Selective Historical Outrage, Part 2

Academic historians like Kevin Kruse and Manisha Sihna take to social media to criticize the current President.  There is merit in using history to critically analyze current events.

Their analysis begins to fall apart when they bemoan the manner in which Donald Trump was elected. Like many “progressive” intellectuals they despise the electoral system and argue for plurality when electing our President.  They go as far as to claim Hillary Clinton is the legitimate election winner, and the electoral system is harming society because it attacks our democracy.


It is difficult to argue with the results of the election.  Samuel J. Tilden would have been a disastrous President.


Opposition to the Electoral College runs through academia like the freshmen flu.  Only selected candidates can receive such support from the intelligentsia.  Attacking the Electoral College is intellectually lazy. 

4 thoughts on “Selective Historical Outrage, Part 2

  1. If Trump had won the popular vote and Hillary had won the electoral vote, they would be praising the electoral college for denying Trump the Presidency.

    If they media hadn’t screwed up royally in 2000 by calling Florida early, I believe that Bush would have won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote. It has been shown that when a candidate wins early in a landslide, voter that favor the losing candidate tend to stay home at a higher rate than voters that favor the winning candidate. That is why in landslides the winner generally sweeps or nearly sweeps the Pacific & Mountain time zones.

    I wrote my on article on the electoral college that can be seen here:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: