the study of history

Submitted by rw (United States), Jul 31, 2018 at 06:17

An interesting article. It would also follow that the two schools have different approaches to history. Conservatives will be looking for the facts from which to argue towards practice, while 'liberals' are likely to be looking for the facts that bolster their argument, and in the modern extreme form might feel free to alter or create facts. Caution would be a byword for conservatives because the facts need to be established first, and this takes time.

Churchill famously said that if a person (he said man) is not a radical when he is 20 he has no heart; but if he is not a conservative by the time he is 40 he has no head. (Amongst other things, he was a great historian.)

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".