Speaking of ideological capture…

Sigh. History is not just a matter of saying “Look at these important men.” There is, in fact, quite a lot more to it than that.

Republicans think otherwise. They want the Smithsonian to do some Great Men Worship, god damn it! That’s its job!

House Democrats issued a rebuttal to the White House’s attack on the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, arguing in a report that the Trump administration cherry-picked quotes, mangled basic facts and misstated who controls the institution — even as House Republicans escalate the fight by summoning the museum’s director to testify Tuesday.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tennessee), chairman of the House Oversight subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, requested in a July 13 letter that Anthea Hartig, the American history museum’s director, testify Tuesday morning about what he called “the misuse of federal funds” to promote “divisive, politically tendentious revisions of American history.” The letter says the museum’s leaders “either lack an understanding of the Nation’s heritage or are determined to blatantly mischaracterize and disparage the American experiment.”

The hearing follows the White House Domestic Policy Council’s July 4 report, “Saving America’s Story,” which accused the museum of “ideological capture” and cast Hartig — named more than 220 times in text and footnotes of the 162-page report — as “an activist advancing an ideological agenda.”

The Democrats’ response, prepared by the minority on the House Administration Committee and reviewed by The Washington Post, argues the White House report contradicts itself, citing the White House’s claim that visitors “will find no major exhibit dedicated to the founding era or figures such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson” only to concede later that the museum features “remarkable artifacts like the desk Thomas Jefferson used to draft the Declaration of Independence, George Washington’s uniform” and the Star-Spangled Banner.

This is just kindergarten stuff. There’s more to history than a parade of Great Men – a lot more. There’s more to history than can possibly stuffed into one museum, or a thousand museums, and there is nothing wrong with a museum of American history focusing on, for instance, social history as opposed to great man biography.

Furthermore Trump has no jurisdiction over the Smithsonian.

The White House’s lengthy report earlier this month drew a rebuttal from Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III and concern from the institution’s staff and alumni.

“The Smithsonian was established as an independent institution precisely so no president could dictate how our nation’s story is told,” Morelle said in a statement. “Committee Democrats will continue defending that independence because no president gets to edit the American story.”

And of all the people we don’t want editing the American story, Trump is the most.

Comments

13 responses to “Speaking of ideological capture…”

  1. Omar Avatar

    And of all the people we don’t want editing the American story, Trump is the most.

    Oh, I dunno. It could yield valuable insights into how that which passes for his mind, actually works.

  2. Piglet Avatar

    I hate the forced choice between Great Men History and All The Greatest Women Are Men History. These things are unrelated, but they’ve been force-teamed. Slavery was bad. Native Americans were subjected to genocide. Woodrow Wilson was a racist. Richard Nixon was a crook. Rachel Levine wasn’t the first female four-star admiral in the Commissioned Corps.

  3. twiliter Avatar

    What about the history of sweeping stuff under the rug? There has to be some connection.

  4. Piglet Avatar

    twiliter: Great American Cover-Ups would be a very interesting exhibit.

  5. iknklast Avatar

    It could yield valuable insights into how that which passes for his mind, actually works.

    Does it work?

  6. twiliter Avatar

    The evidence is irrefutable.

  7. Harald Hanche-Olsen Avatar

    It could yield valuable insights into how that which passes for his mind, actually works.

    Does it work?

    That would depend on your definition of “work”, wouldn’t it.

    He has an uncanny ability to gather followers and bamboozle them into believing what a great man he is. That is a kind of talent, and clearly a very dangerous talent for one such as he to possess.

    Never underestimate the opposition. That way lies certain defeat. (It’s probably in Sun Tsu somewhere.)

  8. Ophelia Benson Avatar

    But is that his ability or their disability? He does what he likes doing, and they like seeing him do it.

  9. Harald Hanche-Olsen Avatar

    Ophelia: Oh, for sure it’s their disabilty too. I believe it’s both. Trumpism is merely a culmination (so far) of a disease that’s been progressing for decades, but he did put it in overdrive. That’s what his talent is about, if we can call it that. (I may sound cocksure about this, but really, I am not. What I am sure about, is the dictum to not underestimate the enemy. Even though underestimating Trump seems like an impossible task.)

  10. Ophelia Benson Avatar

    Well you’re certainly right that he got where he is, and not once but twice, so that’s something. My struggle is just with what to call it. I suppose what I think is that it’s not so much a talent as a frightening power to appeal to the worst instincts of a frighteningly large number of USians. Why not a talent? Because he doesn’t think about it, he just does what he loves to do. His instincts mesh with the majority’s instincts. I’m getting more depressed with each word I type.

  11. Harald Hanche-Olsen Avatar

    I’m getting more depressed with each word I type.

    I know the feeling. Maybe time to stop trying to unscrew the inscrutable and focus on what can and should be done. The bigger worry right now seems to be the fragmentation of the left.

  12. Ophelia Benson Avatar

    Yes probably a good idea, but I don’t think I’m capable of it. I can’t look away from a horror of this kind, because…I don’t know, it just seems like something we have to try to understand, or at least underline. Much like Nazi Germany. Hannah Arendt attended Eichmann’s trial for a reason, and the New Yorker assigned her the task for a reason.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *