What Will They Say?

Yesterday I enjoyed watching one of my favorite presidential historians, Doris Kearns Goodwin, attempt to provide context to, and parallels for, the most recent events and related periods in our country’s history when we have pushed the boundaries of established norms. As she pointed out, even though it is easy to say what is happening is unprecedented, much of what has occurred does have some similarities to the past. LBJ chose in March of 1968 not to run as the Democrat nominee for President, Truman made the same call in 1952; we have had political violence in the past, as we do today; and, again, we have had a country divided.

Nevertheless, there is no disputing, we are witnessing history, and these days will be studied, taught, and written about in future decades by the leading historians of that period. It is a fascinating time to be alive, if it weren’t so discouraging.

For me, as much as I love history and thinking about the practical implications and possible next events to occur, I am more intrigued wondering how tomorrow’s historians will chronicle what is happening today. Think about it, our era of great historians; Doris Kearns Goodwin, Jon Meacham, Martin Gilbert, and Ron Chernow, to name a few of my favorites, research the subject they are studying, for months or even years, to enable them to relay the details of their subjects and their history. They rely on written information from or about the subject, photos, articles from the period, and any other items which add to the picture of life during the time they are writing about. It is daunting work, and yet, they are typically blessed with massive amounts of information with which to pull from. They also have the advantage that the information they collect can be generally confirmed and validated.

Now imagine for a moment the poor historian fifty years from now trying to tell the history of the US during the last eight years. How will they determine what is true and what isn’t when the people who are living today can’t agree on what is happening? January 6th happened and was well chronicled on live TV, and yet, a good portion of the country believes --and vast amounts of material in articles, blogs, and books have distorted-- what occurred on that fateful day didn’t happen, and the result is we have varying accounts of the event. One would think the events of that day would be well-understood and clear; three years later, January 6th has two completely different versions.

There has been an effort for some time by the political parties to create a distortion field of truth. Famously, Kellyanne Conway, when talking about the press secretary for President Trump said, “Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts.” It wasn’t a gaffe, she was reflecting on the new norm, admitting nothing; nothing you see or hear is real.

Social media has also contributed to a void of truth. It is amazing what is said on the platforms that has little to no basis in fact, only to be accepted as truth. Relying on anything, without researching the information, from the internet is folly; and it isn’t only the written word. Images can, and often are, altered, by AI, to the point that you could become convinced a famous figure was present at an event when in fact they were nowhere near the moment in question. AI can also alter voice to suggest someone said something, when in fact, they didn’t. It is a recipe for complete deception.

The media doesn’t help, MSNBC and their equally biased alter ego Fox, traffic in untruths. Have you ever seen a historic event happen and flipped back and forth between the two? If you haven’t you should; it is eye opening. The networks cover the story, if they cover it at all, from such a different perspective as to make it hard to believe it is the same event; if you doubt that, try it. I am afraid future historians will struggle to discern truth from fiction when trying to piece together a moment in history from media reports.

To be fair, historical figures may not have always been crystal clear about who they are and what they are about; it is human nature to avoid letting the world see the real you. Nevertheless, historical figures typically leave behind personal records, letters, maybe even a journal, that helps historians capture their feelings and private thoughts. Guess what, Trump doesn’t do any of that. He famously avoids putting anything in writing, unless you count tweets.

So, what will historians do? Presumably they will follow the same tried and true methods for research they were taught or acquired from a mentor. The question will be, do those accepted methods work when the truth they seek to record wasn’t obvious to those who lived it, and was purposely skewed by those who might have reported it?

Let’s assume the best of the best historian navigates the labyrinth of untruths and successfully captures the historical facts as they occurred. Will that historian and their work be viewed neutrally and accepted as a fair reflection of what happened, or will they be pigeonholed into a group, and subsequently have their work discounted by those who aren’t in that group? It is also fair to ask, will they be able to honestly tell the story without their own bias? Will they be believed?

Historical figures, their actions and their time on earth are fascinating and important. It may be boring to some in school, but how we tell our history and what we learn from it defines us as a nation. Historical facts shouldn’t be played with or massaged; the truth should stand. We should never let our emotions and beliefs stand in the way of the truth; over 600,000 soldiers died in the civil war, and there are still some who distort why the war was fought and its cause; over 6 million jews died in the holocaust at the hands of Nazi Germany, and unbelievably some people believe the holocaust didn’t happen. Thankfully, both of those outlandish retellings of history are widely debunked. What do we do when an entire decade and all that happened, isn’t to be believed or verified by future historians? The one million Americans who died from Covid are in fact dead, are we to dispute it happened, because some choose to lie and misrepresent or present alternative facts?

I am out of the prediction game; I’m not good at it, and there is too much volatility to pretend to know what comes next. However, I am willing to bet the distortion of truth and desire to alter history to fit a narrative isn’t going anywhere. Sadly, it might be left to historians to teach future generations the truth about what happened in the US during the last 8 years, and they might struggle to get it right. I won’t be alive to read it, but I do wonder what they will say.