The Wall Street Journal-20080212-How You See the Past Affects View of Present
Return to: The_Wall_Street_Journal-20080212
How You See the Past Affects View of Present
Full Text (490 words)Regarding Edward J. Larson's commentary "The Politics of History" (Feb. 6), there should be no surprise that conservatives are more familiar with history than liberals. They appreciate it more. Whereas liberals are enamored of change for the sake of change, conservatives wish to conserve that which is eternal -- Truth itself!
Indeed, conservatives view history as the manifestation of an unchanging human nature. Within his limited nature, man engages in a timeless struggle between good and evil that gives humanity its moral dimension. For conservatives, then, history reveals the wisdom of the ages as each generation transmits its lessons to the succeeding ones. Thus, conservatives tend to revere tradition and look to history as a guide.
Liberals, however, have always denied the reality of an objective, fixed human nature. Existentialists like Sartre have famously declared that "existence precedes essence," unmooring truth from its objective foundation. These post-modern intellectuals go so far as to suggest that truth itself is a matter of perspective, meaning that there is no such thing as truth. In fact, by definition, liberals desire freedom from all restraints, especially the restraints of truth as revealed through tradition. It's not in their best interest.
Alas, Mr. Larson's criticism that conservatives view history in uncritical adulation is bogus. An understanding of human nature entails knowing both the shining city on the hill and its darker neighborhoods. Yet Mr. Larson tries to create a narrative that places a pox on both houses. I find it unconvincing. Unlike liberals, conservatives do appreciate the rich complexity of history, though maybe in richly complex ways that some historians will never appreciate.
David Maj
Staten Island, N.Y.
---
All due respect for Edward J. Larson's op-ed, but I think he misses a larger point. Conservatives celebrate America's heroes despite their sins because they understand man to be an imperfect creature and admire individuals who rise above those imperfections. Liberals reject these same sinners despite their greatness because they compare them to an ideal of what man can be -- a comparison in which all of us fall eternally short. Much arises from this difference between us, including conservatives' determination that each of us should be free even with our failings, and liberals' equal determination to tangle us in the coils of their majestic high-mindedness and then crush us into a state of virtue.
Andrew Klavan
Santa Barbara, Calif.
---
So Mr. Larson is an amateur psychologist as well as a historian. How else to explain his convoluted reasoning as to what partisans derive from history and how each view the future and past. I have an equally ludicrous theory as a practicing orthopedic surgeon and avid reader of history: Liberals are reputed to be erudite and intellectual when they are really more emotional and conservatives are seen as troglodyte Neanderthals when they are really well-read and thoughtful. What do you think? I will, however, read his well-named book.
Louis F McIntyre
White Plains, N.Y.
