Kelly in Kansas

One of the many H-Net listservs, H-US1918-1945 (more info also available at the New Deal Network) posted a comment by Professor Singleton that seemed well worth further exploration. I have had some mixed feelings in the past about historians thinking that their view on current events was "the" opinion on the matter. But Professor Singleton's post provided an excellent foundation for why it is important for historians with the appropriate expertise to carry on intellectual discussions about current events that they expect to be respected in a public forum. Now, I'm not saying that historians can't have viewpoints - it's when they confuse their expertise in a specific area of history with being the ONLY authority on a current event that is much more problematic. This probably has to do with the fac that I have seen more than one colleague take time in his Ancient Africa class to spend an entire course period on the 2000 or 2004 election with absolutely no connection to the course content students were expecting and had the right to expect.

Professor Singleton has graciously agreed to have his post posted here:

Subject:
Historians on Social Security (Singleton)
From:
Thomas Thurston
Date:
Mon, 7 Feb 2005 08:51:50 -0500
To:
H-US1918-45@H-NET.MSU.EDU

Subject: Re: Historians on Social Security (Singleton)
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 07:59:33 -0500
From: Jeff Singleton


This is an important discussion that brings us right back to the old debate
about "public intellectuals." I strongly feel historians should speak out on
social security.

We should clarify the issues around which there is broad agreement among
those who have studied the issue and explain the points of disagreement.
There really are quite a few of important historical questions that bear on
the current discussion – most importantly how the old age "pension" system
emerged as the cornerstone of the American welfare state (that was NOT so
clear when the program was created and most commentaries ignore this
important fact), how we got the current "pay as you go" system and how and
when the notion of a social security "crisis" became popular. There is much
good recent research on these issues. Should we stand on the sidelines?

I would also agree with Professor Hamby that we can not and probably should
not speak with a unified voice on the future ot the system, although this is
a democracy and those with a particular view should express them. I would
certainly hope that the profession would be diverse enough to include
different views on private accounts, for example. It would not at all help
the profession's current public reputation if it seemed that everyone agreed
with liberal democrats on this.

Above all, we might try to model good behavior. The quality of the current
discussion is really a national disgrace! Professor Hamby is quite right
that critics of private accounts are out of line when they portray the
proposal as an effort to repeal the New Deal. (Indeed, I would arguen that
private accounts are a massive government intervention in the financial
markets). But on the other side, private accounts are being justified as a
response to a crisis which is wildly exaggerated. And in the medium term,
privatization probably makes the crisis worse.

We should help create venues for a more mature discussion of this crucial
question. In the process, we can add insights gleaned from recent new
research on the American welfare state, much of which has not worked its way
into the public forum. Perhaps my vision is utopian, but it is one reason I
became a historian.

Would I be able to share this conversation with my students on my website? I
think it directly bears on the role of history in formulating public policy.

Jeff Singleton
Boston College