No, the history books will give a full accounting here.
Political historians have our flaws, but a narrow focus on the presidency to the exclusion of other key actors like Congress really isn't one of them.
Political historians have our flaws, but a narrow focus on the presidency to the exclusion of other key actors like Congress really isn't one of them.
https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/1445418342781788164
I mean, here's how @julianzelizer and I covered the 2011 fight over the debt ceiling in Fault Lines.
Congress sort of looms large in this telling, as it should.
Congress sort of looms large in this telling, as it should.
If you grab any work of American political history, even a work ostensibly about a presidency, and you'll still find a great deal of attention to Congress.
I'm teaching the New Deal now, for good or bad, Congress keeps coming up an awful lot in my lectures and our readings.
I'm teaching the New Deal now, for good or bad, Congress keeps coming up an awful lot in my lectures and our readings.
The idea that history will forget Congress is dangerous, not just because it lets Congress think it can do anything and escape blame in the long run, but because it encourages journalists -- who should be holding them accountable *right now* -- to shrug and say it won't matter.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
