Would we still have a tea party in this country if Americans knew more history? The authors of an article in this morning's Inside Higher Ed seem to think we would not:

It is important to realize that ignorance about history allows falsehoods and distortions to be presented as facts, but it is also significant that Tea Partiers look to history to legitimize their endeavors. In other words, history is still seen as authoritative; the problem is that the authority is being abused. Such abuse can succeed only when the public's collective historical memory has been allowed to atrophy.

In addition to a vague (at best) recollection of the pertinent facts, Tea Partier warnings of cataclysm are taken seriously because the skill of thinking historically has not been emphasized in high school and college curriculums. Teaching students to understand that things change over time because of particular actions taken or not taken and that context matters, also referred to as "critical thinking," gives them some perspective and helps them to take the long view that can illuminate the emptiness of sky-is-falling scare tactics. The politics of our moment, focused solely on what's happening this minute and what it means for the next election (no matter how far off), cry out for a skeptical appreciation by an electorate that unfortunately does not know how to think historically.

In recent years, conservative groups like the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni have been the loudest critics of the low status of history in colleges in the United States. They are especially upset with the lack of American history requirements at elite universities. But this should not be solely a conservative issue, nor can it be one that professional historians ignore. As the Tea Party movement is demonstrating, there are direct political consequences if the public is unable to perceive when history is used to mislead and confuse people.

Unfortunately, as budgets are being slashed at colleges and universities nationwide, history is seen by many as impractical and unimportant. Courses that focus on "career-building" and "real-world skills" are prioritized while history departments are unable to replace retiring faculty. One reason for this is that the case for history has not been made effectively. As ACTA has reported, none of the top 50 universities requires its students to take U.S. history – and 10 require no history course at all. Some students may take a history course that fulfills a broader core requirement, but many do not. And too often these core courses are deficient in teaching historical practice. Historians, whether just entering the field or preparing to retire, have an obligation as people with special knowledge of history's significance to make the case for a greater commitment to the discipline – to students, campus administrators, legislators, and the public. Indeed, anyone concerned about education who does not want to see our contemporary political discourse sink lower should be actively interested in promoting history education

But I don't agree with the authors that more and better historical knowledge will cause the tea party to evaporate in a cloud of newfound intellectual enlightenment. And I question whether historians--who have collectively abandoned vital areas of inquiry such as political, constitutional, diplomatic, and military history--are the ones to lead the way. See KC Johnson's remarkable recent takedown of his discipline.

It's just possible, after all, that greater historical understanding would actually bolster the movement--which the MSM is finally acknowledging is held together more by peaceful, middle-of-the-road folks whose only consistent common goal is to reign in out-of-control government spending. Better knowledge of history might, for example, empower the tea party to develop powerful historical analyses of what's wrong with government in the present moment, how our moment evolved historically, and what we can and should do to amend the situation. After all, there are some pretty fine--if pretty marginalized--academic historians who are doing just that.

It's also possible that broader, deeper historical understanding might, in this hypothetical America we're positing right now, generate more support for the (new, intellectually improved) tea party movement. After all, there is a funny little gap in the IHE article--in the authors' eyes, historical ignorance seems only to affect those who are protesting the present big government status quo. They do not even attempt to discuss rabid lefty opinion-makers, leaders, and movements, which are just as intellectually dishonest as rabid right-wing ones (for the record, I'm not calling the tea party a rabidly right-wing movement).

Nor do the authors provide for the certainty that most of those who are just fine with where we are now are also woefully ignorant -- and might, if they became more knowledgeable, become more active citizens in ways they won't necessarily like. They might vote Republican--they really might. They might even decide to join a movement for fiscal responsibility. They might realize how corrupt our tax code has become (over time, in history)--and demand a flat tax or a fair tax. Oh, the horror.

And let's not just talk about history. Let's also talk about economics. As ACTA has shown, econ is not even a category in most college and university course requirements. But it should be--and schools should be working, too, to ensure that their students are financially as well as economically literate. A little over a year ago, Maurice Black and I published an article about how very little Americans know about economics or even basic financial matters such as how compound interest works or how to balance their budget. Originally published at Minding the Campus, it was picked up by Newsday--and it grows more relevant every day. Our national debate--and our national strife--is squarely centered on economic and financial matters right now. But most of us--and I would include a great many people in Washington--don't have a clue how to think carefully and well about such issues.

So here's the Friday question: If Americans could suddenly become more economically and historically literate, how would that affect our political landscape right now? How would it change what Congress is doing--and how people respond? How would it affect what the mainstream media reports and how it reports it? (I assume here--perhaps naively--that we have a media that would like to do actual reporting rather than partisan hackery, though I know that may be an unreasonable assumption.) Would we still have a tea party? If so, what would it look like? And if not, what would we have instead?