Originally published on February 11, 2015 (Episode 2)
Introduction
Presidential history is everywhere—yet historians often look askance at it. Polls rank presidents from best to worst, journalists invoke Lincoln or FDR at will, and politicians wrap themselves in presidential legacies. But does this kind of history deserve a serious place within the academy?
Michael Connolly of Purdue University North Central argues that it does. In this conversation, he and I explore why presidential history is both real and necessary, and why dismissing it leaves scholars out of one of the most vital public debates about leadership and memory. Connolly surveys past presidents, examines how they’ve been misjudged, and insists that historians should take presidential history seriously—because the public certainly does.
About the Guest
Michael Connolly is Professor of History at Purdue University Northwest. His research explores nineteenth-century U.S. politics and economics. He is the author of Capitalism, Politics, and Railroads in Jacksonian New England.
For Further Investigation
Michael Connolly, Capitalism, Politics, and Railroads in Jacksonian New England
Jordan Michael Smith, “The Letters the Harding Family Didn’t Want You to See”, New York Times, July 7, 2014
The Center for Presidential History, Southern Methodist University
💬 Listen & Discuss
Are presidential rankings useful—or do they distort our understanding of the past? How should historians engage with the public’s fascination with presidents? Share your thoughts in the comments, and pass this episode along to someone who cares about leadership and legacy.
