Abstract:

Finding a common intellectual heritage for a writer as polemic and prolific as Arthur

Schlesinger Jr. is no easy task. He has however, maintained a close identification with

liberalism in America and especially Franklin Delano Roosevelt. His career seems more

akin to Machiavelli than to Rankean tradition. Schlesinger was intensely interested in the

transmission from ideas to reality.

“The Weapon of Freedom”

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. is an Americanist who despite his prominent and vocal liberal

ideology should be regarded as an extremely influential historian. His popular and more

scholarly works have reached millions of readers and contributed to the national debate

over the past half century.  He could not, and can not, resist putting in his two cents on

how present day political battles are influenced by the historical precedents. As a political

activist he has kept his loyalty to his progressive beliefs consistent, beliefs which I will

explore in relation to his methodology and claims for the uses of history.  I will examine

four of his works including: A Life in the Twentieth Century (2001),  The Age of Jackson

(1946), and War and the American Presidency (2004) in light of works by Thomas

Carlyle, Leopold von Ranke, and Joan Scott.   

Schlesinger believes he can espouse a liberal political philosophy, offer reflections on

current debates and still remain an objective, serious historian.  He consistently preaches

in editorials and his memoirs that history provides insight into current political problems

and can better educate our rulers.  By justifying history for its generalizations and its

insight into current affairs, Schlesinger seems to diverge from the more specialized and

ostensibly objective, academic historical paradigm, of which Leopold von Ranke can be

considered the founder.  To Arthur Schlesinger Jr., history should portray the American

liberal struggle which has made America great illuminate the options for politicians.

History is essentially a tool for public policy makers to make America even greater.

Liberalism Defined

Schlesinger identified himself as a crusader for liberal causes; to fully understand the

philosophy of history underlying Schlesinger’s work, one must begin by defining

liberalism. His methodology and subject material are intertwined with his political

beliefs. At the time of this writing, typing “Liberal Historian” into www.google.com

brought Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in the third position. In his memoir of his first thirty three

years, he reveals he “inherited his father’s liberal causes (371)” and accordingly was

ostracized for it during his time in the military.

Schlesinger once wrote, “In a sense all of America is liberalism,”1 which seems to be a

rhetorical trick. Thus if you are arguing with ‘liberalism’ you are, in fact, arguing with

the whole concept of America. Schlesinger begins The Age of Jackson with a quote from

his relative George Bancroft about the endless feud between “the house of Have and the

house of Want”. Schlesinger’s selections and quotes show his sympathies directed

1 http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0504-10.htm

toward the ‘house of Want.’ Schlesinger’s stance against communism in The Vital

Center in 1949 helped define liberalism and moved it away from communism.

Brief Biography

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. was born into a family of historians and came of age during the

Great Depression. As mentioned, his mother was related to George Bancroft and his

father Arthur Schlesinger Sr. was a Harvard historian who pioneered social history.

Growing up, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. read voraciously and attended public schools. His

parents enrolled him in the prestigious Phillips Exeter Academy, however, after a public

school teacher told him “Albinos come from Albania.”2 He then entered Harvard at age

16 and after graduation worked with the OSS during WWII. While he was overseas he

finished The Age of Jackson for which he won the Pulitzer in 1946. After some time as a

freelance writer in Washington D.C. he became a professor at Harvard. In 1960 he joined

Kennedy in the White House. It could be argued the defining moment of his life was the

New Deal and that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of his personal heroes.

Liberal Heroes

Carlyle’s theory of the “Great Men” of history can be related to Schlesinger’s treatment

of the American presidents Andrew Jackson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and John F.

Kennedy. Carlyle wrote, “Universal history, the history of what man has accomplished

in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here.”3 Critics

have characterized Schlesinger as writing heroic history. Robert Burke, in a review,

2 WHAT PAGE FROM HIS MEMOIRS?3 http://hnn.us/articles/1328.html

described Schlesinger’s account as FDR as heroic, though he felt Schlesinger was

“willing to go where the evidence leads.”4

Schlesinger and his father were both involved with a survey given first for Life magazine

and then for the New York Times magazine to determine the “Great Presidents” (through

“Near Great” into abysmal failures). In 1996 there were three greats, Lincoln,

Washington and FDR.5 I seem to remember reading the article. The rankings are not

ignored by the historical profession, however, and have received much attention in the

Journal of American History. While many criticized Schlesinger for producing a

pointless exercise with no objectivity, Gary Maranell claimed the rankings useful but

flawed.6 He believed that idealistic presidents were more favorably viewed and analyzed

the qualities which led to high or low rankings. Greatness is like pornography to the

Schlesingers, you’ll know it when we see it, or at least the historians he surveys will.7

Schlesinger quoted many presidents who have criticized the rankings and even the whole

idea behind the rankings. However, despite the complaining, he believed President

Kennedy viewed the rankings “with fascination.”8 Schlesinger mocked the ‘pretentious

methodologies’ of the quantitative-minded scholars who felt plugging numbers into

computers would produce something more ‘scientific’.9 Except, even after degrading

their surveys as overly complicated, Schlesinger notes how similar they were to the polls 4 Robert E. Burke Reviewed Work(s): The Age of Roosevelt. Volume II, The Coming of the New Deal by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. The American Historical Review > Vol. 65, No. 1 (Oct., 1959), pp. 148-1505 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20010511.html 6 Gary M. MaranellThe Journal of American History > Vol. 57, No. 1 (Jun., 1970), pp. 104-1137 Rating the Presidents: Washington to Clinton Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 112, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 179 8 Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 112, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 1809 Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 112, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 180

conducted by his father and himself! Like Carlyle, Schlesinger believes we should

recognize and celebrate greatness. In fact, he quotes James Bryce at the beginning of

War and the American Presidency, “Perhaps no form of government needs great leaders

as much as democracy. (xv)”

Aside from opinion polls, what makes someone ‘Great’? Men become Great to

Schlesinger when they embody the spirit of the age, transforming policy into action. He

quotes FDR’s opinion to clarify his own position, “All our great presidents were leaders

of thought at times when certain ideas in the life of the nation had to be clarified.”10 The

greatest presidents are those who can turn great ideas into action; crisis, however, does

not necessarily make for greatness. Yet once again, Schlesinger has important advice for

the president. In 1997 he warned Bill Clinton to forget the focus groups or he’ll end up

in the history books like Rutherford B. Hayes.11 Was Schlesinger issuing a threat or

having a vision of the future?

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. was not always so politically active. In fact he justified not being

involved in politics during his undergraduate career at Harvard because he was

“confident that FDR had matters in hand”12. Perhaps Schlesinger was not merely

preoccupied with Great Men but rather the men who best enacted his vision of the ideal

liberal crusader of the people. Great Men didn’t just do any Great Things; they made the

country more equitable, sane, and liberal.

10 Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 112, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 18211 Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 112, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 18312 A Life in the 20th Century Schlesinger p. 132

Schlesinger disparaged the quantitative approach towards his “Great Presidents” survey;

in 1962 Schlesinger he was complaining that “history by the numbers” in general was

hurting the discipline.13 He was referring to what he believed was a paradigm shift in the

historical profession moving toward computer based and jargon. Schlesinger’s reliance

on personality and generalizations were challenged by this more quantitative approach.

Schlesinger deifies those ‘liberal heroes’ who turned theory into action and fight

inequality and injustice; assigning numbers to different traits won’t do them justice.

Schlesinger’s glorification of Great Men stems from his political philosophy and his

desire to guide the public debate.

Objectivity: Ranke

Schlesinger’s philosophy of history differs from Ranke in many important respects, most

notably Schlesinger’s instance on finding fault with history. Schlesinger makes no

illusions about his support for the New Deal and its impact on the world. Schlesinger

also believed there was regularity to history, an idea he inherited from his father. The

Rankean school endeavors to describe the past, not to judge the past or discover a regular

cycle. Ranke wrote “You have reckoned that history ought to judge the past and to

instruct the contemporary world as to the future. The present attempt does not yield to

that high office. It will merely tell how it really was.” Although Schlesinger enjoyed the

reputation as somewhat of a partisan historian, he frequently proclaims himself

otherwise; consider this interview from 1946 in the New York Times, “Schlesinger said

that his interest in writing the Roosevelt book will be to give a wholly objective view of

13 The Shock of the “‘New’ (Histories)”Social Science Histories and Historical Literacies quoting Schlesinger in Schlesinger, A. Jr. (1962) “The humanist looks at empirical social research.” American Sociological Review 27: 768–71. Harvey J. Graff Social Science History 25.4 (2001) 483-533

the period.”14 Perhaps Schlesinger truly believes in his objectivity or maybe it is just to

keep up appearances.

The Age of Jackson is a narrative and moves in a lively manner, written for a mass

audience. The Prologue to The Age of Jackson begins after Jackson is elected and

President Adams is pacing nervously until he finds a particular psalm that “assuages his

guilt (p.1).” In this sense, as the footnotes indicate archival research, Schlesinger seems

to be describing an event as it actually happened in the Rankean tradition. Consider the

tone: although the elite are afraid of the future, the people are unafraid of the new

administration. There’s a new hope! The election of Adams to the presidency, under the

“Corrupt Bargain”, was the “rout of the Jeffersonians.”15 The Age of Jackson does not

proceed as if history is necessarily progress; the theme is rather the connection between

ideas and political reality. Looming large is the specter of tyranny. Schlesinger faulted

the Hamiltonian policy for institutionalizing a caste system in America and threatening

America with a sinister oppressor.16 Schlesinger quoted a farmer/social critic John

Taylor, “As power follows wealth, the majority must have wealth or lose power.”17 This

was the sort of income redistribution of the New Deal.

Schlesinger once stated historians should not approach data with preconceived theories.

He disliked, “the prefabrication of theories. What good is a theory until you first have the

facts?”18 He made this statement when he was in his twenties and it is conceivable he

14 http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/26/specials/schlesinger-talk46.html 15 The Age of Jackson page 1916 The Age of Jackson page 2317 The Age of Jackson page 2318 http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/26/specials/schlesinger-talk46.html

said it in response to criticisms that The Age of Jackson was a partisan work for the New

Deal.

To Ranke history was to be written from the point of view of the state. Schlesinger wrote

of the American royalty: the Kennedy’s and FDR. Schlesinger considered the personality

of the leaders extensively. Schlesinger is concerned with the history of the state.

Schlesinger wrote, “For history is to the nation as memory is to the individual.”19

Written after FDR’s New Deal, Schlesinger’s first book The Age of Jackson was seen by

some critics as a thinly disguised pamphlet for New Deal politics. It wasn’t. However it

was clear from the first paragraph in the Foreword that Schlesinger was tying the crisis to

democracy in the nineteen forties when he wrote The Age of Jackson with previous

American historical crises.

Russell Nye in the American Historical Review disregards the criticism that Schlesinger

wrote The Age of Jackson as a justification for the New Deal but instead “illustrates a

theory of social tension which lies at the basis of American history and which is operative

today- a constant struggle between the extremes of socialism and conservatism.”20

Schlesinger himself said in an interview in the New York Times in 1946, “The Age of

Jackson was decried by Time magazine as an apologia for the New Deal. It wasn't. And

the new book will be no party work…the aim will be to get the facts.”21 Schlesinger

seemed to be espousing the Rankean belief that historians were to remain objective and

focus on facts. However, by selectively choosing his quotes and facts, he has framed the

19 http://hnn.us/articles/1328.html 20 The American Historical Review > Vol. 51, No. 3 (Apr., 1946), pp. 510-51321 http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/26/specials/schlesinger-talk46.html

historical crisis of Jackson’s presidency as being a question whether “people or property,

shall govern.”22 He analyzed numerous casual factors surrounding the debate: the

Industrial Revolution, the rise of the early labor unions, and the debates over the

American banking system. Ranke did not search for causes.

Despite his protestations of objectivity, Schlesinger is believed to be a partisan by many

critics, “He has always allowed his political convictions to direct his researches and shape

his writings.”23 In 2001, looking back on the debates over the Age of Jackson Schlesinger

conceded that he misread the ‘anti-statist’ character of the Jacksonian revolution.

However, in 2004 he repeated his argument that Jackson had “redress[ed] the balance of

social power.”24 Schlesinger seems to reject the idea of a single Truth to history when he

quotes Pieter Geyl, “History is indeed an argument with no end.”25 Schlesinger obviously

rejects a teleological, single Truth to history; history is a controversy for political

purposes. Schlesinger’s statement, “Honest history is the weapon of freedom”

summarizes his belief that archival research will produce enough evidence to fight back

the distorted lies of history used by enemies of democracy and freedom. To communists

and fascists, history is more than a tool, it “was their God, and history failed them.”26

The Others

Schlesinger seems to regard himself, born to a Harvard professor and ended up working

in the White House, as fighter for the underdog against the bloodthirsty conservatives and

22 The Age of Jackson page 12523 Hugh Brogan Reviewed Work(s): The Cycles of American History. by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Reviews in American History > Vol. 15, No. 4 (Dec., 1987), pp. 521-52624 War and the American Presidency p.12925 A Life in the 20th Century (page 26 War and the American Presidency p. (xv)

“predatory businessmen”27. From his first major historical work in his mid-twenties, The

Age of Jackson, to War and the American Presidency in 2004, Schlesinger’s attitude to

history and current politics seems encapsulated by Joan Wallace Scott’s philosophy.

Consider Scott’s statement from “History in Crisis: The Others’ Side of the Story” in

1989, “Written history both reflects and creates relations of power.”28 When Schlesinger

uses history to argue politics he is obviously attempting to shift the balance of power in

the country.

Schlesinger wrote The Age of Jackson as a look into an American crisis of democracy

during a time in the 1940s when the idea of democracy itself was under attack. As

previously mentioned, even though Schlesinger admitted research after the fact disproved

assertions in the book, the book served an important purpose for Schlesinger as a look

into the democratic crisis.

The Age of Jackson presents the conflict during Jackson’s presidency as one between the

haves and the have-nots, NOT as a Western movement; this is clear from the first quote.

Although Schlesinger recanted some of his theories about the Jacksonian era due to later

scholarship, the theme of history as a political statement remains true. Schlesinger has

proclaimed his greatest interest in life was the transmission of ideas into the political

reality. Scott felt the ‘others’ (blacks, women, the dispossessed etc.) needed historians to

give them a voice and thus more political clout. Schlesinger agreed in his memoirs that

he fought for inclusion, as did his father. Yet he toys with Scott’s line of argument that

27 A Life in the 20th Century page 4828 The American Historical , Vol 94, No. 3, (Jun, 1989) 680-694

the ‘others’ need one of their own as their voice, at the beginning of a piece entitled

“America: Experiment or Destiny?” Would he, a white male, be able to explain what

America means in 1977 with all the diversity? Schlesinger sets aside his doubts and

explores the philosophy of history and how it relates to the views of America.

Schlesinger felt multiculturalism, however, had its limits; The Disuniting of America

(1991) was written as a plea to stop “destroying” more traditional Western history which

would in turn ruin America. Some of Schlesinger’s liberal presidential heroes seemed

under attack by the next generation of historians.

Scott may chide Schlesinger as the type of historian who focused on ‘elites’ (p. 5); his

books overwhelmingly focus on presidential power in America. Schlesinger has very

little mention of any Native Americans in a book about Andrew Jackson! However

Schlesinger takes pride in his father’s work in developing social history. He takes pride

in the fact that America was built by immigrants. But, as mentioned before, he believes

without a somewhat unified history, America will become disunited. When FDR is

castigated for not doing enough during the Holocaust, Schlesinger furiously fights for his

hero’s memory and his decision to end the war first.

Schlesinger was trained as a historian who could not resist politics. He was fascinated by

literature, history and politics his entire life and to this day remains politically active

writing on the Huffington Post. Consider this example from the blog on November 4,

2005, where he illuminated a historical precedent to show how President Bush’s stance

on dissent is incommensurate with the Republican Party’s past:

For example, Theodore Roosevelt -- no greater superpatriot -- said in 1918 during the First World War: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."29

George Orwell famously wrote “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls

the present controls the past” as the motto of the ruling party in 1984. The communists

similarly worshipped history, it was historical destiny that the proletariat would

overthrow the capitalists; fascists emphasized their glorious history and its relationship to

their glorious future. Historians can pride themselves on their objectivity but their

textbooks will still become the focus of politicized school board debates. Schlesinger

does not shy from such debates; in fact such controversy seems to energize him.

As a historian Schlesinger wrote for the general public and with the principles in mind,

generally not nineteenth century philosophers of history, although they certainly

influenced his career. Schlesinger was, and is, a prolific writer who seems equally as

comfortable writing for Life magazine as an academic audience. As Arthur Marwick

wrote, history is for all of us! Schlesinger broke the mold that historians should research

and write in academic journals. Is history a science? Schlesinger follows the standard

research paradigm and is well honored by the historical community. In 2004, Schlesinger

won a lifetime book award along with John G. Pocock from the American Historical

Association.

Judging from his memoirs, socializing and making new friends consumed a large part of

his life. He has always been close to politicians and the public debates. This emphasis

29 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arthur-schlesinger-jr/patriotism-and-dissent_b_10642.html

on personality comes through in his writings as well. Height, weight, looks and

demeanor are an important part of Schlesinger’s historical narrative. A frequent

contributor to popular magazines, Schlesinger is a public personality and he gives

numerous interviews. But consider this comment to ‘Cigar Aficionado’ magazine in

1996 “I've dissipated too much of my life in doing things which are totally ephemeral,"

he says.30 However, then he spends the entire interview discussing current political

problems, using his version of history to prove the point. In his usual fashion,

Schlesinger made predictions, “They'll [suburban voters] be mad at Gingrich in '96

because there's nothing in the 'Contract on America (sic).”31

Joan Scott would be proud of such an interview.

The Uses of History

Much of Schlesinger’s later work, especially War and the American Presidency can not

be considered historical research. Schlesinger is a historian engaged in the public debate,

as always, but he is not producing history from original research. It reads like an editorial

with a history lesson. Schlesinger tries to “supply historical background” because

Americans are “molded by ideas and events they have long since forgotten or never heard

of”.32 This historical knowledge provides perspectives on situations that have passed.

FDR, according to Schlesinger, understood that America made a mistake by not joining

the League of Nations after WWI. After WWII when FDR helped create the United

Nations, Schlesinger wrote, “Refuting Hegel, FDR used history with adroitness and

30 http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Profiles/People_Profile/0,2540,91,00.html 31 http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Profiles/People_Profile/0,2540,91,00.html 32 War and the American Presidency p. xii

wisdom.”33 A recurring theme through Schlesinger’s career is the belief that “honest”

history should play a role in society’s decision making process.

Schlesinger, however, desperately warned against the idea that history will provide a

crystal ball into the future. Although he recognizes its importance for insight, “Marxism

must surely stand in our time as the spectacular flop of history as prophecy.”34 Historical

analysis is usually concerned with long term generalizations and policy makers focus on

short-term problems. History provides many examples where no one could have ever

predicted the outcome. Thus history can provide guidance but never the ultimate

answers; as Schlesinger eloquently wrote, “the possibilities of history are far richer than

the human intellect is likely to conceive.”35

Theme of ‘The Impossibility of Objective Thought’

We filter the world and, in my opinion, cannot filter their interpretations of the past

without injecting some of their own beliefs into the process. Reading Schlesinger is like

reading a wise uncle’s advice about the fate of democracy or reading an extended op-ed

piece in the New York Times.

33 War and the American Presidency page 130 34 War and the American Presidency page 12935 War and the American Presidency page 141

Quotes:

Schlesinger quoted Tocqueville, “The great advantage of the American is that he has

arrived at a state of democracy without having to endure a democratic revolution and that

he is born free without having to become so.”36

However, Schlesinger also writes: “Man generally is entangled in insoluble problems; history is consequently a tragedy in which we are all involved, whose keynote is anxiety and frustration, not progress and fulfillment.”

36 http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schleslib.html