Half educated

I taught secondary U.S. History in public schools for thirty-five years. When I started, we did teach subject matter that slighted things like racism, labor strife, and the more unsavory aspects of American colonialism. It got better, though. Textbooks improved, but, more importantly, teachers learned, and teaching became more balanced. But then the pendulum swung too far, became far too cynical...and it hasn't swung back yet. Howard Zinn was part of the problem — his textbook, A People's History of the United States, became for many the textbook. From WSJ Opinion today: 

...[I]ts message could be summarized in two words: America stinks. The author believed most history textbooks offered only a whitewashed “nationalist glorification of country,” he told the New York Times. In response, he oversimplified the story in the opposite direction. America’s Founding Fathers? Just wealthy white men guarding their fortunes. Abraham Lincoln? A half-hearted abolitionist who was concerned about protecting “the interests of the very rich.” World War II? Sure, the Nazis were bad, Zinn concedes, but the U.S. and her allies didn’t really “represent something significantly different.”

A People’s History reads like a cross between a children’s book and a prosecutor’s brief. America’s downtrodden masses are uniformly brave and heroic; its leaders are one-dimensional villains. The author catalogs our nation’s every moral failure and unfulfilled promise. Every American should know about the evils of slavery and other stains on our past. But Zinn’s indictment scrupulously avoids the positive parts of the story. Other historians, including many on the left, slammed the book’s lack of context or nuance. "A People’s History is bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions,” wrote historian Michael Kazin. “What he did was take all the guys in white hats and put them in black hats, and vice versa,” added Princeton’s Sean Wilentz after Zinn’s death in 2010. ....

[A]dherents to Zinn’s ideology flatter themselves that they bravely see through the pro-American propaganda on which they were raised. That’s a joke. The era of simplistically patriotic textbooks ended decades ago. It takes no courage to spout the anti-American platitudes of A People’s History or the 1619 Project. That worldview is now the default for most half-educated young Americans.

Recently, this America Worst sentiment has grown white hot on the left. ....

But the populist right marinates in anti-Americanism as well. Tucker Carlson boosts vile claims that the U.S. government engineered the 9/11 attacks even as he defends Vladimir Putin. Podcast bros revive Zinn’s old debate about whether the Allies were the real villains of World War II. At both extremes, America’s enemies get a more sympathetic treatment than the U.S. itself does. .... (more)

James B. Meigs, "Howard Zinn’s Horrible History," The Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2016.

Law, not partisanship

My impression is that those who passionately disagree with Supreme Court decisions do so usually because of their policy preferences, not the law. And that is true of partisans on both the left and the right. In "The Greatness of the Constitution Shines in the Birthright Citizenship Case," law professor Jed Rubenfeld considers the arguments made by both the majority and the dissenters in that case, as well as some of the other cases decided recently. If you are inclined to celebrate or deplore the consequences of the decisions, but not consider the reasoning by which they were found, I commend his summary of the arguments.  Toward the end, he writes:

I hope that even those who disagree will see Barbara as a victory for the country and the Constitution. Democrats have declared a constitutional crisis since Trump’s first days in office. They ceaselessly portray the Supreme Court as kowtowing to the administration, giving the president unlimited power to run roughshod over constitutional rights.

Barbara shows once again that American constitutionalism is strong. There is no crisis. As it did in the tariffs case, the Court stood against the president on one of his signature measures. And it did so on a matter of core constitutional principle. I have no doubt that the administration will obey the Supreme Court’s command, as it has in every case thus far.

Since Monday, the Court has issued a spate of important decisions, and for anyone not blinded by partisanship, those decisions show the justices working diligently and effectively to honor the rule of law.

Yesterday, in the mail-in ballots case, the Court again rebuffed the president, allowing states to accept ballots up to five days after the election. The right was furious. In Slaughter, the Court embraced the concept of the “unitary executive,” giving the president the power to fire any agency commissioner at will. The left was infuriated. But in Cook, the Court refused to let the president define as he pleases the kind of “cause” that justifies the firing of a Federal Reserve member. Critics will tabulate only whether the Court came out their preferred way. But all these decisions were rooted in close readings of statutory and constitutional language. I don’t agree with all these decisions, but I see law in them, not partisan politics, and that is a great thing for the country.

On Tuesday, in addition to Barbara, the Court ruled that states may ban biological males from competing on girls’ sports teams, and it found that certain campaign finance restrictions applied to political parties violated the First Amendment. For myself, the trans cases are a victory for common sense and for girls, while the campaign finance case mistakenly conflates money with speech. But even when we disagree with the Court, I hope—on this last decision day of the Supreme Court’s term, and as we celebrate 250 years of American independence—we can see and respect the genius of American constitutionalism. .... (more)

Jed Rubenfeld, "The Greatness of the Constitution Shines in the Birthright Citizenship Case," The Free Press, June 30, 2026.