Professor Johnston often said that if you didn’t know history, you didn’t know anything. You were a leaf that didn’t know it was part of a tree.
— Timeline, by Michael Crichton
The book being quoted is no great work of literature. But I found the idea of a novel about historians who have the opportunity to go back in time irresistible, and I’ve read it more than once. And at least the book was way less lame than the movie it inspired.
But whatever the book’s shortcomings, that’s a great way of summarizing our nation’s greatest problem. Nothing could be truer than the idea being set forth with that analogy. Tragically, we live in a world densely crowded with such trees, bearing such leaves. And since the leaves have no idea they are part of a tree, they don’t have the slightest indication that the forest exists, or what maintains it and has caused it to flourish to this point.
Only in a world like this could a man like Donald Trump be taken seriously for any position. But whatever his shortcomings, his emergence as a perceived leader in the minds of millions points to the larger problem — the sickness of ignorance that has infested the whole tree. Because only people who have no notion of the origins of this country and the principles that made it great, people who have no idea how important this liberal democracy is to the entire world (and don’t care), could possibly turn this precious country over to him.
But don’t those of you on the “left” read that last paragraph with smugness in your hearts. You’ve got serious perceptive issues yourselves. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be just as eager as the Trumpistas to elect a majority plus one so you can cram your agenda down the throats of the despised other side. That’s because you’d understand that this is supposed to be a deliberative republic in which we sit down with people who disagree with us, speak and listen respectfully, and grow wiser as we work to achieve things together.
I learned about the faults of right and left during all those decades as a newspaper editor. Mike Burgess — remenber Mike from the last post? — learns it every day in an even harsher environment. And he’s pretty sick of being battered constantly by the left and right, both wanting history taught in ways that advance their agendas.
Our nation is dying because it is awash in ignorance and apathy. Mike’s trying to address that with all his might. When he’s not teaching the kids at River Bluff High School, he’s traveling around our state addressing adults on the subject he spoke on today at Richland Library. This would be an uphill fight even if everyone were required to attend and listen, and do that rare and magical thing: think.
Which is why I say in the headline, I hope you saw and heard the video. Our turnout today was respectable, but not what it needed to be. However, our videographer came up to me as the event ended and said something like 300 people had watched on Facebook Live.
That’s very good news. They couldn’t ask questions, which Mike had saved half his time to allow them to do — and the folks present took full advantage of that. But it’s still very good. I wasn’t sure I had heard the number right, because of my hearing problems, and the fact that the program was over and a lot of people were talking at the same time.
But I checked on Facebook, and it appears that at least part of it has been seen now by 596 people. I hope some of y’all were among them. If not, here’s your chance:
Mike Burgess, 3/14/2025
(The little clip you see at the top of this post just shows a couple of random moments when I happened to turn my phone to video. It’s not a highlight or anything like that; I just figured it was better than a still picture.)
If you prefer to read, here’s a version of his speech, which he gives regularly.
Watch, or read, and let’s discuss it…
This was right at the beginning; a few more folks came in after this.
Related Posts
I read his speech. What can I say other than I agree? I do feel our generation have failed to raise knowledgeable citizens…maybe because we are not knowledgeable citizens ourselves. We’ve taken our democracy for granted.
Well, it may come as no surprise, but I fundamentally disagree with the point made in the clip that the battles of the Revolutionary War and other battles from other wars need to be studied in school history survey classes. And I say this as someone who, as a school kid, was thoroughly obsessed with such things. I don’t think more than a relatively brief summarizing of the turning points of wars is worth spending any amount of time. Why? Because what’s important is what LED to conflict and what RESULTED from a conflict. How the world looked before and after a war, what changes war brought about: that is FAR more important than examining the minutiae of this or that battle. I fully understand how exciting battle tales can be. But the school year is too short to spend much time on such things, especially if it means illustrating them through colored lines moving around on a map. Personal accounts of those directly involved would make a useful addendum by providing a better understanding of the nature of war in each era. But battle studies, no.
But obviously you agree with him on his main POINT, which is that much, much more time should be spent on history.
A central moment was when told about learning that a young person (maybe one of his own kids, I don’t recall exactly) told him of taking a history course that in part covered the Revolution. He asked how big a part? A half-hour, he was told.
Anyway, the inadequacy of that was what he was on about…
If that half-hour was devoted to covering the military aspects of the Revolution, then that is the maximum time that should be spent on such events. As I said, the causes that lead to a war and what results from it are infinitely more important than the campaigns that take place during any particular war.
Otherwise, yes, more time and attention should be given to history generally. But as a spokesperson for the American History Association recently noted during a public hearing in Texas, many people — both parents and administrators — don’t consider it important enough. Or, as a neighbor here said to me: “My son did fine once he got past those rinky-dink English and history classes.”
Yes.
Please provide a couple of examples of the agenda items you believe the “left” would like to “cram down the throats” of an indisposed portion of the general public?
Go read some social media, or some of the gazillion fundraising emails and texts I get, which are never about debate or working with a diverse (diverse in the way that matters, meaning people who see things differently) group to find amicable solutions.
The central message is pretty much “fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight!” Crush the enemy, and obtain OUR goals. Just look around you, and pay attention.
Or, since you wish to argue the point, present me with examples that show how devoted the messages of candidates, parties, advocacy groups or others shaping the tone of our politics today are saturated with a spirit of compromise and respect for the views of all.
Then if I ever have time to do your bidding, I’ll throw a few back at you… but I don’t see the need to spend that time. I’ve been making this point for a long time, over and over, and yes, based on specific examples. In any case, nothing I do will change your mind. You are a partisan, and I see the world completely differently. To me, that is the natural consequence of paying attention to what goes on around me — not to this or that singular example, but to the very air that we all breathe, the air that I suppose contributes to making you so combative about everything we say here…
Back when I wrote that column, we had some choices in politics. The combative partisans were fairly identifiable, and we still had plenty of candidates and voices who offered ways to rise above that. In that case I cited, we had Obama.
We don’t have choices anymore. The last sensible option was Joe Biden, who prided himself upon working with people who disagreed. Which made so many on the “left” despise him. That’s why so many alternatives remained in the primary contest as long as they did in 2020, even though it was obvious that he was the only candidate qualified for the job…
And now he’s gone.
Oh, here’s another for you, showing the way the Left is trending…
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/us/politics/government-shutdown-spending-bill-schumer-democrats.html
Schumer’s position is nonsensical. He said shutting down the government would have given the Trump regime free rein to fire as many federal employees as it likes and to shutter as many agencies as it wishes. That is already happening. And the only curb on it isn’t Congress, let alone a stop-gap spending measure (arrived at entirely without Democratic input), but rather the federal courts. So, this link does not provide an example of Democrats shoving anything down anybody’s throat.
Well, as I suspected, you don’t see it. So this has become another conversation that it’s pointless to spend time on. On to something else…
It’s refreshing to see Mike Burgess advocate for a shift in how we teach history, focusing on the importance of civics and a competent understanding of citizenship. While memorizing dates has long been a staple in education, I agree that concepts, values, and the context behind historical events should take precedence. Understanding the “why” behind history is far more critical than remembering specific dates or facts. However, we must also look beyond education to the bigger issue at hand: the generational transition in leadership.
As technology and artificial intelligence reshape society, the world is changing rapidly in ways that previous generations could never have imagined. We’ve seen generational shifts before, particularly during the 1960s, but the handover from older to younger generations was not always as smooth or successful as it could have been. There was resistance to change, and some younger voices were not given the leadership opportunities they deserved. It’s time to try again and let the younger generation take the lead.
The tools available today, from social media to cutting-edge technologies, offer the younger generation unique advantages. They can bring fresh perspectives to governance, education, and history, and could create a more informed, engaged electorate. Rather than clinging to outdated methods, we should empower them to lead and embrace new solutions to age-old problems. Just as we had our time, they should have theirs, and it’s time for a transition that recognizes their capabilities.
The U.S. Constitution sets the age for presidential eligibility at 35, and many people approaching that age are poised to lead. However, we’re already seeing growing incompetence in those near that milestone who have had their time. It’s clear that we need to move on and let new leadership emerge. The younger generation, with their fluency in technology and AI, is better equipped to adapt and tackle the challenges of today. This transition doesn’t dismiss the wisdom of past generations, but recognizes that progress requires fresh ideas, strategies, and leadership that can better connect with the modern world.
Brad, I think we need to take a hard look at whether it was in the best interest of the country and the Democrats to continue to try to protect Joe Biden from growing concerns about his mental capacity and issues with decision-making. The reality is that the Democrats are at one of their lowest popularity levels in many years, and part of that is due to efforts to shield Biden from something that’s become increasingly obvious: he’s not functioning as well as he once did. His team, particularly in South Carolina, played a crucial role in supporting him through difficult times, but we can’t ignore the fact that he was struggling to keep up.
The Democratic Party is left with a leadership void. The question we must grapple with is: who will emerge as the next leader of the Democratic Party? The traditional figures—whether it’s Clinton, Biden, or Obama—are no longer viable options. The Democrats find themselves in a period of contention and uncertainty, and there’s a need for new leadership that can inspire and unite.
Personally, I would love to see Michelle Obama step into the spotlight. She has the presence, intelligence, and strength to lead in a way that resonates with both the past and the future of America. It’s time for a fresh face, someone with the integrity and vision to unite the country, and Michelle Obama might just be the one to do it. But whoever steps up, it’s clear that the Democratic Party needs to chart a new course, one that embraces the challenges and opportunities of the modern world.
Now, we must turn our attention to the next challenge: how to deal with Donald Trump. The situation is complex, and the country is divided over his potential return to the White House. Whether we like it or not, we’re faced with a pivotal moment in our political history. The question now is how to navigate this transition, ensuring that we are not locked into a cycle of outdated leadership but are instead looking forward to a future that embraces fresh perspectives and innovative solutions to the problems at hand. It’s time for the nation to focus on the next generation of leadership, and that may involve stepping away from both Biden and Trump “clones”, ultimately seeking new candidates who can better guide us through the challenges that await.