History departments and the search for truth

[Lastdingo]

Playing politics at home while troops are in the field? Inexcusable.

Are you joking? That's democracy!
Besides that - if politics stopped everytime U.S. soldiers were fighting somewhere , U.S. politics would in resemble a stop-and-go ... and considering that the government sees the 'War on Terrorism' as perpetual, would turn the U.S. in a state that could as well abolish politics as well.

[John T. Fishel]

Hey Rob--

There has been some significant research on the political attitudes of the military both officers and enlisted over time. Some of the most recent was by Peter Feaver at Duke (or is it UNC?) who is a Reserve officer in the Navy. Feaver found that the bulk of the officer corps self identifies as Republican (overwhelming percentages). This is a change over the last 30 years when the officer corps was less identified with political parties and there was a significant minority of Democrats

IMO it is not a good thing to find the country as politically polarized as it is nor that the military is so one sidedly self-identified. I have never seen anything wrong in officer having and expressing political opinions in private nor registering and voting nor contributing to the party of their choice. But I am somewhat concerned that the "old ethic" apolitical officers have nearly disappeared and that most military offcers are Republicans (I would be equally concerned if most were Democrats). I say this as one who for his entire active and reserve career was a registered Democrat who is now a registered Republican.

On the plus side - as demonstrated by this forum - civil disagreement is alive and well among the active, RC, and retired military, as well as the civilians who post here.

Cheers

JOhnT

[SteveMetz]

Hey Rob--

There has been some significant research on the political attitudes of the military both officers and enlisted over time. Some of the most recent was by Peter Feaver at Duke (or is it UNC?) who is a Reserve officer in the Navy. Feaver found that the bulk of the officer corps self identifies as Republican (overwhelming percentages). This is a change over the last 30 years when the officer corps was less identified with political parties and there was a significant minority of Democrats

IMO it is not a good thing to find the country as politically polarized as it is nor that the military is so one sidedly self-identified. I have never seen anything wrong in officer having and expressing political opinions in private nor registering and voting nor contributing to the party of their choice. But I am somewhat concerned that the "old ethic" apolitical officers have nearly disappeared and that most military offcers are Republicans (I would be equally concerned if most were Democrats). I say this as one who for his entire active and reserve career was a registered Democrat who is now a registered Republican.

On the plus side - as demonstrated by this forum - civil disagreement is alive and well among the active, RC, and retired military, as well as the civilians who post here.

Cheers

JOhnT

Peter is at Duke (he was the lead author of the "Strategy for Victory in Iraq" while serving on the NSC staff). But there has been some recent research that illustrates a pretty profound reversal in that tendency among the military. I forget the exact numbers, but one thing I saw said something like five years ago 80% of the graduating West Point class identified themselves as Republican, and now it's less than 50%.

[John T. Fishel]

Hi Steve--

Thanks for clarifying Peter's affiliation - I'd forgotten.

In an 2006 article published by ISERP at Columbia U, Jason Dempsey, et. al. give the following figures based on 2004 research:

63% of all Army officers self-identify as conservative and Republican self-identification increases as rank goes up. Note that they do not say that conservative = Republican but the implication is there.

61% of West Point cadets identify as Republicans with and additional 14% leaning that direction.

Sounds like the numbers are down some from Peter's studies but not dramatically.

Cheers

John

PS this was the most recent data/article I saw in my cursory Google

[selil]

I believe the numbers are yearly there are 2500 graduating PhD historians for aproximately 250 full time teaching positions.

[Sargent]

I believe the numbers are yearly there are 2500 graduating PhD historians for aproximately 250 full time teaching positions.

Ugh.

Of course, the number reference immediately created the image of a satirical redo of "The 300," except instead of fearsome warriors, it's historians.

As for Moyar, Steve Metz's points are spot on. Another I might add is that it is often difficult to secure an academic position straight out of an English/Euro doctoral program -- per one graduate of such a program, the problem is that you don't do the same amount of coursework for the degree as is done in an American university. Schools today are expecting new faculty hires to be able to teach across a fairly broad spectrum. If your entire doctoral career has been focussed on your dissertation, you may not have a lot to show in terms of what you can teach. That is, although the two facts -- he wrote a controversial book and has not secured a teaching position -- exist, it is not necessarily the case that the one caused the other.

Alternatively, if his book has caused problems in his attempts to get a teaching job, Moyar's choice of a subject might have been somewhat Quixotic. Your dissertation is what is going to sell you to prospective employers, so it's not always about writing what you want, but what will make you attractive as a job candidate. It might have been better to save this study for later in his career. If you are a military historian and you want to teach, you are going to have to be particularly savvy about your studies and how you package yourself. It's all well and good to say that he should be able to write what he wants, but we have to live in the world as it is, not as we want it to be.

[120mm]

Curious as to what the thought out there is. Sec Gates recently advised some Academy grads to be apolitical (I think he was constraining the remark to when it comes to judging the motivations of Congress, the Admin and the Press). You can use any definition you want, but is the militiary culture more conservative or liberal? How about individual service cultures? Does this translate readily as Republican and Democrat? Is this good or bad? Does it impact important debates like being able to criticize the war without being critical of the troops? Could the military alienate itself from society if it were decidely "conservative" while the public was more "liberal" in its attitude toward war? Could the military become a symol of "conservatism" or uniformly identified with a sole political party? Is this good, bad or does not matter?

We were discussing civil-military relations, and allot of great points came up (many are abve). I've never really questioned where I stood, or why I stood there. I never really considered the dangers of alienating any group outside of the green suiters - I mean we have lived on base pretty much the entire time and when I was enlisted I was always on base. Even in ROTC (APSU) the people I identified most with were other former enlisted making the transition. It was pointed out to me recently the military's role is to "preserve" and "defend" - that seems like a "conserve" role to me.

Since we have so many folks on the outside on this forum, it seemed like a great place to discuss it - since I saw this thread, it beat starting a new one.
regards, Rob

I see the numbers on "self-identified" political leanings, but then I actually work with these guys day to day, and see a huge chasm between (self) perception and reality. I am sometimes shocked by professional officers' view of traditionally political bell-weathers like gun control. Nearly all of the professional military officers I know are in favor of strict gun control. At issue, I believe, is the micro-management culture in the military and the basic distrust of people.

Most of these supposedly "conservative" officers are also pro-union and in favor of large and elaborate social systems to "take care of people." I'd also venture to say that most officers believe that we should "trust scientists and doctors" on environmental issues and abortion.

Frankly, I think this "right-wing politicization of the military" is left-wing agit-prop, more than anything. Based on a "scientific" poll, of course

[SteveMetz]

Ugh.

Of course, the number reference immediately created the image of a satirical redo of "The 300," except instead of fearsome warriors, it's historians.

Based on my observation, historians aren't nearly as buff as Spartan warriors. Or as oily.

To tell the truth, after grad school I applied to several hundred places (in political science) and never got a tenure track job at a place I wanted to be (and I had degree completed, several refereed publications, teaching awards, etc.). I sort of stumbled into the military professional education system and found it significantly more rewarding.

[Sargent]

Based on my observation, historians aren't nearly as buff as Spartan warriors. Or as oily.

To tell the truth, after grad school I applied to several hundred places (in political science) and never got a tenure track job at a place I wanted to be (and I had degree completed, several refereed publications, teaching awards, etc.). I sort of stumbled into the military professional education system and found it significantly more rewarding.

As to the first... After a few drinks at the bar at the conference they like to think they are!

As to the second... I would be happy to stumble, trip, get shoved into, skip, sprint, crawl, or otherwise end up in the military professional education system. While there are things that I find appealing about traditional public/private colleges/universities, I think that contemporary military affairs jones will always be there, and working in the military schools offers the opportunity to satisfy it within the bounds of my actual job.

Oh, and please tell me that "several hundred" is an exaggeration!

[marct]

Hi Sargent,

Oh, and please tell me that "several hundred" is an exaggeration!

It wasn't for me. I think I applied to about 200 positions in the first couple of years around getting my Ph.D. In my case, I suspect that one of the things that turned a lot of commitees off was that they couldn't categorize me neatly into a pidgeon hole. Canadian PhD's often have the reverse problem when applying for US positions from Euro Ph.D.'s; most of the time we have a 2 year MA along with a 6 year Ph.D., so we frequently appear to be over-qualified. We also tend to be trained more in theory that US Ph.D.'s, at least in Soc and Anthro. I know that in my case, one of the problems was having degrees in three different disciplines <shrug>.

As to the second... I would be happy to stumble, trip, get shoved into, skip, sprint, crawl, or otherwise end up in the military professional education system. While there are things that I find appealing about traditional public/private colleges/universities, I think that contemporary military affairs jones will always be there, and working in the military schools offers the opportunity to satisfy it within the bounds of my actual job.

It's odd where we end up. I've had to reconstruct myself as an "applied Anthropologist" (I'm really a theoretcian) and now I find my home in an Interdisicplinary Studies program (along with consulting work). I'd also be happy to "stumble" into a position that would let me pursue my own research, teach and have some applied value more than how to market new widgets .

Marc

[Ken White]

I see the numbers on "self-identified" political leanings, but then I actually work with these guys day to day, and see a huge chasm between (self) perception and reality. I am sometimes shocked by professional officers' view of traditionally political bell-weathers like gun control. Nearly all of the professional military officers I know are in favor of strict gun control. At issue, I believe, is the micro-management culture in the military and the basic distrust of people.

Most of these supposedly "conservative" officers are also pro-union and in favor of large and elaborate social systems to "take care of people." I'd also venture to say that most officers believe that we should "trust scientists and doctors" on environmental issues and abortion.

Frankly, I think this "right-wing politicization of the military" is left-wing agit-prop, more than anything. Based on a "scientific" poll, of course

Strongly agree with the micro-management aspect and would add that the attitudes you cite have really grown in the services over the last 30 years or so, they used to be a lot more conservative than they are today. Back in the theoretically totally apolitical but actually non-voting time they were were far more in tune with 'conservative' positions than is the case today.

The only major variance from centrist US thought is generally in foreign affairs and defense where they tend to lean slightly but not overly right...

[selil]

It wasn't for me. I think I applied to about 200 positions in the first couple of years around getting my Ph.D.

I applied to five universities and got offers from three.

With only a masters degree in computer science.

I'll finish my PhD course work at a top 10 University this fall or next spring, and I'm already writing on my dissertation. I'm scheduled to be up for tenure review and finishing/defending my dissertation the same semester (can't you seem my enthusiasm?)

[120mm]

My brother-in-law is an EE professor at a Big Ten university. The typical professor there makes about $48,000 - 52,000 per annum, according to the last state employee wage summary. HE makes significantly more than $100,000.

Sometimes, it's good to be a tech guy.

[lysander6]

I think it is rather silly to assume that objective history is possible due to the inherent tendency to think within the confines of your nascent philosophical or social framework. I would simply like to know the political bent of any writer so I know what to expect. Even though I can usually divine the unacknowledged bias, there are practitioners among the neocons and lefty enviruses, for instance, that coat their prognostications in scientific certitude or leave out important observations or facts that may color their conclusions.

Whether the Grand Old Politburo or the Demosocialists, my political demarcations are between collectivists and individualists or interventionists and non-interventionists. Once that marker is established, it is pretty clear that either party disagrees on much of anything.

[selil]

I
Whether the Grand Old Politburo or the Demosocialists, my political demarcations are between collectivists and individualists or interventionists and non-interventionists. Once that marker is established, it is pretty clear that either party disagrees on much of anything.

So your bias is polarization and don't bother with shades of gray?

[jastay3]

I suppose whether history can be objective depends on the meaning of the word "objective" and the importance attached to it. If one means Olympian impartiality I don't think that is achieveable. At least it is hard to think of many historians which are impartial in that sense. However a historian can be honest, charitable toward one's subjects(which means understanding their perspective-though not blindly accepting it), and diligent in the effort to find out what happend. Bias is not incompatable with the search for truth-a policeman is biased against his suspect and a scientist biased for his hypothisis. However a historians sympathies should not be so strong as to overcome his honesty.

[SWJED]

I suppose whether history can be objective depends on the meaning of the word "objective" and the importance attached to it. If one means Olympian impartiality I don't think that is achieveable. At least it is hard to think of many historians which are impartial in that sense. However a historian can be honest, charitable toward one's subjects(which means understanding their perspective-though not blindly accepting it), and diligent in the effort to find out what happend. Bias is not incompatable with the search for truth-a policeman is biased against his suspect and a scientist biased for his hypothisis. However a historians sympathies should not be so strong as to overcome his honesty.

Myself and at least one other moderator have sent you a PM - one - introduce yourself and - two - think about whether this board is the right place for you. Frankly, your posts are not much more than 'thinking out loud' musings and quite boring to boot. Did you look around here before posting? Did you check out the backgrounds of the members? I think not.

Dave Dilegge

[Steve Blair]

I suppose whether history can be objective depends on the meaning of the word "objective" and the importance attached to it. If one means Olympian impartiality I don't think that is achieveable. At least it is hard to think of many historians which are impartial in that sense. However a historian can be honest, charitable toward one's subjects(which means understanding their perspective-though not blindly accepting it), and diligent in the effort to find out what happend. Bias is not incompatable with the search for truth-a policeman is biased against his suspect and a scientist biased for his hypothisis. However a historians sympathies should not be so strong as to overcome his honesty.

This looks to be pseudo-intellectual naval-gazing. Dielbruk and his followers were believers in objective history, but it's been demonstrated time and again that this isn't possible due to (among other reasons) available sources. There is always bias in primary sources. The best a historian can hope to achieve, in my view, is a rendering of the sources and their biases, along with a clear discussion of the historian's own biases. Sadly, this latter is all too often lacking in some more popular (and even more sadly academic) histories.

Being "charitable toward one's subjects" can all too often become spinning available facts to fit a specific need or objective. Recent trends in historiography lean more toward a fair airing of all available sources, although I do wish that context played a greater role in such examinations. By that I mean linking a discussion with a wider context both of the times and the society in which the events took place. The US involvement in Vietnam is a prime example of this, although there are many others (and I suspect Iraq will pass Vietnam in short order with this sort of 'perfect vision history').

[Beelzebubalicious]

Mr. Benson, I was curious to read the original article, but the link you provided only went to your blog, in which you opine about "academic hostility to those who challenge liberal perceptions". The link in your blog does not go to the NY Sun Article. In fact, I couldn't find it in a search of the NY Sun web site. I finally found it after a google search.

The link is at: http://www.nysun.com/article/53422

It's worth reading the entire article as those who are accused of liberal bias have the opportunity to defend themselves.

[Ken White]

...
. . .

It's worth reading the entire article as those who are accused of liberal bias have the opportunity to defend themselves.

I read the article earlier and my recollection did not align with your statement; it seemed to me that those accused of 'liberal bias' had in fact corroborated that bias. I just reread the article from your link. My opinion was not changed.

One mans bias is another's fair and balanced, I suppose -- but the Jeffrey Record quote is telling, jest indeed. How professional, how Professorial...

Moyar has much of it right, some I disagree with. Record got little of it right and has done nothing and said little since that has proven correct. In my opinion, any 'strategist' who talks of winning and losing in a counterinsurgency effort has a significant credibility problem.