Perhaps historians should deliver a big "thank you" to Newt Gingrich.
Mr. Gingrich--candidate for Republican nomination for President of the United States of America and Speaker of the House of Representatives during some politically-significant years of the 1990s--seems to have elevated the value of historians to the American business world far beyond anything that was previously imaginable. He has done this by revealing that over a period of eight years he has earned $1.6 million from Freddie Mac--the Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) possessing a business charter to participate in the funding of residential home loans--in his capacity as "historian" and not as a lobbyist.
Mr. Gingrich holds a doctorate degree in history. Being awarded a doctorate is a significant accomplishment, and without doubt Mr. G. worked hard to earn his degree. He has taught college history courses. He knows a lot about history, and he is not shy about sharing historical snippets with his audience.
Never before in the history of history have Americans thought so much about history! I love it!
Freddie Mac--yes, it's a multi-billion dollar organization that needed a multi-billion dollar Federal bailout as a result of the recent financial failures and crisis of 2007 - 2008--created a wonderful precedent for historians by paying Mr. G. an average of $200,000 per year for each of those eight years in return for his historical expertise. My guess is that Mr. G. earned this money in return for his knowledge and insights as delivered to executives at Freddie Mac in meetings that probably consumed up to several hours each year. Doing the math, it makes me think about a friend who was offered a job with Costco starting at $10/hour, and I wonder about fairness in earnings. . .but that's for another time.
Historians, take note: this consulting seems to have been accomplished without lesson plans, and without preparing, conducting and grading any tests or papers. Any historian who is reading this should think seriously about approaching businesses with an offer of conducing a paid historical consulting gig. Of course, there is only one historian whose name is Gingrich, but since lobbying is not involved then the individual's name is important only insofar as it carries with it the requisite levels of knowledge, experience, skills and insight.
Mr. G. also deserves credit for popularizing history though the writing and publication of his several historical novels. He is noted for co-authoring a novel of "alternate history" about the Civil War battle of Gettysburg: published in 2003 and modestly-titled "Gettysburg: A Novel of the Civil War" it is a story of what might have happened if the Confederacy had won that battle.
I wonder if Mr. G. might have read Harry Turtledove's "The Guns of the South" published ten years earlier? That also is a novel of alternate history about what might have been if the Confederacy had won the battle of Gettysburg and thereby triumphed in the Civil War. In fairness, "Guns" in fact goes elsewhere in a literary sense by using the contrivance of time travel, making for an entirely different story. Still, one wonders about these things.
As you might know from my prior essays, I believe that history is important. If you don't know how you got to where you are, then how can you be sure of where you are going? (Someone else might have said that before I did, but I have said it so often that I have adopted it as my own thought.) I like history; I am one of those oddities who enjoys reading history.
Mr. Gingrich is a much better-qualified historian than I am. He holds that doctorate in history. I don't hold a doctorate in history, or in anything, except when I'm hugging my wife who is a medical doctor.
However, I do have a fairly large library of history books; there are over one hundred of them on the shelves. Actually, it's closer to two hundred, but as I was counting them and reached the one hundredth volume I became bored with that activity and moved on to something else. I have read some of them, too.
It's possible that I would be qualified to conduct a history consulting engagement, as Mr. G. has done, with some business organization. My rates would be much lower than his since I do not have his qualifications, but nobody would have to be concerned about the possibility of the engagement being contaminated by the taint of lobbying since I am not a lobbyist and I do not know anybody in a government position with whom I could conduct lobbying.
And the financial enticement might compel me to read some more of those books.
If a company hired me to do something like what Mr. G. did with Freddie Mac, I could say exciting historical things like "Don't be a Robber Baron!" And perhaps "Watch out for muckrakers!" But better yet would be something more boring but much more pragmatic like "it's a good thing when businesses make a profit, and it's a good thing when government provides oversight and regulation of business, and it's a good thing for the nation and its people and its business entities when businesses pay taxes and here's why we know that." What a concept!
Mr. Gingrich makes some good points when he talks. One of the things he reportedly said to Freddie Mac was that in America government and business have a history of working together, and he cited the example of how the US Government favored 19th Century railroads with land grants. These land grants helped to make it financially feasible for the railroad companies to build out the rail lines for the transcontinental railroads.
This is so. The Federal government did this. This concept was built on the ideas of the nation's first Republican President, a fellow named Abraham Lincoln. And there's more to this story that Mr. G. apparently did not mention: not only did the government grant land, but it also underwrote huge amounts of bonds that were issued to finance the construction of the railroads. In fact, Mr. Lincoln's 1860 campaign for the Presidency was based more on his support for the idea that the Federal government should be greatly involved in national infrastructure development than it was on any other issue.
There are days when I hope that Newt Gingrich will be the Republican nominee for President; today is one of them. He would be a worthy opponent for Barack Obama. I think that Obama versus Gingrich would be a very interesting contest. For one thing, it would give us two candidates with equally-improbable but immensely memorable names. And, I think the debates would be great! My feeling is that both men would acquit themselves well, but in different ways.
I remember things that are now history. I remember AuH2O and LBJ. I remember the Happy Warrior who was almost President; it was so close. I remember the Space Race and the Apollo Program and the nation when it was going somewhere new and wonderful and exciting and when it was creating the future which has now become history.
How do we once again create a new future that continues our success, provides opportunities and health and a good living environment for our people, and in which we are growing in new and exciting ways so that in days to come American will be always a better place to live, and so that those of the future will find that it is enjoyable and fulfilling to read our history?
I don't know. I'm working on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment