Historical illiteracy has sustained Trump


When it comes to knowledge of civics and history, Americans are an embarrassingly ignorant people. David McCullough, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, “We’re raising young people who are, by and large, historically illiterate.” Statistics widely support this claim. In 2011, Newsweek magazine asked 1,000 Americans questions from the U.S. citizenship test. The study showed that 73 percent couldn’t say why we engaged in the Cold War and 29 percent failed to identify the vice president. The University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center found that a mere 36 percent of Americans knew all three branches of the U.S. government; 35 percent couldn’t name even one. This staggering unawareness of government and history among Americans seems particularly relevant in a time where one of the major candidates for the presidency evokes memories of the most deplorable individuals and events in our nation’s past. As his struggling campaign heads into the final months of the election season, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his surrogates have attempted to soften some of his stances. But, make no mistake, his words, actions and policies have consistently reflected the absolute worst in our history and no superficial pivot will change that. His recent meeting with the Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto only served to underline his historical ties to America’s most embarrassing eras.

Trump’s rhetoric of fear and division bares a striking resemble to that of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, a man who engaged in an infamous witch hunt of alleged communists. Trump and McCarthy similarly employed fear-mongering and fiery language making many Americans unjustifiably suspicious of their fellow citizens. Both men accused groups of dishonorable behavior, from sympathizing with communism to publicly celebrating the 9/11 attacks, with sweeping statements and insufficient, even nonexistent evidence. Billionaire Warren Buffett noted that some of Trump’s comments regarding the Gold Star Kahn family reminded him of McCarthy’s tactics. Buffet directed toward Trump the famous question originally for McCarthy: “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslims, which his campaign has clumsily attempted to moderate, seems awfully similar to the Chinese Exclusion Act, a law that has been deemed one of the most blatant forms of discrimination in our history. Yanan Wang wrote in the Washington Post, “The Chinese Exclusion Act is … the closest cousin to what Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed.” Rarely has this type of lawful restriction on a certain group of people actually existed in the United States and, yet, Trump has called for a return to a similar policy.

Last week, in the immediate aftermath of his meeting with Nieto, Trump reinforced his hard-edged, anti-immigration message. Trump’s continual depiction of undocumented Mexican immigrants as dangerous and threatening is yet another example of the recurring xenophobia and nativism that has consistently plagued the United States since its inception. From the Irish and Italians to the Polish and Germans, nearly every major immigrant population has faced exclusion, intolerance and countless “need not apply” signs.  Trump’s language about Mexicans is an extension of this disgraceful pattern. The connection seems obvious between the glaring ignorance of Americans and the rise of Donald Trump, a man who embodies the absolute worst of our country’s past.

If only Trump supporters could see his similarities to those shameful periods and realize that supporting him is to align yourself on the wrong side of history. Like McCarthy, like exclusionary policies, like extreme nativism and xenophobia, Trump and his supporters will, in time, be deemed morally reprehensible. It is a pity that a sizable amount of citizens in this country will ultimately be forced to explain themselves to their grandchildren.

6 replies
  1. GeorgeCurious
    GeorgeCurious says:

    I suppose you believe Hillary’s stance on murdering unborn children is less shameful than Trump’s position on immigration issues. How will you explain yourself to your grandchildren, assuming you allow them to be born…

  2. Rob Vance
    Rob Vance says:

    The author shows an ignorance of basic economics. Supply and demand for labor does matter. The US does not have an infinite ability to absorb laborers, nor does its culture have an infinite ability to absorb citizens who don’t want to assimilate. It’s not shameful for America’s government to put the interests of US citizens first before those of other countries. Wilkes simple-minded comparison to historical figures fits the leftist guilt by association pattern that Alynskyites have attempted to promulgate. There’s a lot more nuance in real history -e.g. the Communists really did murder millions of their own citizens and wanted to do the same to us. We’re not buying the ahistorical left-wing nonsense. Maybe she would benefit by reading Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn?

    • samdman
      samdman says:

      you actually show an ignorance of basic economics.

      have you looked at the economic stagnation in japan or the EU over the last 25 and 5 years, respectively?

      many economists agree that this is due to an aging workforce combined with other demographic trends limiting growth.

      however, the US’s post-recession recovery has been one of the strongest in the developed world, and a main reason for that is our expanding young workforce which is in large part due to immigration.

      but then you devolve into an incoherent tirade against “leftist guilt” so i doubt many people are taking your opinion seriously anyways

      • Rob Vance
        Rob Vance says:

        Actually I have an MBA and a BA in History (minor in Economics), so no I don’t take your criticism seriously. As for a strong recovery, what are you smoking? Labor force participation rate is terrible. You would benefit from reading Amity Shlaes’ book on the Great Depression and how federal intervention prolonged it. You don’t have the facts behind you.

        • samdman
          samdman says:

          you should actually read milton freidman’s analysis of the great depression. even though he’s a noted skeptic of government intervention, his analysis (which is commonly accepted in the academic community) is that the fed didn’t do enough in face of the great depression.

          and i’m majoring in econ :)

Comments are closed.