At 83, historian pens the life he lived

Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. was not yet 30 when he won a Pulitzer Prize in 1946 for "The Age of Jackson," a revisionist look at the power of ideas in shaping American democracy.

Twenty years later, he won another Pulitzer, for "A Thousand Days," a book about the Kennedy administration. Schlesinger was a special assistant to the president.

Now, at age 83, he`s far from slowing down. Still unabashedly a New Dealer, proud to wear the mantle of Public Intellectual, he has written his 16th book, the first of a multivolume memoir called "A Life in the 20th Century."

In the foreword of the book, he explains, "I have lived through interesting times and had the luck of knowing some interesting people. And I concluded that if I were ever to do a memoir, I had better do it while I can still remember anything."

Schlesinger sat down recently for a brief interview, clad in his familiar bow tie, which he wears because "it`s impossible to spill anything on a bow tie."

QUESTION: In looking back at your life, what is most striking to you about the 20th century?

ANSWER: This has been both a glorious century and a damned century. Glorious because of the advances in science and technology, and glorious because of the creativity in the arts. But damned because of the unparalleled savagery.

Q. In your book, you quote the British historian Veronica Wedgwood talking about the difficulty of writing history: "We know the end before we consider the beginning, and we can never wholly recapture what it was to know the beginning only." How much of a problem was that for you in writing your memoir?

A. I discovered there is nothing more treacherous than memory. You think you know what happened and then you test it against letters and other things. History has a way of outwitting all our certitudes. Who would have thought that this boring presidential election would end ironically with such high drama?

Q. What do you think of the election stalemate?

A. As a historian, it`s a great stimulus to the teaching of American history. People have learned much more than they ever expected to learn about the election of 1888, for example, and more about the Electoral College. So that`s been a good thing.

Q. You mentioned the Electoral College. What do you think about the calls to abolish or reform it?

A. I would make some changes, but I wouldn`t abolish it. I think the popular vote winner should win the Electoral College. There`s a very easy way to do that: Give the popular vote winner two electoral votes from each state as a bonus. That for all practical purposes would guarantee that the popular vote winner would be president.

Q. Earlier, you called this a boring election. Why?

A. Neither candidate showed great imagination on the issues. The campaign was a casualty of the times. People are quite contented. Unemployment is low. Prices are stable. Prosperity has gone on for so long, people think the economic machine will keep on running, whoever is in the White House.

Q. What issues should they have been talking about?

A. The redemption of the American cities. The ongoing question of racial justice. Medical care. In foreign policy, there should have been more talk about this building of a nuclear shield, which seems to me to be ludicrous.

Q. What did you think of the candidates in general?

A. When I think of my generation and the men who shaped our ideas of the presidency, I think of Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. When I think of later generations, whose conception of the presidency was shaped by Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton ... well, it`s not much of a contest.

Q. How do you think Clinton has done as president?

A. I think if it weren`t for the 22nd Amendment (which limits the number of times a president can be re-elected), he would have won a third term.

Q. Even with all his personal problems?

A. Voters long ago came to terms with him. They think he`s a rogue, but they also think he`s been a pretty good president. And I think Clinton fatigue will be replaced very soon by Clinton nostalgia.

Q. I read one of your commencement addresses in which you quote FDR at his second inauguration: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little." How have we done on that test?

A. We have situations where CEOs make more in a day than some of their workers make in a year. It`s not a danger as long as there is relative prosperity, but if the stock market crashes, then this disparity is going to fill a lot of people with anger and resentment.

Q. Why is it important for us to study history?

A. History is to a nation what memory is to the individual. A nation that forgets its history doesn`t know where it`s been and has a hard time figuring out where it should go.

Q. You have won two Pulitzers, two National Book Awards, the National Humanities Medal. What do you hope people will say about you when you are gone?

A. I hope they will say that he was a pretty good historian, but he should have written more books.

(c) Copley News Service

Article continues below

---

advertisement

---

Author: John Wilkens