Election time means history is up for grabs

That, at least, seems to be particularly true this year. From the comparisons between Romney's religion speech and JFK's, the controversy over MLK, Jr., brewing between Clinton and Obama, and Obama's Reagan reference, (ill-conceived) history as been at the center of some contentious debates. As historian Sean Wilentz wrote in a recent column, "In war, truth is the first casualty--but in politics, it appears that the first victim is history."

Can we really judge candidates by their invocations of the past? A group of NH newspapers which endorsed Hillary Clinton noted that her list of favorite presidents (later corrected to note that it was a list of presidential portraits she'd hand in the White House) "demonstrates how she thinks." Even worse is when historical references are deceptive or just plain wrong. Republican posturing with evangelicals often means invoking the religious faith of the founding fathers, ignoring the obvious deism and desire for separation of church and state among the founders. As one columnist notes in comparing how Romney and JFK used religious history, "Jack Kennedy had an eye for history; Romney has only a tin ear."

So what are historians looking for in a candidate this primary season? If the online endorsement of Obama by a lengthy list of history professors is any indication, they're looking for the attributes of greatness they've seen in presidents in our history who have changed "the mood of the nation." They cite Lincoln, FDR, and JFK. No founders there, but then their hopes that Obama will improve our role in the world and expand government programs wouldn't really have been on the early presidents' agendas.

Circumstances change, times change, and sometimes the examples of the past are more or less productive than others. We can't expect politicians to use history selflessly, but let's hope they can learn to use it wisely.