November 27, 2007
Sean Wilentz Endorses Clinton
While some historians are passionately behind the Obama candidacy, one leading figure in the field is throwing his support to Obama's chief rival. In an interview with a blogger from Newsweek, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz endorses Clinton's candidacy.
Wilentz's analysis seems to hinge primarily on the issue of electability. "I think Hillary is important because the election really is the culmination of what's been a 40 year struggle for the Democrats to rediscover who they are," Wilentz says. "A 40-year struggle against what we'll call Nixon-slash-Reaganism. And, simply put, she's in the best position to be a president. Which is to say, she understands how American politics works."
As for Obama, Wilentz sees him as part of a long line of Adlai Stevenson-type candidates who are ambivalent about power. "There's always a Stevenson candidate. [Bill] Bradley was one of them. [Paul] Tsongas was one of them...It's beautiful loserdom," Wilentz argues.
"The fact is, you can't govern without politics. That's what democracy is. Democracy isn't some utopian proposition by which the people suddenly rule. We're too complicated a country for that. We have too many interests here. You need someone who can govern, who can build the coalition and move the country forward."
Evan Goldstein | Posted on Tuesday November 27, 2007 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Campaign Ads: What Are They Good For?
Next: Presidential Campaigns On the Syllabus
When Sean Wilentz finds in Sen. Clinton the culmination of “a 40 year struggle for the Democrats to rediscover who they are,” he disparages his political party. Clinton is a supposedly strong leader who has allowed her husband to treat her like trash for the last 30 years. Perhaps that’s because, despite her great political ambition, she has no significant political achievements. In fact, she’s tried only one thing — her amateurish attempt at health-care reform in 1993-94 — and Wilentz should remember how that turned out.
If he’s right about Clinton, then the Democrats have journeyed 40 years to “rediscover” that they are war-mongering peaceniks who are for everything the public wants and against anything polls show they do not want. Until that changes. They haven’t the strength (or is it integrity?) to stop an unpopular war under an unpopular president, although they control both houses of funding. And they’re eager to have the country run by a political wife who lacks even John Kerry’s executive experience (i.e., co-owner of a Boston cookie shop).
Putting aside Wilentz’s lack of professional objectivity — after endorsing a political candidate, he can’t expect people to take his scholarly writings seriously — the claim that Sen. Clinton is the most electable Democrat overlooks her ongoing slide in the polls. It may be that, like millions of graduate students, faculty members, bloggers, and other political junkies not qualified to be president, Sen. Clinton “understands how American politics works.” If so, she must also understand why she won’t be the first woman president.
— S. Britchky Nov 27, 05:09 PM #
now, who is sean wilentz?
— j. e. robinson Nov 27, 06:11 PM #
Who is Wilentz? Obviously a pompous fool who believes that his position as a history professor somehow makes his public pronouncements on issues of the day of significant importance. Herr Professor Wilentz, please go back to the archives and leave the hoi polloi to their own devices.
— Lord Halifax Nov 28, 06:38 AM #
Why does this merit coverage in the Chronicle? Even if I knew who Wilentz is, I wouldn’t care who he thought should be president.
— mike Nov 28, 06:47 AM #
Mike and others, there are a lot of stories to choose from. Move on if Wilentz’s analysis is worthless to you.
I find his view interesting, even though I disagree with much of it.
— Ty Nov 28, 10:55 AM #