions. You will be able to do little more than skim the surface of your specific subject.

The pace of the news nowadays also means that writers need to work fast if they hope to be published in a timely manner. This leaves very little time for serious reflection.

One of my concerns is that it often it feels like writers are shoehorning the latest news story into their area of expertise. The problem is not that we ‘see the past in the present,’ but that historians often see the present in their own little corner of the past.

This is perhaps easily understood and I have most definitely been guilty of this in the past.

Historians of Reconstruction have been quite active in helping readers to better understand recent incidents of political and racial violence, especially the January 6 insurrection, but sometimes I am left wondering whether other periods in American history, especially the Gilded Age, offer more helpful context.

One common theme that can be found in many of these op-eds is that Reconstruction never ended or that we have entered a new phase of Reconstruction. I find such interpretations to be incredibly unhelpful. It not only simplifies Reconstruction, it removes the historian from having to explain the complexity surrounding change over time. Claiming that Reconstruction never ended is not only incredibly vague, it obscures what historians do best, which is to explain change over time. And we have witnessed a great deal of relevant change since Reconstruction.

Commentators and political opponents dubbed former president Donald Trump’s accusations that the 2020 election had been stolen as “the Big Lie.” Historians quickly jumped in by offering comparisons to another supposed big lie: the Lost Cause. Numerous op-eds have been published and continue to be published that reduce the Lost Cause to little more than a conscious attempt on the part of a small group of former Confederates and southern writers to hijack history.

This language is now used freely on social media as if it offers something substantive.

Some of these op-eds have been written by scholars whose work on the Lost Cause and Civil War memory I greatly admire, but in this case I think all they have managed to accomplish is offer an unhelpful, but catchy soundbite for a readership that has already conditioned by the controversy surrounding Confederate monuments.

Readers learn very little about the social, economic, and political conditions of the immediate postwar period and the struggles on the part of white southerners to come to terms with defeat and the end of slavery. It goes without saying, that my goal here is not to excuse former Confederates, but to suggest that reducing the Lost Cause simply to a ‘big lie’ does little to illuminate the relevant history and the organic ways in which this narrative initially took shape and evolved over time.

These are just a couple examples that I have noticed, but there are others that are worth exploring.

Again, I welcome historians who desire to share their areas of expertise with the general public, especially in moments when the past echoes most loudly. There are plenty of ways in which this can be done effectively, but if leveraging the specific skills of the historians’ craft is one of them, then writing an op-ed may not be the best decision.