Wednesday, September 20, 2006

so that Mitt is not condemned to repeat it

If I were president of the community college where I work, I might consider having a full-time historian as one of my close advisors. This person would record the day to day events, and also be an expert in the history of the college. That way when a difficult situation arose I could turn to the historian and say, "when did this happen last time? What were the outcomes?"

Optimally, every staff member working closely with the President of the U.S. (POTUS) will have a good handle on U.S. and world history - esp. as it pertains to their particular job. However, they often may not have the time to personally learn enough about pertinent historical events when a particular decision has to made very quickly. When Mitt is POTUS he could have a main historian, and also a cadre of historians to which he could turn at any time. They would have ready access to the histories of thousands of national and world events. These historians would be charged to not focus on suggesting policy - but rather to try and present history in as factual and objective a way as possible. (I tend to think those who are really partisan in their views - either to the right or left - wouldn't make good historians.) I think this could bring a greater perspective to all potential decisions made by the White House.

Surely there are plenty of folks already doing this kind of research for the POTUS you say? When I hear the term researcher I think expert in a certain field. I think that some of the researchers ought to be replaced with bona fide historians who aren't necessarily experts in a certain policy area, but rather experts at learning and explaining the stories of man(and woman!)kind on this planet.


Post a Comment

<< Home