History Lesson
I've taken Washington Post opinion columnist EJ Dionne to task a number of times in the past (he hasn't exactly responded to - or even noticed - my criticism, but no matter). Oddly, in a column he filed from Australia of all places, I actually think he did a rather good job. The importance of History is a subject near and dear to my heart.
MELBOURNE, Australia — A battle over the future of the past broke out here last week. The fight explains a great deal about how Australia's conservative prime minister, John Howard, has hung on to power for a decade.
Pay attention to Howard. His approach could be a model for how parties of the right — including Republicans in the United States — manage to build majorities in turbulent times.
Last week, Howard organized a "history summit" to call attention to the decline of Australian history as a subject in high schools. In most states here, history has been subsumed within (and thus displaced by) a broader social studies curriculum focused on "studies of society and the environment."
"I think we have taught history as some kind of fragmented stew of moods and events," Howard declared, "rather than some kind of proper narrative."
This is the sort of cultural and educational fight familiar to Americans. My gut is with those who see history as a distinct subject. Wherever we live, we should know our country's national story.
Notice what has just happened: This writer, on the other side of politics from the Australian prime minister, has embraced his argument that old-fashioned history is worth teaching.
Howard has a genius for picking the right wedge issues. In this case, his argument appeals to conservatives who don't like what Howard has called "black armband history" — i.e., a history that is primarily critical of Australia's white settlers. But it also draws in many from outside the ranks of the right who have moderately traditional views about school curriculums.
This has been Howard's way since he defeated Paul Keating, a Labor Party prime minister, in 1996. Oddly, the two political enemies have a lot in common.
I do not agree with all of Dionne's points, but he does have a few that I find very interesting. I suspect it is somewhat less about the conventional wisdom phrase "wedge issues" as it is a good ear for what will play well with the electorate. (The term "wedge issue" implies a negative, I suspect Howard has a good ear for invoking the positive instead.)
So is it a lesson, as Dionne states, for the Republicans? Yes, in a way. But I think it is a lesson a tad different than Dionne. I think politicians who can find an issue to run for will beat politicians who are trying to run against something. (Which is why I think the Democrats rush to try to tar and feather Wal-Mart is stupid).
Oh - and teaching history as opposed to "social studies" is a really great idea.







