Quote:
|
On its face this point is pretty weak, but deserves a response. Kind of like saying Historians could not record the historic dominance of Alexander The Great because they did not have access to his messengers.
|
this seems the central problem or dividing line: conservative "history" is more a saint's life of the Powerful, a list of Glorious Deeds of the Great Man than anything even analytic (why did this happen?) not to mention critical (what were they thinking?)
conservatives seem to want amateur history. amateur history that affirms what they already believe. reagan was a great man--a claim by and for amateurs; jimmy carter was the worst president in history: a claim by and for amateurs: people are unfair to george w bush: a claim by and for the dissociative.
===
but i dont think that's what's at stake in the eo.
many offices and many other countries seal archival materials for a certain period---for example when i was doing diss-research in paris, i tried to access the archives of the political surveillance arm of the city police for information about surveillance of the left in the context of the algerian war--those records are sealed for 50 years.
so on this one, i dont really know....i doubt seriously that any president has made their papers available too quickly, and most have delayed with less problematic a record than cowboy george and the mayberry machiavellians.