The discussion of political economy is quite difficult for the modern historians. How would one describe the governments of post-colonial Africa or Asia? Would someone want to measure income disparity in Apartheid South Africa compared to now? How about Rhodesia to Zim? Is the kleptocracy/broken state better because those in power look like those oppressed? The race/gender/class trinitarians never have an answer for that.
Is an economy where businesses are more powerful than any national government really the ideal of "capitalism?" Is the current model of government relations being a top five spend of big companies creating the least welfare loss for a nation's population? We have the Roman Empire's fall as the best answer to that. From Latifundia to an ancient private equity, losing the middle class usually creates predictable problems for a nation's stability.
On the contrast, do we want the government destroying entrepreneurs like Samuel Insull? Arbitrarily picking winners and losers based on tribute or political acquiescence leads to stagnation or economic migration. How many people making these decisions for our citizenry even know 20% of these historical ideas?
Representative republican rule is the aberration, not the norm. As Tocqueville, et al point out, it requires an informed electorate. Are we creating that here? Do the students we teach seem more or less informed than twenty years ago?
Again, an informed electorate requires historians to "play the hits," and not go into "deep cuts" of obscure historical events or manufactured stories of "unheard voices." Different views and arguments (in the logical sense) need certain agreed upon facts. It is high time for historians to ensure these are known by those outside the field.
The discussion of political economy is quite difficult for the modern historians. How would one describe the governments of post-colonial Africa or Asia? Would someone want to measure income disparity in Apartheid South Africa compared to now? How about Rhodesia to Zim? Is the kleptocracy/broken state better because those in power look like those oppressed? The race/gender/class trinitarians never have an answer for that.
Is an economy where businesses are more powerful than any national government really the ideal of "capitalism?" Is the current model of government relations being a top five spend of big companies creating the least welfare loss for a nation's population? We have the Roman Empire's fall as the best answer to that. From Latifundia to an ancient private equity, losing the middle class usually creates predictable problems for a nation's stability.
On the contrast, do we want the government destroying entrepreneurs like Samuel Insull? Arbitrarily picking winners and losers based on tribute or political acquiescence leads to stagnation or economic migration. How many people making these decisions for our citizenry even know 20% of these historical ideas?
Representative republican rule is the aberration, not the norm. As Tocqueville, et al point out, it requires an informed electorate. Are we creating that here? Do the students we teach seem more or less informed than twenty years ago?
Again, an informed electorate requires historians to "play the hits," and not go into "deep cuts" of obscure historical events or manufactured stories of "unheard voices." Different views and arguments (in the logical sense) need certain agreed upon facts. It is high time for historians to ensure these are known by those outside the field.