Before delivering the John Hazen White Lecture Tuesday, Newsweek Senior Editor Jonathan Alter chatted with The Herald about the role of history in journalism, former President Bill Clinton's recent Fox News outburst and other issues.
Herald: So many of your peers write about the current political scene. Why write about history?
Alter: The personal reason is that if you write about history, it's a really good break from covering current events all day long. I could just go up to the third floor of the house that we live in, and I could time travel. Suddenly I was back in the 1930s. I wouldn't say it was relaxing, but it was just a nice change of pace.
And in terms of professionally, I wanted to write a book that could be read in 20 or 30 years and wouldn't be out of date. And if you write a book about what's going on right now, even if it becomes a bestseller, it's really not likely to be read in the future, because events have settled enough. You don't have enough perspective on them to write something that really lasts.
Are publishers convinced there is the same interest in history that there is in current events?
It's actually an easier sell.
How often do you see overlap between what's happening now and what's happened in the past? What role does history play in your day-to-day life as a journalist?
I see it as a really useful and important tool in my particular toolbox as a journalist. Other journalists know a foreign language. That can be very helpful. I don't. Or they know a lot about technology, which can be very helpful. I don't. But history, particularly when you're writing about politics, is extremely helpful in lending a context that readers and viewers find useful.
Do you find that other political journalists have that context?
I think the good ones have it. Most of them have a historical sensibility. For all of us it's really helpful. You realize where current political figures are, either in accord with their predecessors or out of step with their predecessors. I'm a little bit of a trivia nut when it comes to this stuff. I know what Mamie Eisenhower's favorite recipes were practically. That's not necessary. But that's just because I've just always been like that.
Not everyone is a history major. What's the value of history to an everyday person?
I think it's pretty much the same as its value for journalists, which is that you can't really make sense of the world unless you understand the historical context. And I believe that as much as I believe anything. If you try to analyze events in a vacuum, you will fail.
When taught well, it's really fun. When taught badly, it's boring. I think a lot of the time it's taught badly. My daughter was studying for her AP U.S. History class, and she had to memorize all these alphabet soup agencies. And I said to her, "FDR himself didn't care about any of these except the (Civilian Conservation Corps) and Social Security." All the rest of them were just means to an end to show the country that he was making forward progress against the Depression.
If FDR didn't think they were very important, and didn't care too much about the details, I don't know why students should be required to. Sometimes I think these things are taught without a sense of what's really important. And they're also taught without a sense of the people.
So what has history taught well?
I think it gives you a sense of the drama of human events and the connection to everything that followed. The interplay of human beings and the times in which they lived is the essence not just of history but of great drama and of great art. History should be seen in the same light. Properly written and properly taught, it's one of the greatest expressions of our culture.
Fast-forwarding to this past weekend, Bill Clinton's heated appearance on Fox News got a lot of attention. Was that a smart political move?
I thought he lost his temper. Yes, it rallies the Democratic base, but he talks a lot about bringing people together and trying to win the election without rubbing raw a lot of old wounds. He has a temper. He was right on the merits of (what he said), but ... if he had to do it over again, I don't think he would have insulted Chris Wallace that way.
Didn't Clinton once say something like "Alter kicks my ass sometimes"?
(Laughing) Yeah. That was in a book. He said "Alter bites me in the ass, but at least he knows what I'm trying to do." If he thinks that you're somebody who generally understands him and what he's trying to do, then he doesn't hold a grudge, which is a good quality. He does hold a grudge against people who are real enemies, but he doesn't against people who have just criticized him sometimes.
