History is a Discipline

Andrew Sullivan, who is wrong most of the time, has taken to comparing the events in the Middle East, which isn't really in the middle of anything and is only east of here, with Europe in 1848. In his first go at the comparison, he links to a Wikipedia entry, which he adjudges "a useful summary of what occurred that year." It is, in fact, a summary of everything that happened in 1848 all over the globe.  It offers no insight into what happened in Europe in 1848 during the so-called "Springtime of Nations." I wonder how and why on earth he thinks an undifferentiated mass of names and dates from an encyclopedia's time line aids in understanding the complex of complicated events taking place in the Middle East. I wonder, as well, why anyone would want to listen to the Mrs. Jellyby of neo-Conservativeism blather on about the Middle East, 1848, let alone the events in Wisconsin when he has shown himself incapable of even understanding the fundamental beliefs of his religion. I also wonder why it is that folks who have no real knowledge of the history of any given event insist on making historical analogies. Sort of like Jesse Helms comparing Aristide and Hitler, and being wrong as wrong can be. Hitler was appointed chancellor in a dirty back room deal by conservatives and reactionaries at least in part because Hindenburg's son was a bit of a crook. (Chapter X in Kershaw's Hubris is especially nice on this event.)

Whether it's Sullivan with the misuse of history or Yglesais with the mangling of economic thought the world would be better off if these kind of dolts, if I may be so uncivil, were forced to make their badly done arguments on their own terms instead of wrapping them in the language of discipline they only just understand.