How to write the history of Trump's presidency? NJ historian takes first step
Category: News & Politics
Via: john-russell • 2 years ago • 65 commentsBy: Mike Kelly (North Jersey Media Group)
Trump even lies to historians, who are probably the last people you would want to lie to.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
One of the quandaries for presidential historians is that they sometimes have to actually speak to a president. If that president happens to be Donald J. Trump, they face an ever-widening spectrum of challenges, from spin and whining to exaggeration and outright falsehood.
Such was the dilemma faced by Julian Zelizer, of Princeton University.
Zelizer spent nearly an hour talking to Trump for a project that assesses the former president's legacy in history. No gossip. No backstabbing. Just the facts about what Trump actually said — and did.
Zelizer is still trying to recover. Or as he told me in an interview this week: "It was surreal."
Pointing out that Trump has been known to play games with the truth is a topic that pleases and provokes those on each side of America's political canyon and its culture wars. Trump's critics greet his exaggerations with upturned noses and a disdainful chorus of "I told you so's" to those who voted for him. Trump's supporters cry foul, claiming they are being scorned and mistreated by America's media and liberal elites.
But how should historians treat Trump?
This is no small concern. Nor is it a recent phenomenon.
The truth conundrum that shadows Trump did not begin with his entrance into the White House. Here, in New Jersey and in New York City, Trump spent decades claiming — often falsely — that he had constructed the biggest, best, most modern of buildings, not to mention a billion-dollar financial empire. He promoted a line of steaks, clothing, even a university. His Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City was a "wonder of the world" — or so Trump thought before it went belly up.
But exaggerating your wealth or business accomplishments is one thing. Exaggerating presidential history is something else. And for most of his presidency, the issue of Trump's manipulation of the truth lurked as the scholarly equivalent of Banquo's ghost for historians.
To put it another way: When history is rooted in facts, what can be done with a president with a track record of twisting truth? And, in the end, who writes that history?
Zelizer, 52, the author of books on such diverse political figures as President Lyndon B. Johnson and House Speaker Newt Gingrich, has emerged in recent years as one of the most omnipresent of political commentators. When he's not on CNN, his voice pops up in such magazines as The Atlantic — or, occasionally, in this column.
Last year Zelizer, who previously edited scholarly essay collections on the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, assembled 17 other historians to assess a wide variety of aspects of Trump's presidency.
Think of this project as a first draft on Trump's presidential legacy. Topics included the economy, the COVID-19 pandemic and the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.
The collection has now been assembled into a book, "The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: A First Historical Assessment," which is scheduled to be published next week by Princeton University Press.
Trump heard that the essays were being written and asked for a chance to chime in. Hence the Zoom call, with historians connecting from across America and Trump, in blue tie, white shirt and blue suit jacket, seated in a leather chair and behind a wooden desk in an office at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.
An American flag stood to Trump's right. A water glass and a single sheet of paper sat on the desk. A day earlier, a poll of historians ranked Trump as one of America's worst presidents — at the bottom of history's dustbin with Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan.
"I'd like to see accuracy," Trump began, his hands folded and his voice measured. Later, he added: "If you're writing a book, it would be nice if we had an accurate book."
Trump began with a nearly 30-minute monologue, then answered another 30 minutes of questions. The topics ranged from his handling of the U.S. economy to the NATO alliance to the coronavirus pandemic to trade with China. Along the way, Trump dropped several whoppers of exaggeration — that he "saved the steel industry" and created the "greatest economy in the history of this country."
Asked how he chose experts for his White House team, Trump said: "I read a lot. I see a lot. I hear a lot. And I'm in a position as president where a lot of information is given to me."
Regarding his handling of the COVID-19 threat, he said: "I really think we did a job like nobody could have done."
Commenting on the Jan. 6 insurrection, he said the "real story" of what took place "has yet to be written."
Trump claimed, for instance, that the crowd that assembled near the White House numbered more than a "million people." (Not true, say federal authorities.) He further noted that the crowd was filled with "tremendous love." (Maybe Trump missed those video clips of the crowd beating police officers.)
He repeated an unproven claim that the throngs that assaulted the Capitol building and disrupted the congressional certification of President Joe Biden's election had been "infiltrated" by progressive activists from the Black Lives Matter and Antifa movements. He also blamed the police for mishandling the crowd. (Again, maybe Trump missed those scenes of the crowd mishandling the cops.)
Trump said the 2020 election was "rigged" and "robbed" and "stolen" from him — no surprise there. He's been repeating that false claim for more than a year. But, perhaps realizing that he had overstepped the boundaries of fact in speaking with a group of historians who know how to research such claims, he slipped at one point and conceded "when I didn't win the election."
"He doesn't want to be someone who lost," Zelizer said in the interview with NorthJersey.com and the USA TODAY Network New Jersey. "And that is what a one-term president is. The idea that he is not one of the presidents who won reelection weighs on him."
At the same time, Trump also wanted to burnish his legacy.
"He was trying to sell," Zelizer told me. "He was telling certain stories that presented him as a very skillful, transactional president."
Writing in The Atlantic last week, Zelizer added: "If anything, our conversation with the former president underscored common criticisms: that he construed the presidency as a forum to prove his deal-making prowess; that he sought flattery and believed too much of his own spin; that he dismissed substantive criticism as misinformed, politically motivated, ethically compromised, or otherwise cynical."
And one more thing Zelizer noted about Trump: "He showed little interest in exploring, or even acknowledging, some of the contradictions and tensions in his record."
If you've watched and listened to Trump since he glided down the escalator at his Trump Tower office building in Manhattan in 2015 and announced that he was running for president, you won't be surprised by what he now says.
Certainly, Zelizer isn't surprised. As a historian, he has dealt with plenty of presidents who bent the truth, from Richard Nixon's Watergate lies to Lyndon Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War by falsely claiming that U.S. warships had been attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin and George W. Bush's incorrect statements about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
"If you're a political historian, you definitely spend time studying lies," Zelizer told me. "But when you study those presidents, there is a sense they know they're lying. They try to cover up and contain it. With Trump, he basically says what he wants and there are zero guardrails. I don't know if he doesn't have a sense of lying or he doesn't care."
Such a question may never be answered — even by our smartest historians.
For his part, Trump ended his talk with a Trumpian wish about the upcoming book. "I hope it's going to be a No. 1 bestseller!" he said.
Several days later, Trump came forth with another Trump-like proclamation. He said he would no longer sit for interviews with book authors. He labeled the process a "total waste of time," adding, "These writers are often bad people" whose work "has nothing to do with facts or reality."
Welcome to the challenge for historians.
This is just the beginning.
Tags
Who is online
417 visitors
I sure it will be classed as fiction.
Why? Do you doubt that historians can impartially reflect the facts of Trump's presidency?
Is there something special about these historians that you know of?
Distinguish history from lore.
Focusing now on genuine historians: historians, being human, certainly have presented things from their perspective. So one cannot take everything written as 100% fact. Clearly historical facts about figures such as Christopher Columbus that appear in the mainstream are an example of distorted history.
That established, do you think that this particular group of historians are going to write a fictional account of Trump's presidency?
If so, what facts about these individuals leads you to that conclusion?
Of course they could. And of course it has been done in the past.
So your 'logic' is basically that since it has been done in the past that it WILL be done here in the present with Trump.
But you have no supporting facts for this conclusion.
Yeah Magic I acknowledged that it has been done in the past.
You seem to think that because something has been done in the past that it necessarily WILL be done in the present.
That is irrational. Catholics and protestants brutally tortured and murdered each other for hundreds of years in the past. Do you think that is going to happen in the present? It could, but there is a major league difference between what is possible and what is likely.
You have no evidence to support a presumption that these historians are going to write fiction over fact.
You fail to deliver evidence that they WILL do this. You simply repeat, simplistically, that it is possible. Yeah, well it is possible that Trump will honestly sit down and tell the truth of his presidency but surely even you can see that is unlikely. What is possible is largely meaningless; what matters is what is likely.
You have no concept of logic and continue to deflect.
I already stated it is possible so logically I have not argued that it is impossible.
Buy a fucking vowel.
way to get right to the point you'll never make
There is the fact that the compiler if the book also works for CNN, a company that is not exactly a fan of Trump makes him a bit suspect
Congratulations. You have your first shred of insufficient evidence.
Not all historians accurately write about history, especially military or political ones. Look up British historian/author David Irving. Prime example of a not so real winner there.
Correct, Ed. Did you read what I wrote in this thread?
See right off the bat: @2.2.2 and @2.2.4
( After all, you replied to my @2.2.2 and my comment is pretty clear. )
Trump's truth is much stranger and sicker than any work of fiction could possibly be.
Sorry, my bad. I guess I read too fast and missed. I've got to be more careful.
I agree. If someone were to create a malignant narcissist, pathological liar PotUS I wonder if they likely would have all their drama and action needs fulfilled by the actual events of his post-loss Big Lie con job (my example, of course, is the apex event of his presidency).
Perhaps the History of the Trump Presidency must also consider the willingness of a significant portion of the electorate to view truth as a debatable subject and facts as an item to be questioned.
It also must examine how an individual such as Trump was elected. What does the Trumpian base really want? And what changes of American life did they expect from his rule?
To put it another way: When history is rooted in facts, what can be done with a president with a track record of twisting truth?
Simple answer. He is to be ignored by legitimate historians. Historians gather evidence, without bias and are careful to avoid rendering judgements.
End of story.
Then Trump would be introuble, no ?
How so?
You have got to be kidding. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Correct.
Everyone has a bias.
Not true at all.
That comment demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the historical process.
Thanks for the opinion of Henry Steele. The title says it all.
Since you only read the title, you wouldn't know anything about what he discusses. And you certainly are not familiar with historical methodology.
Why would legitimate historians ignore Trump?
Trump asked for that interview to give his version of his Presidency. That is what I'm talking about. Everything he says about his Presidency should be taken with a grain of salt. His time in office must be strictly about the decisions he made, what he did, what he wanted to do but couldn't, the issues surrounding him and his Presidency and the effects of those decisions. That is what historians are supposed to do.
To take his partisan version and simply contest it, would be an equal act of partisanship.
Not really. Not completely. Biographies of past presidents regularly include assessments of their personalities and character. Many general interest history books do too. For example, I've never seen a book about Abraham Lincoln that didnt delve into his character. Trump is up shits creek.
Historians are not going to accept the fantasy that the only thing wrong with Trump is that he made some mean tweets.
What if they took his 'partisan' version and contrasted it with reality? For example, they can report on his Big Lie campaign as Trump describes it and then contrast that with the undeniable facts of reality. It is NOT partisanship to counter fantasy with fact.
† By the way, Trump's version is not really a partisan version. It is the Trump pseudo-reality. Partisanship does not play a role because Trump does not care about the party (or the people or the nation). Trump cares about Trump.
Did historians really delve into JFK's character?
Lincoln got Aces for what he did!!!
That would be a debate, not recording history. It's kind of like when a reporter would try and debate him. All it shows is an ideological bias. Historians record history and reporters report news.
It is NOT partisanship to counter fantasy with fact.
It's simply not the job of a historian.
How about when Jen Psaki tells outrageous lies like claiming that the CDC says that a kiss must last 15 minutes to transmit covid? That was outrageous. Do you want reporters to argue with her? The fact is that rational human being can determine fantasy from fact. Only partisans get into a lather about what politicians say.
By the way, Trump's version is not really a partisan version. It is the Trump pseudo-reality. Partisanship does not play a role because Trump does not care about the party (or the people or the nation). Trump cares about Trump.
TiG, we know your opinion. I think it's disgraceful that any American would rather live with rampant inflation and a nation flooded with migrants than hear Trump boast that he was great or that he can't accept losing..
Contrasting a fantasy by Trump with reality is a debate? History, properly done, would stay close to the hard facts of reality.
Right, recording the hard facts of reality. So when Trump spins his nonsense about a rigged election, the historian would note the position of the former president but then reflect, for the purposes of history, the actual facts.
Recording facts is most definitely the job of the historian. So when a PotUS lies, does the historian ignore what he says? No, the historian quotes the PotUS and and then reflects hard facts.
I think it is inexcusable to even consider following a malignant narcissist, pathological liar who, as PotUS, attempted to steal a US presidential election based on absurd lies, attempts to suborn his VP to commit an unconstitutional act, attempted coercion of government officials and state legislators, 61+ frivolous lawsuits and working his supporters up into a frenzy about votes being disenfranchised that never were. And to support such a miserable human being for PotUS is flat out unpatriotic.
Further, the inflation that we see is primarily tied to the pandemic (supply issues) compounded by Putin. Trump faced a shrinking economy during his last year and would be faced with the same issues Biden faces if he had won. So I reject your implication that the problems with inflation are simply because of Biden. Trump inherited a growing economy; good fortune for him (as it was with Bill Clinton). He was economy friendly but he is no magician. People always give a PotUS too much blame and too much credit on the economy.
The illegal immigration, however, is indeed a function of Biden and Trump very likely would have curtailed this. So on this we agree.
Finally, the problem of Trump is NOT simply his boasting; you trivialize the problem. The problem is that he is has abysmal character; he should not be the voice and the face of our nation. His Big Lie campaign alone should have made that crystal clear with everyone.
Not originally. But as time goes on more comes out.
Oh yes, and by the same token the circumstances surrounding President Trump's 2016 victory and the aftermath will also have to be recorded and explained to future generations. Can you imagine what that is going to look like? A reporter crying when a candidate was elected to the highest office in the land? Two partisan investigations of the new President? A false & damming story concocted by his political opponent and propagated by a media that had become an arm of the democratic party? Imagine future generations reading about the machinations that went on in order to get the new National Security Advisor out of the way, the new AG to recuse himself and a replacement who would appoint a Special Counsel to investigate the new President? One can only imagine the task facing anyone attempting to write the history of such a turbulent, yet successful (if you care for America) Presidency.
I think it is inexcusable
I don't. I agree with William Barr:
“I certainly have made it clear, I don’t think he should be our nominee and I’m going to, you know, support somebody else for the nomination,” Barr told NBC “Today” show host Savannah Guthrie ahead of the Tuesday release of his new book “One Damn Thing After Another.”
However, Barr hedged when Guthrie pressed him about whether he would vote for a Democrat over Trump in a hypothetical general election.
“Because I believe that the greatest threat to the country is the progressive agenda being pushed by the Democratic Party, it’s inconceivable to me that I wouldn’t vote for the Republican nominee,” Barr responded.
nypost.com/2022/03/07/bill-barr-says-hell-likely-back-trump-if-hes-2024-gop-nominee/
Vic, show us EVIDENCE that the FBI investigation of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign was "partisan", or for that matter, that Mueller's investigation was "partisan". The FBI initiated the investigation based on Trump campaign's interactions with Russians in 2015 and the early part of 2016, not on the basis of anything Democrats did. The Steele dossier did not enter the picture until later, when the investigation was already underway.
I think the problem is that you do imagine.
I do not see anything particularly daunting about history surrounding Trump. Historians are no doubt quite up to the task.
I understand that is your position, Vic. I do laugh when I see viewpoints like this because they speak categorically of the 'progressive agenda' as if it were a single thing that is either good or bad. But that is simply not the case. Part of the 'progressive agenda' is to redistribute wealth to pay for education for all. While education for all in principle is spot on (as is universal healthcare), the proposed means by which it is accomplished is problematic. So on this point (the problematic method) I agree with Barr. But unlike Barr, I think we should try to better ensure our talented, motivated youths have the opportunity to higher education and thus the means to contribute to our nation with their talents. The 'progressive agenda' also holds that all human beings should have the same rights such as marriage, employment, etc. If Barr (and you) object to that then one wonders on what grounds.
This is the problem with partisanship. There are good things that Ds want and good things that Rs want. But the parties are so insanely polarized that compromise is a thing of the past. It is just so ridiculous. Take border control. With all of our technological prowess one would think the USA could produce a drone-based detection and determent system (including hiring more agents) to put a check on illegal immigration. But the clowns in D.C. will not even talk like adults. Similarly, the USA needs to standardize and implement a managed risk system to ensure that healthcare costs are controlled and that most common healthcare needs are economically available to everyone. People should not be going bankrupt due to medical costs. But, again, the clowns cannot function.
Why bother if you ignore the evidence already presented? They used the unverified Steele Dossier to get FISA warrants and an FBI lawyer was convicted of lying on one of those applications.
The FBI initiated the investigation based on Trump campaign's interactions with Russians in 2015 and the early part of 2016, not on the basis of anything Democrats did.
A counter-intelligence investigation requires little pretext. It needed little basis for any facts, instead the FBI claimed that it was based on something George Papadopoulos repeated in a bar. Something he heard from a CIA operative. The kind of people he kept mysteriously running into. On the face of it, it is very suspicious and it (along with all of the events leading up to and thru the 2016 election) continues to be investigated by John Durham. How you perceive it vs how I perceive it isn't really the point in this discussion, is it? All of these added events will have to be included and explained in any true history of the Trump Presidency.
I would gladly get into a debate with you on the 'progressive agenda, but clearly we would be drifting off course as far as this discussion is concerned. This is about historians writing about the Trump years. You say "Historians are no doubt quite up to the task." They are up to it, but it remains a daunting task. We still await the results of the Durham investigation, just as democrats enter the final act of the "Jan 6 Committee investigation." Beyond that proper context would require waiting until the first term of the Biden administration is complete. It has thus far been a complete repudiation of everything President Trump did.
This is the problem with partisanship. There are good things that Ds want and good things that Rs want. But the parties are so insanely polarized that compromise is a thing of the past. It is just so ridiculous. Take border control. With all of our technological prowess one would think the USA could produce a drone-based detection and determent system to put a check on illegal immigration. But the clowns in D.C. will not even talk like adults. Similarly, the USA needs to standardize and implement a managed risk system to ensure that healthcare costs are controlled and that most common healthcare needs are economically available to everyone. People should not be going bankrupt due to medical costs. But, again, the clowns cannot function.
I've quoted Lincoln's "House Divided" speech here many times, including the all important following line that so many forget:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." "It will become all one thing, or all the other."
BTW: Border control is non existent. Unless you think the drug cartels are in control. It was done deliberately by Joe Biden. I don't think he did it simply because it was a goal of the radical left. Biden was determined to undermine Trump. That has to go into the history of this time.
Similarly, the USA needs to standardize and implement a managed risk system to ensure that healthcare costs are controlled and that most common healthcare needs are economically available to everyone.
I have always said that if you want Socialized medicine with the government paying the bills, you need to put price controls on medicine, just like Europe did. The worst thing we could ever do is Socialize the payment side of the equation and grant the Medical Sector Free Enterprise.
That being said, let me return to the subject of a history of the Trump years. I want to address this obsession with Trump's personality and I think it is best explained by the words of what I consider an important historian - Ken Burns:
“The problem with cancel culture is that it leaves us feeling lonely," Burns says. "We feel bereft of ideals and heroes. But we have to remember that a hero was never perfect. The Greeks were telling us that here are these imperfect people. Achilles had his heel and his hubris to match his great powers. It is so easy to dispense with somebody when you discover, ‘Aha, you did this!’ It is much more difficult to sit with those contradictions and to not accept them, but to try, as Benjamin Franklin would say, to improve on them. To get better. He did enslave people, but he also became an abolitionist and proposed in the United States Congress the first attempt to outlaw slavery. He was completely ignored in the Senate and voted down in the house, but he tried. And so this is what we have to do. We're too static right now. Everything is frozen because of this interest in ourselves. We have become focused on the transactional, rather than the transformational.”
I predict then that your 'debate' would be to deem everything on the progressive agenda to be 'bad'. No shades of gray. No 'good in principle but here is how we can make it practical'. Just ... if D it is bad.
I am not in favor of 'socialized medicine' but I am in favor of providing a sensible system that distributes the cost and risk and manages costs. This can be accomplished, IMO, with the federal government setting standards (e.g. codified standard for sharing medical records, equipment, treatments, etc.) that all states follow. If codified then we can bring automation (especially AI) to bear. We could establish a national system for sharing medical equipment, expertise, etc. and importantly distribute the risk. This would best be implemented as a federated system which means the states each manage their resources and customize healthcare to their differing needs. Importantly, the decisions for treatment are prioritized towards the individual's physician and the patient rather than a bureaucrat executing policy.
The funding would be part taxation (as with Medicare) and part copayment by the patient. Copayment is critical, IMO, to ensure that people do not abuse the system. It also of course helps with funding.
Further, the above is simply the foundation. On top of this would be higher level products and services that come at a premium to the patient. This is a market now for insurance plans and wealthier patients who want access to the best equipment and specialists and are willing to pay for it. This helps drive innovation that, over times, will be part of normal healthcare.
( Note, I am being brief. This is a complex undertaking that is difficult to summarize. )
My point is that I think the USA most definitely can do much better with healthcare to the benefit of all. But nothing will happen without leadership and those who would be the leaders are too busy playing partisan games.
Now, in case you did not catch this, I am NOT in favor of simply passing legislation to fund another half-baked spending program under the 'healthcare' label.
Undoubtedly Trump lovers would like it swell if he were allowed to write his own history of his years in office.
The rest of us would rather see reputable historians write the truth.
Imagine actually believing Trump is more objective and trustworthy than professional historians.
There have been a group of meta comments removed.
Maybe DeSantis should write a very flattering book about Trump, and then run for President. It would disarm Trump. Trump’s ego would only allow him to say nice things about him and he’d be defenseless in a primary. Flattery is Trump’s kryptonite.
Trump has no problem throwing his most loyal supporters under the bus.
These historians will likely write a history of Trump using fat pencils and Big Chief tablets. Maybe a big box of crayons, too.
The predictable histories that will be written will focus on personality rather than policy. There will be a recitation of squabbles, infighting, personal acrimony, intrigues, and attention given to those who wanted to protect the status quo. The predictable histories will be some sort of morality fable over character according to the author's worldview of what character should be.
That is the theme of the seeded article, after all. And focusing on personality carefully avoids evaluation of Trump's policy approach. The unrest across the United States during Trump's time in office was caused by resistance to Trump's policy approach as a way to protect the status quo. The unrest was not caused by Trump. And Trump's policy approach did seem to work. But acknowledging any positive results from Trump's policy approach would raise too many inconvenient questions about the status quo. So, it will be necessary to focus attention on personality rather than history.
Nice display of booshwa.
Booshwa
A good choice for when you don’t want to appear pretentious enough to use the French word.
Ok. It's bullshit. (Pardon my French.)
Yes, gossip books, written in tabloid style, are booshwah. They're easy to write and typically sell well to a middle class audience. A gossip history of Trump's Presidency would be a guaranteed best seller.
But that doesn't tell us anything about the political and institutional resistance to Trump's policy approach. Trump's policy approach was to insulate the United States against the world; not isolate the United States from the world.
Joe Biden holds the record for lowest approval ratings in the last 100 years but Trump? ROFL
I remember not that long ago when Trump polls held steady around 38 percent approval, and most liberals parroted that 38 percent was nothing more than his base of radicals, racists and white supremacists.
Now the Biden has been polling there, and in some cases, a point or two lower in some polls, does that mean that percentage is nothing more than leftist radicals, white liberal racists and woke pedophiles?
I say it is.
And I'm normally correct.