Creating Context of the Present Day by Looking at the Past: A Conversation Ahead of Lincoln Scholar Harold Holzer’s Oct. 24 Lecture
Oct. 18, 2024
By Stephanie Godward, Communications and Marketing Director, College of Arts & Sciences
A UofL history professor and Farmington Historic Home board member, Glenn Crothers, took time to discuss Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer’s upcoming lecture event at UofL and its relevance when reflecting on today’s political climate and increasingly partisan media.
Holzer will discuss his acclaimed 2020 book, The Presidents vs. the Press, on Oct. 24 at 2 PM in the Floyd Theater. The event, which is free and open to the public, offers students from various disciplines—including history, communication, and political science, among others—a unique opportunity to explore the historic tensions between the presidency and the media.
Ahead of the event, which is part of Farmington’s 65th anniversary celebrations, Crothers reflects on the significance of Holzer’s work, and how putting history into the context of recent events could help to quell election anxiety ahead of November.
What are some of the most significant historical moments in U.S. history where tensions between the Presidency and the press have shaped public perception or policy?
Crothers: Even in the early years of the nation, presidents complained about the press. For example, even though the press generally treated George Washington, our first president, with respect, by the end of his second term, he complained about how some newspapers critiqued him, and he left the presidency after two terms in part for that reason. Washington’s decision, of course, established the precedent of American presidents serving for two terms. So, there has been tension between the press and the president from the beginning—in fact, as long as there's been an opposition party and a partisan press. And for most of U.S. history, there has been a partisan press, and today, more broadly, a partisan media. I can't think of a single presidency in which there was no tension between the president and the press. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, whom Americans now view as a great hero, faced a hostile Democratic press, which often depicted him in a deeply racist fashion. Thus, the kind of hostility that exists today between presidential candidates and the press, and the media more broadly, is nothing new.
What's most striking is that for a short period after World War II through the early 1970s, many media outlets aspired to be nonpartisan. Some partisan outlets remained, but the mainstream press attempted to be objective in its presentation of political news. In contrast, in recent decades we have seen the rise of a more partisan media, with Fox News, for example, deliberately pro-Republican, and MSNBC pro-Democrat. This development takes the nation back to an earlier era in U.S. history that Holzer's book recounts in some detail.
In what ways do you think Holzer's book helps students to understand the current relationship between modern media and political leadership?
Crothers: I think by placing the present-day conflicts in a broader historical context, people can understand that most of what we’re witnessing today is not new. I think there is a tendency in the teaching of U.S. history, at least before the college level, to be celebratory, to see this united nation in which all Americans pull together to overcome whatever problems the country faces. You see this today on a regular basis in President Biden's rhetoric. I think what Holzer's book reveals is that our present contentious moment is not new. I mean, the nation did fight a Civil War, after all. Americans have been divided on many, many issues, and the press has reflected those divisions across the span of American history. I think if Americans place the present moment in this historical context, perhaps they may be a little less panicky about our present situation—though not less concerned, as in the forthcoming election personal freedoms and rights are at stake for many people.
Still, placing our present moment in a broader historical context enables people to understand that perhaps things are not as dire as we think. I am worried about the outcome of the next election, as I think most concerned voters are. But I also think that we've been through these kinds of conflicts in the past and survived.
What will students ultimately take away from this lecture?
Crothers: I think they will understand how the institution of the presidency has changed. It's a much more powerful institution than it was in the early years of the republic.
I also think they'll understand that a free press has been a central component of American political life, of successful American political life, from the outset, and that public debates, often vociferous, often nasty, are a component part of American political life, part of the freedoms that Americans celebrate.
Why is it important for students to critically engage with the history of media and presidential relations, especially in today's rapidly evolving media landscape?
Crothers: Well, my perspective is that of an immigrant to the United States. I received my citizenship seven years ago, so I've only voted in the United States since then. Before that time, the most frustrating thing for me was watching politics closely and not being able to participate, not being able to vote. Voting is an honor, but it’s also a responsibility. I think our democracy works better when all American citizens participate in politics, and the main entry point for understanding what's happening in our political life is through the media. The sources from which we gain out information matter a lot. Being a discerning media consumer strikes me as really important if you're going to make informed decisions come November, come voting day.
At least for national and state elections, the media is our primary means of gaining that information. I think what's happened in the media environment in recent years, particularly the decline of local newspapers and local outlets—that has hurt our ability to make informed choices, particularly about local elections.
