Thread by @notabattlechick

At a workshop sponsored by the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy on Historians and Public Engagement.
#historiansengage #SHAFR2019 #twitterstorians @GUDiplomacy @SHAFRhistorians

Last session for the day: @derekchollet in a conversation with @McFarlandKellyM

KM: Could you talk a bit about working on books with senior policymakers and in the Obama administration - what role did history play in your day-to-day work?

@SHAFRhistorians @GUDiplomacy #historiansengage #twitterstorians

DC: I’m a political scientist, but I trained with Bob Jervis. So it’s ok. I love history. I’m a member of SHAFR.

When we think about how policymakers see and use history. . . Some of it is from their own experience (they were “in the room when it happened”)

But they’re all different. Jim Baker, for example, thinks like an attorney. . . Analytical, but compartmentalized. Richard Holbrooks, on the other hand, thinks in sweeping historical terms. History is at the forefront of his way of thinking.

@SHAFRhistorians #twitterstorians

There’s also the issue of history as memory, and there’s also the formal and informal study of history throughout. For senior people, as FSOs and military officers, especially, historical thinking is part of their professional development.

#historiansengage @GUDiplomacy

Senior policymakers read a lot, and oftenit’s historical. Certain books get traction and capture the attention of policymakers. History absolutely informs world views. (But note: these books are historical, but not always by historians.)

#twitterstorians #historiansengage

KM: Do you see differences - generational, partisan, etc. - in how policymakers use and understand history?

DK: Not really. . . It’s more individual. But history can enlighten and hamper. Vietnam is a great example of this. Sometimes it works well and other times it’s limiting

But “Vietnam” didn’t resonate w/ Obama and his team in the same what that it did with Holbrooke. It felt like lecturing by old people to new people who just didn’t get it. He (Holbrooke) probably hurt his own cause by relying on it so explicitly.

But so many times, you’re just grasping at things and trying to figure out what the hell happened. . . So history becomes a go to for making sense of a chaotic contemporary world. And there are lots of avenues for historians to engage.

#twitterstorians #historiansengage

KM: Maybe the first thing we often think of about how policymakers use history is re: historical analogies. And this is really important. But this isn’t the only way history is used in policy circles. Figuring out how we got here matters, too.

@SHAFRhistorians @GUDiplomacy

KM: You’re writing a new book. Can you talk a bit about that? And what are you taking from your experience in the policy world as you write?

@derekchollet: Current project grows out of the Obama book (The Long Game: How Obama Defied Washington and Redefined America’s Role in the World). In government, you’re learning a lot, and fast - just not a lot of time to think and reflect.

DC: (detour) one of the toughest problems we faced was in Syria. As we looked at this problem, lots of historical ghosts came out to play. There are lots of competing arguments. Was Iraq like Bosnia? What about Libya — was it more like Bosnia or Iraq? Now, what about Syria?

DC: (detour part 2) Syria looks like the worst combination of Bosnia, Iraq, and Libya.

DC: So the book is about FP leadership - Eisenhower, Bush41, and Obama as a specific foreign policy style. What gives us a glimpse into how their minds work? How are their views shaped? The archives for Ike and Bush are rich. Obama is also a pretty transparent thinker.

DC: What Obama writes and says seems to be a pretty accurate reflection of his thinking. It’s interesting to think about Trump in this regard - his Twitter feed is like plugging into the mainframe. This is fascinating.

@SHAFRhistorians @GUDiplomacy #historiansengage

KM: One of the arguments is that historical analogies and cases get applied after the fact, that these are just rhetorical devices. . . But it seems that this isn’t really true?

DC: Definitely. The discussions and references aren’t always formal, but thinking historically is very common.

@SHAFRhistorians @derekchollet @McFarlandKellyM #twitterstorians #historiansengage

Q: How can historians prepare for work in policy/government?
A: Learn to balance historians’ desire for depth and nuance with the need for timeliness and speed. This is a real challenge and it is going to require you to develop different skills simultaneously.

Q: What comparative advantage do historians have - compared to political scientists, lawyers, economists, and others?
A: Historians are great at seeing connectivity and seeing the big picture, seeing the broad context

Q: Without spoiling the book. . . Can you talk a bit about how the three presidents (Ike, Bush41, Obama) are united in their thinking?
A: I was struck by their shared struggles. Ex: The thru lines of their opposition: McCarthy, Buchanan and Perot, Trump-and the effect on politics

A2: they were keenly aware of the limits of American power. They had strategic vision and strategic priorities, and they grappled with how to say “no” when the push was always for more. They all tried to achieve balance between engagement w/ the world and domestic environment.

A3: The domestic politics of foreign policy also matter, and all three take charges of being weak and anti-American. Look at cases: Dien Bien Phu, Bosnia, Syria. What decisions seem better in retrospect? How will we see Syria a decade from now? Questions about legacy and memory.

KM: What are policymakers reading and watching?
DC: There are lots of entry points - this brings new challenges (lots of noise). @Monkeycage, @madebyhistory are important, definitely. @TheAtlantic, @nytimes, @washingtonpost and @WSJ still matter.

#historiansengage

DC: Think in stories. Stories stick, and people think in story terms. You can do this and still do rigorous academic analysis. Think about how you make the history relevant. Very little is brand new.

@SHAFRhistorians @GUDiplomacy #twitterstorians #historiansengage

KM: Historians can offer a good corrective to the “everything is new and terrible and unprecedented and burning” zeitgeist of the moment.
DC: But historians can also help explain why we see differences and why things now might really be as bad as they seem.

#twitterstorians

Q: Distinction between history as context and history as critiquing assumptions/worldviews, etc. - To what extent is “the blob” able to create space for a real and honest critique of assumptions, etc.

A: From my experience, the answer always seems to be “do more.” More time, more stuff, more money, more attention - the challenge for policy makers is allocating resources. The US must make choices. But the US foreign policy debate doesn’t often recognize this.

The blob also isn’t terribly historically attuned, but opinion can change over time. One of the interesting things about this moment- the Trump era - will we recalibrate what we consider to be successful Foreign Policy leadership?

@SHAFRhistorians

Consider the difference between the response when Obama took a ton of fire for saying he would meet with North Korea, Cuba unconditionally...And the response when Trump just. . . Did it. Will this change things going forward? Is this a good change to break problematic traditions?

Q: Do we have good histories of the recent past, written by historians? What can historians do to analyze and contribute to analyzing the recent past?
A: You have to develop a sense of fearlessness. You don’t want to overstate things, but you know a lot. Everybody’s faking it.

KM: Take the leap, get over it. You don’t have to know everything to contribute.

(JW aside: To write about the recent past, you have to be willing to be wrong. And maybe VERY wrong. It’s lots of triangulating from open sources. Be humble, and take risks.)