This swipe at the Historians' Statement on Trump's impeachment is incredibly weak.
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
The author complains that the signatories are making an argument from authority and then proceeds to tendentiously misrepresent that authority.
Look at this nonsense.
Look at this nonsense.
Yes, the New York Times piece identified a few famous non-academic historians like Burns, Caro and Chernow, and, yes, none of those three holds "a full-time university position as a professor of history."
But there are 2000+ signatories and, guess what? Most of them do!
But there are 2000+ signatories and, guess what? Most of them do!
Oh, but those full-time professors of history are all at what was it? Ah, "obscure signatories from backwater colleges scattered between the coasts."
Yeah, just look at this small sampling of obscure signatories. What a bunch of no-names in the field.
Yeah, just look at this small sampling of obscure signatories. What a bunch of no-names in the field.
Usually, when you criticize people from making an argument from authority you, you know, don't have to completely lie about their actual authority.
Also, this part.
The GOP invoked "history" repeatedly in their defense of the president -- making claims about the Constitution, Franklin, Hamilton, past precedents of impeachment, etc.
Don't get angry when actual historians respond to those claims to point out they're wrong.
The GOP invoked "history" repeatedly in their defense of the president -- making claims about the Constitution, Franklin, Hamilton, past precedents of impeachment, etc.
Don't get angry when actual historians respond to those claims to point out they're wrong.
