I learned something today. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz--Florida Congresswoman and Clinton surrogate--doesn't know her history. In this, Wasserman-Schultz is not unique, of course. These politicians, these freaks, consistently get it wrong. And in getting it wrong they betray their lack of historical imagination. What is the Congresswoman's sin?
Today, as part of the infinte, and infinitely dreary, debate on Michigan and Florida, Wasserman-Schultz told Chris Matthews:
This isn't 1865 and the Lincoln-Douglas debates when they stood on apple boxes...
Well, I'm not sure Lincoln and Douglas stood on apple boxes--or the back of a haywagon, as Hillary Clinton recently suggested--but I'll give them both their telegenic visions.
But I know for a fact that the Lincoln-Douglas debates took place in 1858--a full 7 years earlier. Perhaps Wasserman-Schultz can be forgiven this temporal lapse--perhaps I am being unkind. After all, the issue debated in 1858--the future of slavery in the United States--certainly doesn't reach the threshold of concern that has animated this primary season's elevated and elegant debate.
Of course, the Civil War did occur between the time of the debates and 1865. I'd like to think that knowledge, that historical marker, might stick in the imagination of even the most battle-weary political street-fighter. I'd like to think they've got the basic narrative down. And, after they've got that, it's nice to fantasize that they can alchemize knowledge into wisdom. They're probably too busy though.
But, its worse than just getting an important timeframe wrong. Wasserman-Schultz made a substantive and analytic error as well. She was arguing that the constellation of information sources available today renders irrelevent the question of whether or not the candidates actually campaigned in Florida. This is the point at which she made the remark about it not being 1865. Apparently, she was saying that way "back in the day" Americans were politically less informed. Her contast was poor, however, as it might be argued that Americans were--in fact--better informed. In 1858, the question of the future of slavery was so important--so central--that newspapers across the nation reprinted the debates verbatim. Debate after debate--7 in all--a literate nation followed and debated the intellectual merits of the arguments being made. Yikes!
While Lincoln lost that Senate race in 1858, his arguments made during the debates helped the Republican Party pick up--across the country--a substantial numer of seats in Congress. The newspapers acted in a viral way, causing an obscure candidate for the Senate in Illinois to have national coattails. Of course, Wasserman-Schultz has a different kind of smarts--she thinks today we like the message mediated by surrogates like her. Maybe she's right. But she's still wrong about the history.
A note: last week Chris Matthews was being congratulated--lauded--for his historical knowledge after he demolished that hapless right-wing thug (Dude, one word, Wikipedia) over the question of Neville Chamberlain and appeasement. Today, Matthews didn't notice Wasserman-Schultz' mistake. Normally we might say he is just too polite to mention it, but these are not normal times, and I think Matthews is looking for any opportunity to chase the dragon and go non-linear.
Why do I care? Isn't this a trifle? It probably is, and it doesn't have much to do with this political season with its insistent buzz of white noise. But it scares me when leadership casually tosses off historical knowledge that is factually wrong and critically lazy. If they don't understand American History--if they don't understand where we came from--what the hell are we doing asking them to lead us forward?