On my way somewhere else, I ran across this blog post by McGill University history professor Gil Troy at History News Network. His premise is that historians should defend the recent comments by Hillary Clinton that referenced the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy:
Troy contends that Clinton's original statement was "not only benign, it was precisely the kind of thing historians do all the time." He goes on:
More to the point, though, is the frame in which the statement was made. It may be defensible when made by a historian, but Hillary doesn't live in a world of historians. She's a politician, and her remarks will invariably be taken in a political context.
For Troy to say that "analogies...are selective," that "the analogizer has the right to pick," ignores the reality of the politics of a campaign. Analogies are chosen by the speaker, but are heard and evaluated by voters and reporters. That's the frame in which campaign statements are made, and all the historians in the world aren't going to change that.
Clinton was responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race.[She subsequently "apologized":
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of dropping out.
"The Kennedys have been much on my mind in the last days because of Senator Kennedy, and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."Mark Liberman at Language Log goes through the quality of her apology here.]
Troy contends that Clinton's original statement was "not only benign, it was precisely the kind of thing historians do all the time." He goes on:
Historians frequently refer to previous incidents to explain current behavior. To perceive hidden agendas in such analogizing is unreasonable. True, Robert Kennedy was tragically assassinated that June; but he also was running in a race that remained wide open that month too. Senator Clinton was in no way calling for an assassination or warning of one. Simply writing that previous statement emphasizes how absurd the charges are. Analogies by nature are selective. The analogizer has the right to pick or choose within reason, as Senator Clinton did in this case.He does allow that there has been "a long list of Clinton curveballs, sleights-of-hand, manipulations and lies," but tells us that this current example doesn't qualify. As it turns out, the current comment, that she has made previously, is seriously misleading given the relative length of the campaigns.
More to the point, though, is the frame in which the statement was made. It may be defensible when made by a historian, but Hillary doesn't live in a world of historians. She's a politician, and her remarks will invariably be taken in a political context.
For Troy to say that "analogies...are selective," that "the analogizer has the right to pick," ignores the reality of the politics of a campaign. Analogies are chosen by the speaker, but are heard and evaluated by voters and reporters. That's the frame in which campaign statements are made, and all the historians in the world aren't going to change that.
No comments:
Post a Comment