"Historians" For Obama

Posted: Jul 30, 2009 12:01 AM
"Historians" For Obama

Recently, I read a piece in the left-of-center New York Times where a select group of “historians” were giving advice to former Vice President Dick Cheney regarding his forthcoming memoir. After reading the highly suspect advice, I naturally wondered what exactly is a historian?

Unfortunately for those who actually value the truth, it seems a great many “historians” -- like the majority of the mainstream media, those who “educate” our children, and those who “entertain” us -- fancy themselves as surrogates for the liberal wing of the democrat party, and of late, propagandists for the history making Barack Obama.

For a glaring and recent example of this unethical bias, one need look no further than this exchange between “historian” Michael Beschloss and radio host Don Imus:

Michael Beschloss: “…this is a guy (Barack Obama) whose IQ is off the charts…”
Imus: “Well. What is his IQ?”
Historian Michael Beschloss: “Pardon?”
Imus: “What is his IQ?”
Historian Michael Beschloss: “Uh. I would say it’s probably - he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become President.”

Really? The “unbiased” but clearly in-the-tank for Obama “historian” Beschloss thinks Obama is the “smartest guy ever to become president.” Okay. Based on what? The SAT scores Obama won’t release. The college transcripts from Occidental College that Obama won’t release. The transcripts from Columbia that Obama won’t release. Any existing IQ scores that Obama won’t release.

Based on that non-information alone, “historian” Beschloss believes that Barack Obama is smarter than Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy. Great. I didn’t know a historian could operate without facts.

In 2003, “historian” Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. wrote that the Bush administration’s foreign policy "is alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbor…today it is we Americans who live in infamy."

Not only was Schlesinger’s vile comparison a slap in the face to the hundreds of thousands of Americans and Chinese who lost their lives at the hands of Japanese war criminals, but it’s possible that his words helped to motivate candidate and now President Obama to commence his “America is bad and I apologize” tour.

Beyond the examples of Beschloss and Schlesinger Jr., we have the likes of Bush-hating Ken Burns, Joseph (I lied about my service in Vietnam, my anti-war protests and my civil rights efforts) Ellis, Doris Kearns (whoops, did I plagiarize?) Goodwin, Robert (“Do you read The New York Times?”) Dallek, Douglas (I just had dinner with Obama) Brinkley, and a host of “historians” so deep in the tank for the liberal cause that they haven’t seen daylight in decades.

To underscore the lack of ethics and judgment displayed by some historians, liberal Slate magazine felt it had to make this point regarding the aforementioned Goodwin plagiarism issue: “…But when the New York Times publishes a letter denying Goodwin ever committed plagiarism—signed by a pack of distinguished historians, including Arthur Schlesinger Jr., John Morton Blum, Robert Dallek, and Sean Wilentz—the violence done to the truth is too much to bear silently. Historians, of all people, should know better than to rewrite history…” Indeed.

While I have no doubt that Dick Cheney couldn’t care less about the advice given by some biased and unprofessional “historians,” the rest of us should be alarmed that one point of view -- and only one point of view -- is filling the pages of biographies, “history” books, and video images.

Sadly, because this unconscionable practice dovetails perfectly with the liberal narrative they seek to advance, most of the mainstream media will continue to promote and defend these unprincipled “historians.”

History, posterity, and the truth be damned.