Remnant Review

One of the distinguishing marks of a formally trained historian is his rejection of what is known as the conspiracy view of history. Academia generally discourages such views.

There is a reason for this: the Progressive movement. The early “scientific” historians were Progressives. Progressivism rested on four key assumptions regarding institutions. First, the messianic redemptive power of tax-funded education. This was said to be neutral education intellectually, yet also moral. Second, universal suffrage. The democracy was seen as redemptive. Third, the need for political legislation to redistribute concentrated wealth. Fourth, the need for professional bureaucrats to administer the various political programs of wealth redistribution — no political patronage, no political spoils. This was to be enforced by Civil Service laws. The Politically Incorr... Thomas E. Woods Jr. Best Price: $1.51 Buy New $8.71 (as of 06:15 UTC - Details)

A conspiracy view of history denies the authority of all four. Public education does not stop rich men from manipulating the masses. Second, universal suffrage is helpless to root out the powers behind the thrones. Third, the super-rich manipulate the politicians, who in turn create tax code loopholes. Fourth, bureaucrats are impotent. This means that the pillars of Progressivism have failed to root out the power of wealth. It means that Progressivism’s program of social redemption has failed. Worse, it has served as a convenient cover for ever-greater concentrations of wealth and power. It means that Progressivism is a false religion. Academic historians fight conspiracy views of history. They understand that conspiracy views of history, if widely accepted, would lead to the political rejection of the Progressives’ agenda. It would undermine the legitimacy of Progressivism.

The most dangerous version of the conspiracy view of history is Murray Rothbard’s. He argued that the Progressives were dupes from day one. They were pawns in the chessboard of the power-seekers who sought state power in the name of democracy, only to use this power to keep rivals out of their markets. The far Left argues this way, too. So, Rothbard used New Left historian Gabriel Kolko’s book, The Triumph of Conservatism (1963), to support his case against the Progressives’ push to establish federal regulation of big business. The result of this political agenda was the opposite of the rhetoric: the entrenchment of big business. Kolko and Rothbard showed that the Progressives’ agenda was funded from the beginning by big business.

A PROGRAM FOR HISTORIOGRAPHY Suicide Pact: The Radi... Napolitano, Andrew P. Best Price: $0.25 Buy New $2.84 (as of 04:15 UTC - Details)

Historians who are not simply antiquarians tend to favor a view of history that is collectivist. They are themselves the products of collectivism. Most of them were trained in tax-funded universities. A handful of others were trained in expensive accredited universities — accredited by the existing cartel of university scholars. This system of screening works well. So, they prefer to explain historical causation in terms of impersonal social forces that are independent of the decisions of key individuals. There is a general hostility to studying history as if it were the result of great leaders. This was not true in 1850. It is today.

This is the traditional problem known as the one and the many. There are individuals; there are also collectives.

Consider the Protestant Reformation. How should we explain it? There was a leader, Martin Luther. There was a pocketbook issue: the sale of indulgences. There was a media system: profit-seeking printers. There was a political structure: independent German principalities. Soon, there was a separate ecclesiastical structure: Protestant churches. Martin Luther would not have been successful if there had not been printing presses and political protection. He would have wound up as John Hus did a century earlier. He had leverage through independent, profit-seeking printers and an independent local political leader. But without Luther, there would not have been a Reformation in northern Europe in his era. Historians who favor collectivism would argue that some other Luther-like figure would have shown up. He would have launched the Reformation. There is no way to prove this. The Freedom Answer Boo... Napolitano, Andrew P. Best Price: $0.10 Buy New $3.70 (as of 02:50 UTC - Details)

I think we need to study great men and great social forces. So, I recommend this investigative approach:

1. Follow the organization.

2. Follow the leaders.

3. Follow the confession.

4. Follow the money.

5. Follow the media.

Theodore and Woodrow: ... Andrew P. Napolitano Best Price: $2.00 Buy New $9.25 (as of 12:15 UTC - Details) Great leaders would not be great leaders if they did not get leverage through ideas, organizations, money, and communications systems. In other words, great leaders need leverage, and there are numerous institutional ways to gain leverage. A leader is like a lever. He needs a fulcrum to move anything.

At the same time, we do not find great social movements that are not represented and motivated by great leaders. A movement has to have some kind of visible representation. Somebody has to embody the principles of the movement. People give allegiance to individuals, not to invisible social forces. Movements that do not have people who give allegiance to particular leaders will not have visible impact.

History would be different if key people had not become influential. If you took George Washington out of the history of North America, North America would look very different from what it looks like today. The same is true of key American Presidents, such as Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt. Take away the leverage of warfare, and most Presidents would be forgotten. In fact, most Presidents are forgotten. It is the wartime Presidents who get most of the footnotes and the best-selling biographies. The Presidents who have been the great defenders of freedom in the history of this country have been Presidents who avoided war. But who wants to read a biography of Martin Van Buren or John Tyler or Grover Cleveland? Not many people.

Historians look at the past, and they look for turning points. They have a phrase to describe these: watersheds. Watershed Presidents are war Presidents. These are Presidents who changed the direction in which the country was moving.

Read the Whole Article

The Best of Gary North