How I Would Teach History Today

Background This morning I spoke with my granddaughter, Tibby, about how history should be taught, and our conversation led me to write this paper. I was recently listening to a podcast that raised a troubling question: have we become so desensitized to acts we once regarded as totally unacceptable that we can no longer judge what is true, or what is right and wrong? An often-cited example is the break-in at the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate, which exposed President Nixon’s involvement and led to his resignation. It can fairly be argued, and I certainly would argue, that President Trump has been involved in actions that in the past would have been viewed as just as reprehensible as what Nixon did. Yet today he is not being held accountable. Have our judgment of right and wrong, and our determination to hold people accountable, slipped to the point that we have lost our moral bearings as a nation and as a people? This question haunts me, as it does many others. “Might Makes Right” The premise that “might makes right” looms larger than ever. Indeed, President Trump and Vice President JD Vance have said as much, for example in justifying taking over oil rights in Venezuela. Truth be told, “might makes right” has run through our history. It shaped the taking of Native American lands as we expanded across the continent. It supplied a thin justification for the Mexican-American War, which cost Mexico roughly half its territory and gave us California, Utah, New Mexico, and more. Our history is laced with moments when might has prevailed, even as, in every case, we justified ourselves on the grounds of doing what was right. We claimed we were making good use of the opportunity the continent offered or, in the Mexican-American War, “making life better for Mexicans” than it otherwise would have been. Imposing Our Vision Abroad We have also imposed our view of what makes a sound society by going to war in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. In doing so, we have been impatient with a belief I hold deeply: ultimately, the citizens of each country must decide what is right for them. Our example has to be seen as the path forward. I hope it will be a positive one, as it has been at many points in our history, such as the Marshall Plan after World War II. How I Would Teach It So how would I teach history in a way that addresses this question of moral relativism and the right course of action for the United States? First, I would study what is to be learned from major events. I would present the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of reacting to terrorism. We did have to react to it, and we had to do so in the right way. But in hindsight, we did not understand the history. The British in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Soviets in Afghanistan, had already shown that real change has to come from within. We needed to be careful about assuming we could come in, change how a country operates, and leave with a better result. In these cases, we probably have not. Most immediately, the U.S. and Israeli military action against Iran must be viewed in light of this same history: lasting change comes from within and cannot be imposed from without. Second, I would address moral relativism by focusing on the qualities that guided leaders in their most important decisions. I would examine the qualities of Churchill as he led his nation to victory in World War II. I would examine the qualities of Lincoln as he pursued both the emancipation of enslaved people and the preservation of the Union, refusing halfway measures that would have held the Union together while preserving slavery. And I would examine the qualities of Nelson Mandela that allowed him to forgive his enemies and bring South Africa together. In each case, I would emphasize that the success achieved in that moment was not guaranteed to last. It would be challenged by pushback. The continued pursuit of individual rights and freedom falls to the generations that follow.