As you may have noticed by following their writings, conservatives are not sticklers for historical accuracy, especially when they have a point to defend and not a lot of evidence to support it. Get a load, for example, of John Podhoretz explaining how the pro-choice Rudy Giulianireduced abortions in New York City(though, um,not really) because he cut crime, which is one of the spiritual causes of abortion.<\/p>\n
Yeah, deadline pressures a bitch. But there are some bizarre notions of American history in which conservatives have become so invested theyve adopted them into their worldview. The best-known example is probably Jonah Goldbergs notion of Liberal Fascism; nowadays anytime a conservative talks about, say, Woodrow Wilson or Hillary Clinton, you may expect him to mention their resemblance to Benito Mussolini. They dont even have to think about it, even when normal people are gaping at them open-mouthed like audience members at Springtime for Hitler its part of the folklore that helps them understand the American experience.<\/p>\n
There are plenty of others. Ive picked out 10 such ideas that are widespread enough to qualify. (In the nomenclature I have treated Republican and conservative as synonyms because, come on.)<\/p>\n
10. The Robber Barons werent robbers they were capitalist heroes.<\/p>\n
The overarching task of the conservative historian is to rehabilitate the image of capitalism, even at its most red-toothed and -clawed. Not a hard job, as both our history and culture ceaselessly celebrate the innovative dynamism of American business.<\/p>\n
But one of the rare areas in which history teachers are allowed to criticize unfettered capitalism is the Gilded Age of the robber barons Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Fisk, et al. These men, many of whom first rose to prominence throughunseemly wartime speculation, built enormous fortunes on the exceedingly generous terms of the times, which includedbribery,monopolies, andstock manipulation, perverting the alleged power of the free market on their own behalf. They were kind of like the Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers of their day except they never got caught. <\/p>\n
Most of us still look on this as a shameful thing. But historians of the conservative-libertarian persuasion such asThomas E. Woods,Lawrence W. Reed, andThomas J. DiLorenzo(better known now as aneo-Confederate) look at the robber barons dirty records and ask: So what? J.P. Morgan built a nice library! <\/p>\n
They tend to skirt the smelly stuff, and talk instead about how Carnegies machinations drove down the price of steel surely youre not against low prices? And if Jay Gould and Cornelius Vanderbilt paid off legislators to acquire land for their railroads, the railroads got built, and thats what counts. <\/p>\n
Why do they so eagerly defend the robber barons even at their worst? Maybe because, as economistBrad DeLonghas noted, the grotesque inequity in American wealth that characterized their era has only one equivalent in U.S. history that of our own time. And if ones business is excusing the perfidy and criminality of todays speculators and swindlers, it is helpful to make heroes of the speculators and swindlers who are their models. <\/p>\n
9. Sputnik bankrupted the Soviet Union. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read more:<\/p>\n
10 historical facts only a wingnut could believe<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As you may have noticed by following their writings, conservatives are not sticklers for historical accuracy, especially when they have a point to defend and not a lot of evidence to support it. Get a load, for example, of John Podhoretz explaining how the pro-choice Rudy Giulianireduced abortions in New York City(though, um,not really) because he cut crime, which is one of the spiritual causes of abortion. Yeah, deadline pressures a bitch. Continue reading