David Kaiser, a wide-ranging historian, is finishing his 11th book, a political history of the United States based on presidential addresses. He is the author of Politics and War: European Conflict from Philip II to Hitler(1990)
Using the ideas of William Strauss and Neil Howe, the article analyzes critical periods in the hi... more Using the ideas of William Strauss and Neil Howe, the article analyzes critical periods in the histories of Great Britain, France and Germany from the late 18th century through the mid-20th.
The changes that have occurred in the humanities in our colleges and universities over the last t... more The changes that have occurred in the humanities in our colleges and universities over the last thirty years or so-essentially, the era of baby boomer supremacy-are generally viewed as coming from the left side of the political spectrum. That is natural enough. The vast majority of humanities professors vote for Democratic candidates and support causes such as feminism, homosexual rights, affirmative action, and environmental activism, which we associate with the Left. In response, it is fair to say, the National Association of Scholars, which began with a membership that included both distinguished conservatives and distinguished Marxists, has evidently become more conservative in its orientation-though not so much as to persuade a lifelong New Deal Democrat like myself to leave it. It is precisely because I am a lifelong New Deal Democrat, however, that I see the political impact of what has happened in academia from a very different perspective. This applies particularly to changes in my own field, history. The modern discipline of history, as initially defined in the nineteenth century by men like Leopold von Ranke and Henry Adams, was a child of the Enlightenment, dedicated to the idea that exhaustive research into primary sources could yield the truth about the past, perhaps to the benefit of the present and the future. And thanks in large part to Ranke, it was very largely focused on the development of the modern state, including the state's efforts to provide for
The changes that have occurred in the humanities in our colleges and universities over the last t... more The changes that have occurred in the humanities in our colleges and universities over the last thirty years or so—essentially, the era of baby boomer supremacy—are generally viewed as coming from the left side of the political spectrum. That is natural enough. The vast majority of humanities professors vote for Democratic candidates and support causes such as feminism, homosexual rights, affirmative action, and environmental activism, which we associate with the Left. In response, it is fair to say, the National Association of Scholars, which began with a membership that included both distinguished conservatives and distinguished Marxists, has evidently become more conservative in its orientation—though not so much as to persuade a lifelong New Deal Democrat like myself to leave it. It is precisely because I am a lifelong NewDeal Democrat, however, that I see the political impact of what has happened in academia from a very different perspective. This applies particularly to changes in my own field, history. The modern discipline of history, as initially defined in the nineteenth century by men like Leopold von Ranke and Henry Adams, was a child of the Enlightenment, dedicated to the idea that exhaustive research into primary sources could yield the truth about the past, perhaps to the benefit of the present and the future. And thanks in large part to Ranke, it was very largely focused on the development of the modern state, including the state’s efforts to provide for Acad. Quest. (2015) 28:66–72 DOI 10.1007/s12129-015-9476-1
F or the past twenty-three years I have been a practicing historian in three different academic d... more F or the past twenty-three years I have been a practicing historian in three different academic departments, and during that time I have had an intermittent, generally difficult relationship with my professional organization, the American Historical Association. Were this story merely of personal interest I would keep it to myself, but I am persuaded that it is not. My various dealings with the AHA, which have now come to an end, illustrate the direction the historical profession has taken during the last twenty years, and the extent to which the association now belongs to a very narrow ideological group, quite intolerant of those who do not share their approaches. My experience is, I know, anything but unique, and it therefore deserves the attention of a wider audience, most of whom have no idea what is going on within the humanities today. It was relatively early in my career, in 1983 I believe, that I first decided to propose a panel at the annual meet ing of the association. Having published my first book in 1980, Economic Diplomacy and the Origins of the Second World War, I had re turned to one of the most controversial issues in European history, the responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War, and I had had an article with a somewhat new view of Germany's responsibility accepted by the Journal of Modern History. That has been a leading journal on this issue since its founding in the 1920s. I thought it might be the basis for one paper on a panel on new views of the outbreak of the war. For the other papers I recruited William C. Fuller, Jr., the author of a book on Russian civil-military relations in the late imperial period, and Douglas Porch, who had already published several books on the French army in the early twentieth century. (The AHA did not yet have a rule, later adopted, that any panel submitted had to include women as well as men.) With Germany, France, and Russia covered by established young scholars (we were all in our thirties at that time), and having recrui ted another well-known authority on the per iod,Joachim Remak, to chair the panel, I didn' t see how we could miss. I was wrong. Upon receiving notice that our panel had been rejected, I called the then-chairman of the program committee, whom I knew slightly, to ask what had happened. He replied that a member of the commit tee had
Page 1. Page 2. THE ROAD TO DALLAS Page 3. Page 4. THE ROAD TO DALLAS The Assassination of John F... more Page 1. Page 2. THE ROAD TO DALLAS Page 3. Page 4. THE ROAD TO DALLAS The Assassination of John F. Kennedy David Kaiser The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press cambridge, massachusetts, and london, england 2008 Page 5. ...
Using the ideas of William Strauss and Neil Howe, the article analyzes critical periods in the hi... more Using the ideas of William Strauss and Neil Howe, the article analyzes critical periods in the histories of Great Britain, France and Germany from the late 18th century through the mid-20th.
The changes that have occurred in the humanities in our colleges and universities over the last t... more The changes that have occurred in the humanities in our colleges and universities over the last thirty years or so-essentially, the era of baby boomer supremacy-are generally viewed as coming from the left side of the political spectrum. That is natural enough. The vast majority of humanities professors vote for Democratic candidates and support causes such as feminism, homosexual rights, affirmative action, and environmental activism, which we associate with the Left. In response, it is fair to say, the National Association of Scholars, which began with a membership that included both distinguished conservatives and distinguished Marxists, has evidently become more conservative in its orientation-though not so much as to persuade a lifelong New Deal Democrat like myself to leave it. It is precisely because I am a lifelong New Deal Democrat, however, that I see the political impact of what has happened in academia from a very different perspective. This applies particularly to changes in my own field, history. The modern discipline of history, as initially defined in the nineteenth century by men like Leopold von Ranke and Henry Adams, was a child of the Enlightenment, dedicated to the idea that exhaustive research into primary sources could yield the truth about the past, perhaps to the benefit of the present and the future. And thanks in large part to Ranke, it was very largely focused on the development of the modern state, including the state's efforts to provide for
The changes that have occurred in the humanities in our colleges and universities over the last t... more The changes that have occurred in the humanities in our colleges and universities over the last thirty years or so—essentially, the era of baby boomer supremacy—are generally viewed as coming from the left side of the political spectrum. That is natural enough. The vast majority of humanities professors vote for Democratic candidates and support causes such as feminism, homosexual rights, affirmative action, and environmental activism, which we associate with the Left. In response, it is fair to say, the National Association of Scholars, which began with a membership that included both distinguished conservatives and distinguished Marxists, has evidently become more conservative in its orientation—though not so much as to persuade a lifelong New Deal Democrat like myself to leave it. It is precisely because I am a lifelong NewDeal Democrat, however, that I see the political impact of what has happened in academia from a very different perspective. This applies particularly to changes in my own field, history. The modern discipline of history, as initially defined in the nineteenth century by men like Leopold von Ranke and Henry Adams, was a child of the Enlightenment, dedicated to the idea that exhaustive research into primary sources could yield the truth about the past, perhaps to the benefit of the present and the future. And thanks in large part to Ranke, it was very largely focused on the development of the modern state, including the state’s efforts to provide for Acad. Quest. (2015) 28:66–72 DOI 10.1007/s12129-015-9476-1
F or the past twenty-three years I have been a practicing historian in three different academic d... more F or the past twenty-three years I have been a practicing historian in three different academic departments, and during that time I have had an intermittent, generally difficult relationship with my professional organization, the American Historical Association. Were this story merely of personal interest I would keep it to myself, but I am persuaded that it is not. My various dealings with the AHA, which have now come to an end, illustrate the direction the historical profession has taken during the last twenty years, and the extent to which the association now belongs to a very narrow ideological group, quite intolerant of those who do not share their approaches. My experience is, I know, anything but unique, and it therefore deserves the attention of a wider audience, most of whom have no idea what is going on within the humanities today. It was relatively early in my career, in 1983 I believe, that I first decided to propose a panel at the annual meet ing of the association. Having published my first book in 1980, Economic Diplomacy and the Origins of the Second World War, I had re turned to one of the most controversial issues in European history, the responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War, and I had had an article with a somewhat new view of Germany's responsibility accepted by the Journal of Modern History. That has been a leading journal on this issue since its founding in the 1920s. I thought it might be the basis for one paper on a panel on new views of the outbreak of the war. For the other papers I recruited William C. Fuller, Jr., the author of a book on Russian civil-military relations in the late imperial period, and Douglas Porch, who had already published several books on the French army in the early twentieth century. (The AHA did not yet have a rule, later adopted, that any panel submitted had to include women as well as men.) With Germany, France, and Russia covered by established young scholars (we were all in our thirties at that time), and having recrui ted another well-known authority on the per iod,Joachim Remak, to chair the panel, I didn' t see how we could miss. I was wrong. Upon receiving notice that our panel had been rejected, I called the then-chairman of the program committee, whom I knew slightly, to ask what had happened. He replied that a member of the commit tee had
Page 1. Page 2. THE ROAD TO DALLAS Page 3. Page 4. THE ROAD TO DALLAS The Assassination of John F... more Page 1. Page 2. THE ROAD TO DALLAS Page 3. Page 4. THE ROAD TO DALLAS The Assassination of John F. Kennedy David Kaiser The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press cambridge, massachusetts, and london, england 2008 Page 5. ...
Uploads
Papers by David Kaiser