Newt Gingrich as Historian?

My comments about the historical acumen of politicians drew a thoughtful response from a former student of mine who is now doing quite well as a graduate student in history at Eastern Michigan University. As a fan of Gingrich, he reminded me that the former House Speaker has better academic credentials than most, especially in history, (Phd in history, once taught at the college level, has coauthored books on American history) and I conceded that I should probably give Gingrich more credit. However, many in academia have been quite critical of Gingrich’s claims that he speaks as a historian or as a true academic. (Just one example would be this piece from Steven Talyor at Outside the Beltway; and for a more charitable take, consult the New York Times here.) One problem for Newt is the fact that once you claim to be an expert in something, it motivates everyone to put you under the microscope and see if you really know what you’re talking about ... and practicing historians have found his understanding lacking. Another issue is the fact that historians pride themselves in being detached and critical seekers of understanding. Rather than engage in political battles, historians seek to transcend them. This is not to say that historians don’t have opinions, are always objective, never argue over interpretations, or don’t become active on certain issues. This, of course, would be naïve and I would be the first to admit my own bias. This is also not to say that there aren’t many people in office who have a keen interest and great knowledge of history, because there are many examples. What I am saying, however, is that at the professional level, the goals of these two career paths are quite distinct. One sees history as a means to understand; the other sees history as a means of influence.