This historian would like to see…
- Discourse on the New York Times’s 1619 Project. The current vitriol is unacceptable.
- Academic historians engage each other in substantive debate, rather than insipid tweeting.
- Acknowledging contributions and expertise of established scholars in the 1619 Project debate
- Gordon Wood, James McPherson, and Sean Wilentz must be heard and respected.
- David McCullough, Evan Thomas, Nate Philbrick, Richard Brookheiser- are considered historians
- Real discussion on the wisdom and future of the 17th amendment
- A fair and comprehensive Senate trial on the latest articles of impeachment
- A fair and reasonable general election
- The emergence of a new(not third) political party. The current two have far outlived their effectiveness
- The Electoral College is maintained
- Americans rediscover the genius of the Founding generation
- Washington’s birthday becomes a separate holiday again
- A moratorium on destroying Confederate monuments – particularly anonymous memorials to war dead
- More US history in high school
- Less Howard Zinn in college
- The younger generation embraces living history
- Frederick Douglass replaces Andrew Jackson on the $20
- More battlefield preservation
- A President who is Presidential – returning dignity to the Office.
Can’t disagree w any of these, sir, although the last one seems unlikely, given the current field. If the choice is between socialists, extremists, shrill novices, and bully incumbents, I think the voters will continue to choose the bully.
LikeLike